MILESTONE 6

THE ACCESSIBLE TOUR

HCI 598
Sean Durkin
11/2016

THE ACCESSIBLE TOUR

Problem Space

Design Problem

Users

Approach
User analysis
Tasks
Design Considerations

Solution

Evaluation

Summary

TECHNOLOGY AND DISABILITIES

For people without disabilities, technology makes things
easier.
For people with disabilities, technology makes things possible.
(Pennsylvanias Initiative on Assistive Technology)

THE PROBLEM SPACE

Over the last few years, the role of the disabled in society has
changed rapidly, fueled by technology and regulation.
This change can be seen most acutely in the enhanced
accessibility of technology available to the Visually Impaired.
There have been tremendous opportunities opened via the
many accessibility options available in technology, ranging from
JAWS screenreaders to smartphones.

OPPORTUNITY
POPULATION- UNITED STATES
Approximately 2.3% of
population- 7.3M reported to
have a visual disability
For those actively using
computers, screen reader usage
is high
https://nfb.org/blindness-statistics
http://webaim.org/projects/screenr
eadersurvey6/

THE MARKET
Tourism geared towards the Visually Impaired has been
underserved with few apps dedicated to their needs, whether
providing specific affordances or content tailored to the
audience.

THE INTENT
The Accessible Tour iOS
application would expand
the travel opportunities
available for the Visually
Impaired traveler by
highlighting attractions in a
geographic area designed to
engage senses other than
visual:

Auditory
Tactile
Olfactory
Taste

UNIVERSAL DESIGN
By making a particular application, hardware or even a facility
accessible to those with disabilities, its made more usable by
the general population

THE DESIGN SPACE

CONSIDERATIONS

APPROACHES

One of the trade-offs inherent to

designing for the Visually
Impaired is the design
complexity of the interface

Visually Impaired users, like any group,

have a wide range of capabilities. While
some may be completely blind, other
may have good short range vision with
others only able to view high contrast or
enlarged text.

Adequate to provide for all of

the specified actions, yet easily
navigable and visible to those
with limited vision. The interface
also needs to be aesthetically
acceptable for the sighted user.

The application would address these

needs through several methods:
Native iOS speech capabilities
Native iOS High contrast format
Enlarged text
Limited images
Simplified navigation

THE PLATFORM
Apples iOS contains a number
of key accessibility features
geared towards the Visually
Impaired, rendering what is
essentially a featureless piece
of glass into a powerful tool. As
mobility increases through
technological change, so does
a desire to experience the
world more fully.

THE EXPERIENCE
Provide a rich and interactive traveling experience for the Visually
Impaired traveler that might include concerts, chocolate tastings
and open air bus described tours of the city.
Through selection of a series of criteria, the user would be able to
narrow down a field of attractions, whether entirely blind, partially
sighted or wholly sighted

USER GROUPS
Blind/Low Vision
Blind users requiring a means to locate travel
experiences
Low Vision users requiring a means to locate
travel experiences that may work with their
limited sight
Companions: caregivers, spouses, friends, colleagues
Non-blind users that have a high degree of
interaction with a Visually Impaired individual
These users may actually be largest user
group of The Accessible Tour interested in
either enhancing an existing travel itinerary or
create one wholly based on suggestions
Mainstream tourists interested in a different experience
For the more adventurous traveler, The
Accessible Tour would offer unique
experiences not typically encountered in
standard guidebooks

PROTOTYPE ENVIRONMENT
Using Axure permitted The
Accessible Tour app to be
represented realistically in
either a web browser
(Chrome, Firefox, IE) or iOS
smartphone.
There were no participants
using an Android phone.
The interface was mocked
up with a depiction of an
iPhone to create an
immersive experience.

TASKS

DIGITAL PROTOTYPE
The Accessible Tour
http://gea0af.axshare.com
/home.html

PROTOTYPING
HOME PAGE
The home page of the app was designed with
several objectives in mind:
Simplicity- a clean, uncluttered interface with
clearly delineated choices.
Ease of use- the options needed to be large
enough to easily click on regardless of
dexterity or limited vision
Legibility- font size was large, font itself kept
simple and presented in a crisp black on white

PROTOTYPING
FILTERING
The user has selected Tours and is presented
with a page of filtering options.
The options include the ability to select tours
based upon vision ability, type of tour and
specific sensory interaction (or any
combination):

Blind
Low Vision
Wheelchair Accessible
Audio tours
Braille Exhibits
Touch
Smell
Eat

PROTOTYPING
FILTER RESULTS

The user, having filtered, is presented with their

results- in this case, primarily food (chocolate,
beer or cheese) or food-related (9th Street
Market)
The use has the option to click through for a
description of the tour or simply select the
desired tours and add to the itinerary

PROTOTYPING
ACTIVITY DETAILS

User has clicked through on the Chocolate

Tasting Tour and is given a brief description of
the tour as well as the option to add to the
itinerary as well.

