Suggested Future Work for Expansion and Continuation

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.2 Suggested Future Work for Expansion and Continuation

For future work, the author will continue with user testing with the visually impaired in Malaysian Association for the Blind (MAB). The user testing is conducted to test the usability of the system with its potential users. The results and comments after the user testing will be used to improve the current system.

REFERENCES

Appendix B – Glossary, W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0., retrieved from: http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/#glossary

Assistive Technologies: Computer Resource List for Blind & Visually Impaired.

Retrieved from: http://assistivetechnology.about.com/od/ATCAT1/a/Computer- Resource-List-For-Blind-And-Visually-Impaired.htm

Borodin, Y., Bigham, J.P., Dausch, G., Ramakrishnan, I.V. “More than meets the eye: a survey of screen-reader browsing strategies.” International Cross Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), pp. 1–10. ACM, New York, 2010

Brewster, S., Murray-Smith, R., “Haptic-Computer Interaction”, First International Workshop Glasgow, UK, (2000), Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (2001).

Brewster, S.A. “Visualization tools for blind people using multiple modalities.”

(2002). Disability and Rehabilitation Technology. 24 (11-12), pp 613-621

Cowan, D. and Turner-Smith, A. 1999. The role of assistive technology in alternative models of care for older people. In Royal Commission on Long Term Care, Research Volume 2, Appendix 4, Stationery Oﬃce, London, 325–46.

Frechtling J.A., Sharp, L.M., User-Friendly Handbook for Mixed Method Evaluations.

Diane Publishing Co. Retrieved from:

http://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qtW04-

pRJZ0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=mixed+method+combining+qualitative+and+quantitati ve&ots=6edstEe3uL&sig=xEMw0HRk67WKw7NMl06uOTj8UzY&redir_esc=y#v=one page&q=mixed%20method%20combining%20qualitative%20and%20quantitative&f=fa lse

Guidelines for Keyboard User Interface Design. Retrieved from:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-

us/library/ms971323.aspx#atg_keyboardshortcuts_windows_shortcut_keys

Hackett, S., Parmanto, B. and Zeng, X. (2004) "Accessibility of Internet websites through time. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing." (77-78), pp. 32-39.

Hollier, S., “Web Accessibility: Supporting People with Disabilities”, retrieved from:

http://rightnow.org.au/topics/disability/web-accessibility-supporting-people-with- disabilities/

Jaijongrak, V., Kumazawa, I, & Thiemjarus, S., “A Haptic and Auditory Assistive User Interface: Helping the Blinds on their Computer Operations”, IEEE International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (2011).

J, Martin, “Rapid application development,” Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc, 1991.

King‟s College London and the University of Reading (2004). “Introducing Assistive Technology into the Existing Homes of Older People: Feasibility, Acceptability, Costs and Outcomes.” Institute of Gerontology King‟s College London. ISBN 1-872342-17-5.

Kurniawan, S. H., Sutcliffe, A. G., & Blenkhorn, P. L., “How Blind User‟s Mental Models Affect Their Perceived Usability of an Unfamiliar Screen Reader”, In M.

Rauterberg, M. Menozzi, J. Wesson (Eds.) Human-Computer Interaction (Proceedings of INTERACT'03. Zurich, Switzerland, 1-5 September 2003). IOS Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 631-638.

Kuber R., Yu, W., & McAlliste,r G., “Towards Developing Assistive Haptic Feedback for Visually Impaired Internet Users", CHI Proceeding (2007), pp.1525-1534

Kuber, R., Yu, W., Strain, P., Murphy, & E., McAllister, G. “Assistive Multimodal Interfaces for Improving Web Accessibility”. (2005)

Landau, S. (1999). “Tactile Graphics and Strategies for Non-Visual Seeing”. Threshold 19, 78-82

Lazar, J., Beere, P., Greenidge, K. And Nagappa, Y. “Website Accessibility in the Mid- Atlantic United States: A Study of 50 Home Pages. Universal Access in the Information Society Journal, 2 (4). 1-11.

Mat Saei, S.N.S., Sulaiman, S., & Hasbullah, H. “Mental Model of Blind Users to Assist Designers in System Development”. IEEE (2006)

McGee, M.R., Gray, P.D. and Brewster, S.A. (2002) Mixed Feelings: Multimodal Perception of Virtual Roughness. In Proceedings of Eurohaptics 2002 (Edinburgh, UK), Edinburgh University, pp 47-52

Mokhtahir, M.M., (2012) “Representing Text in a Website for Visually Impaired Users Using Braille Line”. FYP Project Dessertation, May 2012 semester, Unpublished, UTP Mental Model. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_model

Michael, F.C., Cole, R.G., Gupta, S.,Kaiser, G.E., & Starren J.B., " Computer and World Wide Web Accessibility by Visually Disabled Patients: Problems and Solutions, Survey of Opthalmology (2005), Vol 50, 394-405.

Murphy, E., Kuber, R., & McAllister, G., “An Empirical Investigation into the Difficulties Experienced by Visually Impaired Internet Users”. Univ Access Inf. Soc.

(2008), vol. 7, 79-91

Norman, D.A., “Some Observations on Mental Models”. Hilldales, New Jersey, London:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1983).

Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation Methods. Retrieved from:

http://www.civicpartnerships.org/docs/tools_resources/Quan_Qual%20Methods%209.07 .htm

Qualitative research method overview. Retrieved from:

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/course/is4800sp12/resources/qualmethods.pdf

Ramstein C, Martial O, Dufresne A, Carignan M, Chasse P, Mabilleau P (1996) Touching and Hearing GUI‟s: design issues for the PC-Access system. Proc Assist Technol 2-9

Refreshable Braille Display. Retrieved from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refreshable_Braille_display

Section 508 Amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Retrieved from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_508_Amendment_to_the_Rehabilitation_Act_of_1 973

Screen Magnifier. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_magnifier Screen Reader. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_reader

Steven RD, Edwards AN (1996) An approach to the evaluation of assistive technology.

In: Proceedings of the 2^nd annual ACM conference on assistive technologies, pp64-71 Takagi, H.S., Fukuda, K. & Asakawa, C., “Analysis of the Navigability of Web Applications for Improving Blind Usability,” ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 14, p. Article 13(36), (2007)

Types of Assistive technology, Microsoft:

http://www.microsoft.com/enable/at/types.aspx

Visual Impairment and Blindness, World Health Organization. Retrieved from:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en/

Voice Browser. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_browser

Yu, W. and Brewster, S.A. (2002) Comparing Two Haptic Interfaces for Multimodal Graph Rendering. In proceedings of IEEE VR2002, 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems (Haptics 2002). (Florida USA)

Yu, W. and Brewster, S.A. (2003) Evaluation of multimodal graphs for blind people.

Journal of Universal Access in the Information Society (2003), 2(2), pp 105-124.

Yu, W., Kuber, R., Murphy, E., Strain, P. & McAllister, G. “A Novel Multimodal Interface for Improving Visually Impaired People‟s Accessibility. Virtual Reality 9, (2006), 133-148

Yu, W., Reid, D. and Brewster, S.A. (2002) Web-Based Multimodal Graphs for Visually Impaired People. In 1st Cambridge Workshop on Universal Access and Assistive Technology (CWUAAT), (Cambridge, UK)

Zainal Abidin, A.H., Hong, X., & Kok, W.W.,”Elicticing Mental Model of Blind Peple for Webpages”. START Centre (2011)

Zainal Abidin, A.H., Hong, X., & Kok, W.W., “Blind Users‟ Mental Model of Webpages Using Touch Screen Augmented With Audio Feedback”. ICCS (2012)

APPENDICES

Interview Participants from Malayisa Association for the Blind (MAB)

Photo session with MAB’s staffs after the interview.

Interview Questions

Background Information

 Full Name

 Gender

 Age

Research Area

 Do you browse Internet?

 Are you an active computer and Internet user?

 How often you browse Internet?

 What are the types of browsing activities you do?

(Research/networking/shopping/reading/entertainment/bloggi ng/e-mail)

 How often you visit these types of websites?

