Evaluation of web browsing experience by people with cognitive disability

Abstract

After a review of research in last 10 years we have seen the low output of work on the usability of the web, with respect to users with cognitive disabilities. This time we intend to explore the problems faced with mild or moderate intellectual disabilities when using the World Wide Web. We conducted a study to assess the Web site navigation experience using the Usability Lab of Access Research Unit, University of Valencia, where we recorded and analyzed the Web-user interaction using the technique of Thought Manifesto and Interview, from a qualitative methodological approach, to thereby detect the problems they have when surfing the Web sites for people with cognitive deficits.

The State of Web Accessibility for People with Cognitive Disabilities: A Rapid Evidence Assessment

“…Such studies highlight important considerations for research design related to participant self-concept and wellbeing. For example, Moreno, et al [ 42 ] highlighted the fact that people with cognitive disabilities often experience frustration associated with errors due to repeatedly clicking on items and perceiving delays in webpage loading as personal errors. Brunskill [ 43 ] spoke with students with learning disabilities and learned that students often relied on Google to proofread search terms, which adds nuance to the understandings of efficiency in information seeking developed in the studies presented above.…”

“…Many studies, 14 to be exact, either developed novel tools through the study or explored the use of novel tools created by the authors [ 31 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 47 , 50 , 51 , 58 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 ]. Additionally, 17 studies [ 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 42 , 45 , 49 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 62 , 67 , 68 , 69 ] investigated the potential for existing apps or web-based tools to support web accessibility for PwCDs. Existing tools examined in these studies include: Google apps [ 53 ]; CAPTCHA [ 56 ]; FindMyApps [ 32 ] (very poorly rated by users in study); iOS Maps [ 62 ]; iPad Podcast [ 67 ]; Social Support Aid [ 45 ] (very poorly rated by users in study); Read and Write [ 35 ]; ICanEmail [ 35 ]; ReACT [ 33 ] (very poorly rated by users in study); DigiContact [ 69 ]; Existing Social Media Apps and Sites [ 30 , …”

“…Additionally, 17 studies [ 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 42 , 45 , 49 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 62 , 67 , 68 , 69 ] investigated the potential for existing apps or web-based tools to support web accessibility for PwCDs. Existing tools examined in these studies include: Google apps [ 53 ]; CAPTCHA [ 56 ]; FindMyApps [ 32 ] (very poorly rated by users in study); iOS Maps [ 62 ]; iPad Podcast [ 67 ]; Social Support Aid [ 45 ] (very poorly rated by users in study); Read and Write [ 35 ]; ICanEmail [ 35 ]; ReACT [ 33 ] (very poorly rated by users in study); DigiContact [ 69 ]; Existing Social Media Apps and Sites [ 30 , 34 , 36 , 57 ]; Existing Search Engines and Databases [ 42 , 55 ]; Newham Easy Read [ 68 ]; WebHelpDyslexia [ 49 ]. …”

“…Many studies, 14 to be exact, either developed novel tools through the study or explored the use of novel tools created by the authors [31,38,40,41,47,50,51,58,60,[62][63][64][65][66]. Additionally, 17 studies [30,[32][33][34][35][36]42,45,49,53,[55][56][57]62,[67][68][69] investigated the potential for existing apps or web-based tools to support web accessibility for PwCDs. Existing tools examined in these studies include:…”