Measuring website usability for visually impaired people-a modified GOMS analysis
Abstract
Web designers regularly wonder which version of a design would suit best their target groups' needs. This becomes even more complicated if the design is to comply with accessibility rules. This paper describes an interaction model of blind users' interaction strategies. This model is based on GOMS (Goals, Operators, Methods, Selection rules) and can be used to measure aspects of website usability for blind users. The model evolved from findings of user observations and field studies. It can be applied to specific layouts in order to find the 'best' alternative. 'Classic' GOMS models lack functions which are necessary for the presented GOMS model. Thus, new structures to extend the classic GOMS notation are proposed. Finally, an example GOMS analysis is run on a modified version of the ASSETS '06 web page.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most current research addresses accessibility but neglects usability for blind users.
“Current research (Takagi, 2004;Tonn-Eichstädt, 2006;Lunn et al., 2009;Mikovec et al., 2009) focuses on accessibility without addressing usability for the blind.”
From Understanding Blind Users' Web Accessibility and Usability Problems (2010) · cites this paper as Tonn-Eichstädt, 2006
Cites
The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast
John, B. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1996) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/235833.236054 · Cited by 687 · see citing works
Template detection via data mining and its applications
Bar-Yossef, Z., & Rajagopalan, S. (2002) · Proceedings of the 11th international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/511446.511522 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Understanding Blind Users' Web Accessibility and Usability Problems
The University of North Carolina - Greensboro, Babu, R., Singh, R., The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, U., Ganesh, J., & Limited, I. T. (2010) · AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.17705/1thci.00015 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tonn-Eichstädt, H.
- Affiliations
- Technische Universität Ilmenau (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Tonn-Eichstädt, Henrik
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2006-10-23
- Pages
- 55-62
- OpenAlex
- W1976208001
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.56
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
- Keywords
- website usability, visually impaired users, blind users, accessibility, interaction strategies, web design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