Current Assistive Technologies

 What type of assistive technology you use?

 What are the limitations/problems with the current assistive technology used?

 Which is your preferred method to access webpage? (Screen reader or Braille display).

Text Attributes

 Do you think the text attributes such as bold, underline, and italic are important in understanding web content?

 How important are they?

Mental Modal

 Do you have problem to imagine the structure of Website using the current assistive technology?

Audio Feedback

 Do you have problems to understand Web content through audio feedback (screen reader)?

 In your opinion, how effective is audio feedback in providing comprehensive understanding of the Webpages content?

Multimodal Technologies

 Do you agree that the integration of audio and tactile modalities would improve your browsing experience and eventually improve your understanding of the Web content?

Recommendation :

 What are your recommendations to improve Web accessibility among the visually impaired user?

Pilot Testing Experiment: The Effectivesness and Efficiency of Audio and Haptic Feedback in Reading Webpages.

1.0 Purpose of the Experiment

To investigate the effectiveness and effiency of audio haptic synchronization system in identifying text attributes and improving the understanding of a webpage.

2.0 Scope

i) Recognizing text attributes in the two dimensional webpage. In this experiment, the basic text attributes are being tested are:

- Bold

- Italic - Underline - Header - Sub-header

ii) The effectiveness of audio and haptic in understanding the content and structure of a webpage.

3.0 Hypothesis

Audio haptic synchronization system is able to help users to identify text attributes and improve the understanding of a webpages as compared to screen reader.

4.0 Variables

Constant Variables The webpages content structure. Similar web content structures are used in both experiments.

Manipulated Variables

The implementation of multimodal technology; audio and haptic feedback.

Responding Variables i) Time taken (in seconds) to identify each text attributes.

ii) Accuracy of the identified text attributes ( in percentage)

85 5.0 Tools and Materials

- Braille Line 20 Cell - CPU Unit (Window XP) - Screen Reader

- Earphone - Papers

- Multicolour highlighter.

- Stop watch - Camera

6.0 Procedure

1) Explanation of the study and briefing about the experiment to participants.

2) The participants are provided with laptop, screen reader, Braille Line Cell 20, and earphone.

3) The participants are trained to use the provided devices and software.

4) The participants are blindfolded to assimilate the visually impaired users.

5) The participants are asked to explore the sample webpage with screen reader.

6) After done exploring the sample webpages, they are asked to highlight the printed paper with multicolour highlighters. Each colour represents a particular text attributes.

7) The time taken to complete the task is recorded using a stop watch. The verbal descriptions are also recorded for future reference.

8) Repeat steps 5-7 using the audio haptic synchronization system..

9) Data for both experiments are recorded.

10) Participants are required to give feedbacks and comments on the project.

86 7.0 Result

Time taken (in seconds) to identify each text attributes.

Participants Time taken (s)

Screen reader Audio Haptic Synchronization System with Braille line Participant 1

Participant 2 Participant 3 Participant 4 Participant 5 Participant 6 Participant 7 Participant 8 Participant 9 Participant 10 Mean

The accuracy (in percentage) in identifying text attributes.

No. Participants

Screen reader Screen reader with Braille Line

Score % Score %

1 Participant 1 2 Participant 2 3 Participant 3 4 Participant 4 5 Participant 5 6 Participant 6 7 Participant 7 8 Participant 8 9 Participant 9 10 Participant 10 Mean

87 8.0 Conclusion

User Testing Experiment: The Effectiveness of Audio and Haptic Feedback in Improving Visually Impaired User’s Mental Model

1.0 Purpose of the Experiment

The purpose of this experiment is to investigate the differences of mental model developed by visually impaired users while accessing a two dimensional webpage with text attributes presentation, by using two different approaches:

i) Audio and haptic feedback using audio-haptic synchronization system.

ii) Audio feedback using screen reader.

2.0 Scope

The study focuses on two areas:

iii) Recognizing text attributes in the two dimensional webpage. In this experiment, the basic text attributes are being tested are:

- Bold

- Italic - Underline - Header - Sub-header

iv) The effectiveness of audio and haptic in understanding the content and structure of a webpage.