PROTOTYPING
ITINERARY ADDS
As the user has navigated through The
Accessible Tour, theyve been presented with
the option to add specific events to their
itinerary.
A key feature of the itinerary is the ability to
email or text it. This was indicated by one of the
study participants as being particularly helpful
as the native iOS Voiceover would easily parse.

PROTOTYPING
ITINERARY EMAIL/TEXT

The email/texting screen is kept very simple with

tasks clearly indicated

TESTING METHODS
Evaluation
High fidelity prototype
Quantitative
Questionnaire
Qualitative
Interviews
Questionnaire

TESTING
The app works very much a Wizard of Oz approach- the other user behind
the curtain is simulated by a preset course of action- in this case, the tasks
that are supported- the screens are prepopulated and the user is able to
click through.
There is no real ability to select venues, search by location, filter or add to
itinerary. However, the user does have the experience of navigating the app
and viewing a suggested flow.

TESTING TOOLS
In order to gauge success of the
app with the intended audience,
Likert scale judgements as well as
open-ended questions will be
used to gather both quantitative
and qualitative data.

While survey tools such as Survey Monkey and

Google Forms were considered, they were
discarded in favor of a simple email
questionnaire capable of being easily parsed
by a screenreader.

THE TESTING FORMAT

The final approach chosen was that of a
simple email, with task flow followed by
questions, both qualitative and quantitative.
The questionnaire was focused on usability
themes of design and navigation

For the purposes of this study five participants

were chosen. While some studies have shown
that more participants may be optimal, the
specialized nature of the testing limited the
sample pool(Faulkner, 2003).

The design of the overall app, while

certainly critical to sighted users, is of less
concern to the Visually Impaired
groups. However, it cannot be discounted
entirely as the design, to a large degree,
dictates the navigational structure of the
app.

THE TESTING FLOW

Supported
Click through process for choosing a venue
Filtering based upon criteria
Selection of a venue
Ability to view details
Adding venue to itinerary
Non-Supported
Select Concerts
Select Museums
The non-supported tasks were based upon having a consistent user
experience by steering them though a preset flow

APPROACH
The final approach chosen was that of a
simple email, with task flow followed by
questions, both qualitative and quantitative.
For the purposes of this study five participants
were chosen.
The questionnaire was focused on usability
themes of design and navigation, with the
emphasis primarily on navigation

PARTICIPANT BACKGROUND
Role
Age
Gender
Blind/Low Vision
Smartphone
Used an App to plan travel
Name of App

Critical component?
What would create a
better iOS app for
traveling?

John
QA Tester
38
Male
Blind
iPhone
No
-

Easy
Interface
Add to
calendar

Angela
Retired

Faith
Technical
Support
43
Female
Blind
iPhone

Margaret
Peter
Product
Copyeditor
Manager
78
46
33
Female
Female
Male
Low Vision
No
No
iPhone
iPhone/Andr
iPhone
oid
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Apple
Expedia
Travelocity,
Tripit,
Map/Google
Expedia,
Expedia
Kayak
Routes/places View nearby
Efficiency
Itinerary
to eat and visit attractions
Ease of use for Accessible Single place All in one
older people
functions
for all needs approach

OVERALL FLOW

PARTICIPANT TASKS
User
selection of
criteria

PARTICIPANT TASKS
User selects
Chocolate Tasting
and Craft Beer
Sampling
Add to Itinerary

PARTICIPANT TASKS
Viewing Itinerary

PARTICIPANT TASKS
Email/ Text
of Itinerary

QUANTITATIVE RATING
Using a Usability Metric for User Experience,( UMUX), the potential usability of the
interface was analyzed
Participants were ranked on a Likert scale from 1-5, with 1 being the most difficult
and 5 the easiest

QUALITATIVE RESULTS
Tasks

John

Angela

Faith

Margaret

Likedtheeasy
ItisdifferentfromothertoursitesbecauseI
navigation
wasabletoapplyfiltersbasedontheneeds
andrequirementsofmydisability.Examples:
audiotours,touch,etc.
Yes
Noteasilybutitcanbedone.Clickable
elementswhicharemeanttobelinksshouldbe
writtenaslinks,buttonstosubmitorapply
filterswerenotbeingrenderedasbuttons.
Level1headingsshouldbepresentatthe
beginningofmaincontentforeachpage.

Theappwas
Ilikedtheeaseof
accessibleon
useandthefact
manylevels
thatthetourswere
described.
Yes,Iwasableto Yes,therewereno
problems,the
navigatethe
navigationwas
applicationquite
simple
easily.

Whatwouldyouliketo
seeinTheAccessible
Tour?

IwashopingforaBrailleoption,suchasbeing
abletofilterforrestaurantswithBraillemenus.

Itseemedfairly
complete

Actionableedit
fieldsasIwasnot
abletofillinemail
addressorsms
information.

Wouldyouuseanapp
like
TheAccessibleTour?

Yes

Yes

IfIwereon
vacationIwould
absolutelyusethis
application.

Whatdidyoulikeabout
TheAccessibleTour?

Wereyouableto
navigate
TheAccessibleTour?

Fromatechnical
codestandpoint,the
accessibilitywas
good,butthere
wereanumberof
areasthatcould
standsome
improvement
Yes

Peter

Itseemedvery
straightforward

Yes

Greatervarietyin
offerings

Yes

SUMMARY
Overall,TheAccessibleTourwaswellreceived.Iwaspleasedthatthereseemedtobea
definiteneedforthistypeofappfortheVisuallyImpairedcommunity.Thetasksrequested
oftheparticipantsscoredwell,withtheexceptionofviewingtheitinerary possiblydueto
thedesignpresentation.
Theapproachfortestingwasthatofaguidedtouroffeatures,dueinlargepartto
limitationsaroundcodinginactualfunctionality.Onlyalimitedviewcouldbepresented
However,thisseemedtoworkwellandprovidedtheparticipantswithagoodideaofThe
AccessibleToursfeaturesandfunctionality.
Interestinglyenough,theVisuallyImpairedrespondentstendedtobemoretechnicalin
theirresponsesthanmostotherparticipants,perhapsbecausethescreenreadersfocusonly
onwhatisactuallypresentedandnotonanygraphicalconventions.

WEBSITE

TheAccessibleTour

REFERENCES
Affairs,A.S.forP.(2013).Home.
Blas,N.Di,Paolini,P.,&Speroni,M.(2004).UsableaccessibilitytotheWebforblindusers.of8th
ERCIMWorkshop:UserInterfaces.Retrievedfrom
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.110.8239&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Heylighen,A.(2014).Aboutthenatureofdesigninuniversaldesign.DisabilityandRehabilitation,
36(16),13601368.http://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.932850
Keating,D.,Parks,S.,Jansson,G.,Hoyle,B.S.,Waters,D.a.,Brandley,N.a.,Lenoir,R.(2008).Assistive
TechnologyforVisuallyImpairedandBlindPeople.http://doi.org/10.1007/9781846288678
Richards,V.,Pritchard,A.,&Morgan,N.(2010).(Re)Envisioningtourismandvisualimpairment.Annals
ofTourismResearch,37(4),10971116.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.04.011
Small,J.,Darcy,S.,&Packer,T.(2012).Theembodiedtouristexperiencesofpeoplewithvision
impairment:Managementimplicationsbeyondthevisualgaze.TourismManagement,33(4),941
950.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.09.015

REFERENCES
Abascal,J.,&Nicolle,C.(2005).MovingtowardsinclusivedesignguidelinesforsociallyandethicallyawareHCI.
InteractingwithComputers,17(5),484505.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.03.002
Aragall,F.,&Montana,J.(2012).UniversalDesign:TheHUMBLESMethodforUserCentredBusiness.GowerPublishing
CompanySuite.
Blythe,M.,&Monk,A.(2005).Netneighbours:AdaptingHCImethodstocrossthedigitaldivide.Interactingwith
Computers,17(1),3556.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2004.10.002
Johansson,M.,&Arvola,M.(2007).Acasestudyofhowuserinterfacesketches,scenariosandcomputerprototypes
structurestakeholdermeetings.Proceedingsofthe21stBritishHCIGroupAnnualConferenceonPeopleand
Computers:HCI...butNotasWeKnowIt,1(XXI),177184.Retrievedfrom
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1531318
Keates,S.,JohnClarkson,P.,&Robinson,P.(2002).Developingapracticalinclusiveinterfacedesignapproach.
InteractingwithComputers,14(4),271299.http://doi.org/10.1016/S09535438(01)000546
Rosenzweig,E.(2015).SuccessfulUserExperience:StrategiesandRoadmaps.MorganKaufmann.
Savidis,A.,&Stephanidis,C.(2006).Inclusivedevelopment:Softwareengineeringrequirementsforuniversally
accessibleinteractions.InteractingwithComputers,18(1SPEC.ISS.),71116.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2005.06.005

REFERENCES
Faulkner,L.(2003).Beyondthefiveuserassumption:Benefitsofincreasedsamplesizesinusabilitytesting.BehaviorResearchMethods,
Instruments&Computers,35(3),379383.https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195514
HeuristicEvaluationProcedure.(n.d.).RetrievedNovember28,2011,fromhttp://www.usabilitybok.org/methods/p275?section=howto
Lewis,J.R.,Utesch,B.S.,&Maher,D.E.(2015).MeasuringPerceivedUsability:TheSUS,UMUXLITE,andAltUsability.International
JournalofHumanComputerInteraction,31(8),496505.https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2015.1064654
McGovern,H.(2004).NotJustUsabilityTesting:RememberingandApplyingNonusabilityTestingMethodsforLearningHowWebSites
Function.TechnicalCommunication,52(2),175186.Retrievedfromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/43089197
Nielsen,J.,Blatt,L.A.,Bradford,J.,&Brooks,P.(1994).UsabilityInspection,413414.
Professionals,H.P.(2016).ApplyingusabilitytestingtechniquestoimproveahealthpromotionwebsiteApplyingusabilitytesting
techniquestoimproveahealthpromotionwebsite,(October).