Eighteen Blind Library Users’ Experiences with Library Websites and Search Tools in U.S. Academic Libraries: A Qualitative Study
Open accessAbstract
Telephone interviews were conducted with 18 blind academic library users around the United States about their experiences using their library and its website. The study uses the perspective that blind users’ insights are fundamental. A common theme was that navigating a webpage is time consuming on the first visit. Issues identified include the need for “databases” to be defined on the homepage, accessibly coded search boxes, logical heading structure, and several problems to be resolved on result pages. Variations in needs depending on users’ screen-reader expertise were also raised. Suggestions for libraries to address these issues are offered.
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?
Mulliken's (2019) work emphasises efficiency and predictability in web navigation.
“Brunskill's (2020) study suggests that users want practical, navigable information about accessibility resources, while Mulliken's (2019) work emphasises efficiency and predictability in web navigation.”
From From Compliance to Inclusion (2026) · cites this paper as Mulliken's (2019)
Brunskill's (2020) and Mulliken's (2019) findings show that user perspectives reveal needs and barriers that are not visible in technical scans.
“Brunskill's (2020) and Mulliken's (2019) findings show that user perspectives reveal needs and barriers that are not visible in technical scans.”
From From Compliance to Inclusion (2026) · cites this paper as Mulliken's (2019)
Mulliken's qualitative study of 18 blind academic library users found participants described barriers when using library websites and search tools and highlighted how time-consuming navigation can become when interfaces are not designed with screen reader workflows in mind.
“Mulliken's qualitative study of 18 blind academic library users further underscores the experiential dimension of accessibility.Participants described barriers encountered when using library websites and search tools and highlighted how time-consuming navigation can become when interfaces are not designed with screen reader workflows in mind (Mulliken, 2019).”
From From Compliance to Inclusion (2026) · cites this paper as Mulliken, 2019
Cites
Sahib, N. G., Tombros, A., & Stockman, T. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21696 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ehikioya, E. E. (2026) · International Journal of Librarianship · doi:10.23974/ijol.2026.vol11.2.595
“Participants described barriers encountered when using library websites and search tools and highlighted how time-consuming navigation can become when interfaces are not designed with screen reader workflows in mind (Mulliken, 2019).”
- Authors
- Mulliken, A.
- Affiliations
- City University of New York (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mulliken, Adina
- ORCID
- Mulliken, Adina
- Venue
- College & Research Libraries
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2019-03
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 152-158
- ISSN
- 0010-0870 (ISSN-L)
- 2150-6701
- OpenAlex
- W2802844593
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 6.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- College & Research Libraries (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- CUNY Academic Works (City University of New York) (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web and Library Services
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Keywords
- blind users, library websites, web accessibility, screen readers, academic libraries, library search tools, web navigation, user experience
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