3.0 Hypothesis

The use of audio and haptic feedback would enable the visually impaired users to recognize text attributes in a webpage while having two-dimensional perspective of the webpages in their mental model. This would help them to gain better understanding of the web content.

89 4.0 Variables

Constant Variables The webpages content structure. Similar web content structures are used in both experiments.

Manipulated Variables

The implementation of multimodal technology; audio and haptic feedback.

Responding Variables i) The effectiveness of text attributes recognition and web content understanding. It is measured by observing and recording the accuracy of the diagrammatic foam block representations.

ii) Time taken (in seconds) to identify each text attributes.

5.0 Tools and Materials:

1) Braille Line 20 Cell 2) CPU Unit (Window XP) 3) Screen Reader

4) Foam blocks with different shapes.

5) Mounting board 6) Stop watch 7) Camera

6.0 Procedure

1) Explanation of the study and briefing about the experiment. Participants are divided into two groups; group A and group B.

2) The participants are provided with laptop, screen reader, Braille Line Cell 20, and earphone.

3) The participants are trained to use the provided devices and software.

4) Group A is asked to explore the sample webpage with screen reader, while group B is asked to do the same thing using screen reader and Braille Line Cell 20.

5) After done exploring the sample webpages, they are asked to describe briefly about the page and the text attributes identified.

6) The time taken to read and identify text attributes in the webpage is recorded using a stop watch. The verbal descriptions are also recorded for future reference.

7) Group A and B are then being asked to construct a layout of the sample webpage using diagrammatic representation of foam blocks. Different shapes of foam block represent different text attributes. The pattern of the layout is recorded for future reference.

8) Repeat steps 4-7. This time around, group B is asked to explore the sample webpages with screen reader, while group A is asked to do so using screen reader and Braille Line Cell 20.

9) Data for both experiments are recorded.

10) Participants are required to give feedbacks and comments on the project.

7.0 Result

The percentage of accurate arrangement of text attributes and webpages content are calculated and recorded.

Groups Participants Accuracy (%)

Screen reader Screen reader and Braille Line Cell 20

A Participant 1 Participant 2 B Participant 3 Participant 4 Average (%)

The times taken to read and identify text attributes are calculated and recorded:

Groups Participants Time taken (s)

Screen reader Screen reader and Braille Line Cell 20

A Participant 1 Participant 2 B Participant 3 Participant 4 Average (s)

91 8.0 Conclusion

Usability Survey:

1) The system is helpful to increase readability of web content.

 Strongly agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Disagree

2) I can identify text attributes through audio and haptic synchronization system.

 Strongly agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Disagree

3) I get more comprehensive understanding about the web content using audio and haptic synchronization system.

 Strongly agree

 Agree

 Neutral

 Disagree

4) Level of complexity of the system.

 Low complexity

 Neutral

 Complex

 Very complex 5) Suggestions:

_________________________________________________________________

93 Gantt chart

No Activities FYP I FYP II

May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dis Jan

1 Selection of FYP Topic

2 FYP 1: Research Class I

3 Preliminary Research

4 Submission of Project Title Proposal *

5 Approval of Project Title Proposal *

6 FYP 1: Research Class II

7 Paper Work on Extended Proposal

8 Chapter 1:Project Background

9 Chapter 2: Literature Review

10 Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendation

11 FYP 1: Research Class III

13 Submission of Extended Proposal *

14 Extended Project Research

15 Paper Work on Interim Report

16 Chapter 3: Methodology

17 Chapter 4: Result and Discussion

18 Pre-Development of Project

19 Preparation on VIVA

21 VIVA: Proposal Defense *

23 Submission of Interim Report *

24 System Development 25 User Testing

26 Submission of progress report *

27 Pre-SEDEX *

28 Technical Report Submission *

29 1^st Draft Dissertation

30 VIVA: SEDEX *

31 Final Dissertation & Hardbound *

The symbol * indicates the key milestones of the project.

Table 5: Final Year Project 1’s Gantt chart

Dalam dokumen Synchronizing Audio and Haptic to Read Webpage By ... - UTPedia (Halaman 75-95)