Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Working With Participants

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Web Accessibility

Part of the book series: Human–Computer Interaction Series ((HCIS))

Abstract

Involving users in the design and evaluation of websites is one of the keys to ensuring they are accessible to as wide a range of people as possible. In this chapter, we present the core barriers and solutions that are often encountered by participants in user research activities that are undertaken as part of modern user-centred design processes. We close the chapter with a discussion of future areas of research around measurement of accessible user experiences and a short list of key things to remember when undertaking user research with people with disabilities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this chapter, we use website broadly to mean both more traditional content-heavy websites and more modern interactive web applications

  2. 2.

    Note If new information comes to light that researchers want to use as primary data as a result of these after session discussions, researchers should confirm with participants that they can indeed use it.

  3. 3.

    Elevators for some of our readers!

References

  • Adams A, Cox A (2008) Questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups. In: Cairns P, Cox A (eds) Research methods for human computer interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 17–34

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aizpurua A, Arrue M, Vigo M (2015) Prejudices, memories, expectations and confidence influence experienced accessibility on the Web. Comput Hum Behav 51:152–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alhadreti O, Mayhew P (2018) Rethinking thinking aloud: a comparison of three think-aloud protocols. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing system. ACM, Providence, p 44

    Google Scholar 

  • Balch GI, Mertens DM (1999) Focus group design and group dynamics: lessons from deaf and hard of hearing participants. Am J Eval 20(2):265–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • British Design Council (2007) Eleven lessons: managing design in eleven global companies-desk research report. British Design Council

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown T (2009) Change by design. Harper Collins, New York City

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush A, Ames M, Davis J (2004) A comparison of synchronous remote and local usability studies for an expert interface. In: CHI’04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Providence, pp 1179–1182

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruun A, Gull P, Hofmeister L, Stage J (2009) Let your users do the testing: a comparison of three remote asynchronous usability testing methods. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Providence, pp 1619–1628

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns P, Power C (2018) Measuring experiences. New directions in third wave human-computer interaction: volume 2-methodologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 62–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson PJ, Coleman R (2015) History of inclusive design in the UK. Appl Ergon 46:235–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarkson PJ, Coleman R, Keates S, Lebbon C (2013) Inclusive design: design for the whole population. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Disclosure & Barring Service (2018) https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/disclosure-and-barring-service. Accessed 1 Sept 2018

  • Google (2018) https://www.google.co.uk/forms/. Accessed 1 Sept 2018

  • Hart SG (2006) NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. Sage Publications, Los Angeles, pp 904–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedvall PO (2009a) The activity diamond: modeling an enhanced accessibility. Lund University, Certec-Department of Design Sciences, LTH

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedvall PO (2009b) Towards the era of mixed reality: accessibility meets three waves of HCI. Symposium of the Austrian HCI and usability engineering group. Springer, Berlin, pp 264–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtzblatt K, Beyer H (2016) Contextual design: design for life. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton S, Quesenbery W (2014) A web for everyone: Designing accessible user experiences. Rosenfeld Media

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaehne A, O’Connell C (2010) Focus groups with people with learning disabilities. J Intellect Disabil 14(2):133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll T, Barbour R, Harris J (2007) Using focus groups in disability research. Qual Health Res 17(5):690–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazar J, Feng JH, Hochheiser H (2017) Research methods in human-computer interaction. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson C, Hedvall PO, Breidegard B (2018) Design for me? In: International conference on computers helping people with special needs. Springer, Berlin, pp 93–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell AF, Gregor P (2000) “User sensitive inclusive design”—in search of a new paradigm. In: Proceedings on the 2000 conference on universal usability. ACM, Providence, pp 39–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell A, Arnott J, Carmichael A, Morgan M (2007) Methodologies for involving older adults in the design process. In: International conference on universal access in human-computer interaction. Springer, Berlin, pp 982–989

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrie H, Hamilton F, King N, Pavan P (2006) Remote usability evaluations with disabled people. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems - CHI ’06, p 1133. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124942

  • Power C, Petrie H (2007) Accessibility in non-professional web authoring tools: a missed web 2.0 opportunity? In: Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A). ACM, Providence, pp 116–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Power C, Petrie H, Sakharov V, Swallow D (2010) Virtual learning environments: another barrier to blended and e-learning. In: International conference on computers for handicapped persons. Springer, Berlin, pp 519–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Power C, Petrie H, Freire AP, Swallow D (2011) Remote evaluation of wcag 2.0 techniques by web users with visual disabilities. In: International conference on universal access in human-computer interaction. Springer, Berlin, pp 285–294

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Power C, Freire A, Petrie H, Swallow D (2012) Guidelines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Providence, pp 433–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Power C, Petrie H, Swallow D, Murphy E, Gallagher B, Velasco CA (2013) Navigating, discovering and exploring the web: strategies used by people with print disabilities on interactive websites. In: IFIP conference on human-computer interaction, Springer, Berlin, pp 667–684

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Power C, Cairns P, Barlet M (2018) Inclusion in the third wave: access to experience. In: New directions in third wave human-computer interaction: volume 1-technologies. Springer, Berlin, pp 163–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H (2015) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior S, Waller A, Kroll T (2013) Focus groups as a requirements gathering method with adults with severe speech and physical impairments. Behav Inf Technol 32(8):752–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qualtrics (2018). http://www.qualtrics.com. Accessed 1 Sept 2018

  • QuestionPro (2018). http://questionpro.com/. Accessed 1 Sept 2018

  • Rosnow RL, Rosenthal R (2012) Beginning behavioral research: a conceptual primer, 7th edn. Pearson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sani ZH, Petrie H, Swallow D, Lewis A (2016) Three case studies on methods of working with older people on the design of new technologies. Stud Health Technol Inf 229:153–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauro J (2015) SUPR-Q: a comprehensive measure of the quality of the website user experience. J Usability Stud 10(2):68–86. http://www.upassoc.org

  • Savva A, Petrie H, Power C (2015) Comparing concurrent and retrospective verbal protocols for blind and sighted users. In: Human-computer interaction. Springer, Berlin, pp 55–71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Savva A, Petrie H, Power C (2016) Types of problems elicited by verbal protocols for blind and sighted participants. In: International conference on computers helping people with special needs. Springer, Berlin, pp 560–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayago S, Blat J (2008) Exploring the role of time and errors in real-life usability for older people and ict. In: International conference on computers for handicapped persons. Springer, Berlin, pp 46–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Sears A, Hanson V (2011) Representing users in accessibility research. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, Providence, pp 2235–2238

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloan D, Stratford J, Gregor P (2006) Using multimedia to enhance the accessibility of the learning environment for disabled students: reflections from the skills for access project. ALT-J 14(1):39–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SnapSurveys (2018). https://www.snapsurveys.com/. Accessed 1 Sept 2018

  • SurveyMonkey (2018). http://www.surveymonkey.com. Accessed 1 Sept 2018

  • WebAIM, (2018) Qualtrics survey platform: accessibility certification. https://webaim.org/services/certification/qualtrics. Accessed 1 Sept 2018

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the hundreds of participants who have worked with us over the years in making the web a more inclusive place for people with disabilities and older adults.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, University of York, York, YO10 5GH, UK

    Christopher Power & Helen Petrie

Authors
  1. Christopher Power
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen Petrie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Power .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus, GĂĽzelyurt, Turkey

    Yeliz Yesilada

  2. School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Simon Harper

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Power, C., Petrie, H. (2019). Working With Participants. In: Yesilada, Y., Harper, S. (eds) Web Accessibility. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7440-0_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7440-0_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-7439-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-7440-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation