Website Design and Usability Assessment Implications from a Usability Study with Visually Impaired Users

  • Sarah J. Swierenga
  • Jieun Sung
  • Graham L. Pierce
  • Dennis B. Propst
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6766)


Outdoor recreation websites present complex design considerations because of their wide range of potential users and the variety of their needs. Usability testing allows users to interact with websites and give feedback on its usability. Knowledge acquired during the usability testing process can be used to improve the information architecture of the website and its content. This study included usability tests with both visually-impaired and sighted participants visiting the Natural Resources Management Gateway, a complex information-rich website. The study identified best practices for designing and testing websites that effectively and efficiently meet the needs of visually-impaired and sighted website users. In addition to design recommendations, the study also looked at the impact of visual impairments on usability test duration, determining a rule of thumb for allocating time for usability testing of websites.


Usability visually impaired users disability public website outdoor recreation website usability testing duration 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Zografopoulos, K.: Travelers with disabilities: The American market. Presentation at the 2nd International One-Stop-Shop for Accessible Tourism in Europe (OSSATE) Workshop, Athens, Greece (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    International Organization for Standardization: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance on usability. (ISO Reference No. 9241-11:1998[E]) (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Academic Press/AP Professional, Cambridge, MA (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rubin, J., Chisnell, D.: Handbook of usability testing, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quesenbery, W.: Dimensions of usability. In: Albers, M., Mazur, B. (eds.) Content and complexity: Information design in technical communication, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marcus, A.: User Interface Design’s Return on Investment: Examples and Statistics. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability: An Update for the Internet Age, 2nd edn., pp. 17–39. Elsevier, San Francisco (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Department of Health & Human Services: Cost & Return on Investment, (n. d.) (retrieved January 21, 2010)
  8. 8.
    Karat, C.M.: A Business Case Approach to Usability Cost Justification for the Web. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability: An Update for the Internet Age, 2nd edn., pp. 103–141. Elsevier, San Francisco (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nielsen, J.: Web Research: Believe the Data. Alertbox: Current Issues in Web Usability (July 11, 1999), (retrieved January 21, 2010)
  10. 10.
    Harrison, M.C., Henneman, R.L., Blatt, L.A.: Design of a human factors cost-justification tool. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability, pp. 203–242. Academic Press, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dray, S.M., Karat, C.: Human factors cost justification for an internal development project. In: Bias, R.G., Mayhew, D.J. (eds.) Cost-Justifying Usability, pp. 111–122. Academic Press, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nielsen, J.: Intranet Usability Shows Huge Advances. Alertbox: Current Issues in Web Usability (October 9, 2007), January 21, 2010)
  13. 13.
    Glib, T.: Principles of Software Engineering Management. Addison Wesley, Reading (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    World facts and statistics on disabilities and disabilities issues (December 20, 2010), (retrieved January 19, 2011)
  15. 15.
    The 2008 Disability Status Report: United States (2008), (retrieved January 19, 2011)
  16. 16.
    Bradley, N., Poppen, W.: Assistive technology, computers and Internet may decrease sense of isolation for homebound elderly and disabled persons. Technology and Disability 15, 19–25 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cook, J.A., Fitzgibbon, G., Batteiger, D., Grey, D.D., Caras, S., Dansky, H., Priester, F.: Information technology attitudes and behaviors among individuals with psychiatric disabilities who use the Internet: results of a Web-based survey. Disability Studies Quarterly 25 (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smedema, S.M., McKenzie, A.R.: The relationship among frequency and type of internet use, perceived social support, and sense of well-being in individuals with visual impairments. Disability & Rehabilitation 32, 317–325 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Swierenga, S.J.: Incorporating Web Accessibility into the Design Process. In: Righi, C., James, J. (eds.) The User-Centered Design Casebook, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Loiacono, E.T., Romano, J. N.C., McCoy, S.: The State of Corporate Website Accessibility. Communications of the ACM 52(9), 128–132 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goette, T., Collier, C., White, J.D.: An Exploratory Study of the Accessibility of State Government Web Site. Universal Accessibility Information Society 5, 41–50 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah J. Swierenga
    • 1
  • Jieun Sung
    • 1
  • Graham L. Pierce
    • 1
  • Dennis B. Propst
    • 2
  1. 1.Usability/Accessibility Research & ConsultingMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of ForestryMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations