| Title |
Web usability evaluation with screen reader users: implementation of the partial concurrent thinking aloud technique
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Processing, November 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10339-009-0347-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Federici Stefano, Simone Borsci, Gianluca Stamerra |
| Abstract |
A verbal protocol technique, adopted for a web usability evaluation, requires that the users are able to perform a double task: surfing and talking. Nevertheless, when blind users surf by using a screen reader and talk about the way they interact with the computer, the evaluation is influenced by a structural interference: users are forced to think aloud and listen to the screen reader at the same time. The aim of this study is to build up a verbal protocol technique for samples of visual impaired users in order to overcome the limits of concurrent and retrospective protocols. The technique we improved, called partial concurrent thinking aloud (PCTA), integrates a modified set of concurrent verbalization and retrospective analysis. One group of 6 blind users and another group of 6 sighted users evaluated the usability of a website using PCTA. By estimating the number of necessary users by the means of an asymptotic test, it was found out that the two groups had an equivalent ability of identifying usability problems, both over 80%. The result suggests that PCTA, while respecting the properties of classic verbal protocols, also allows to overcome the structural interference and the limits of concurrent and retrospective protocols when used with screen reader users. In this way, PCTA reduces the efficiency difference of usability evaluation between blind and sighted users. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 63 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 18 | 27% |
| Psychology | 10 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 7% |
| Engineering | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2010.
All research outputs
#7,454,427
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#105
of 338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,172
of 92,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 92,363 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.