© simeon keates 2009 usability with project lecture 10 – 09/10/09 dr. simeon keates
TRANSCRIPT
© Simeon Keates 2009
Usability with ProjectLecture 10 – 09/10/09Dr. Simeon Keates
© Simeon Keates 2009
Exercise – part 1
Consider sending an SMS or e-mail Look at one of your mobile phones … And a laptop
Also, look at one of the remote controls you will be loaned!!! [Note – I need these back!!!]
Perform exclusion calculations on each product using the data on:• http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/inclusivedesign/
Page 2
© Simeon Keates 2009
Exercise – part 2
Identify the common methods of interacting with the product
Identify which of the 7 DFS capability scales are involved in the interaction
Based on the DFS scales, estimate the limiting capability demand for each scale
Page 3
© Simeon Keates 2009
Exercise – part 3
Report the number and %age of people excluded by each capability demand• For 16+ and 75+
Report the total number and %age of people excluded by the product• For 16+ and 75+
Prepare a 5 minute presentation to discuss:• Your exclusion calculation assumptions• Your exclusion calculation results• What were the principal causes of exclusion?• What do you think should be done to reduce the exclusion for each product?
Page 4
© Simeon Keates 2009
Implementing accessibility
Page 5
© Simeon Keates 2009
Existing “accessibility” standards
Buildings access• e.g. BS8300:2001 Design of buildings and their approaches to meet the needs of
disabled people Assistive Technology • e.g. ISO 9999:2002 Technical aids for persons with disabilities – Classification and
terminology Anthropometrics • e.g. BS4467:1997 Guide to dimensions in designing for elderly people
Medical device standards• e.g. ISO 13485 / ISO 13488 – Quality systems for medical devices
Standards development • e.g. PD ISO/IEC Guide 71 Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs
of older persons and persons with disabilities
Page 6
© Simeon Keates 2009
The BS7000 series – Guides to managing…
Part 1 – … innovation Part 2 – … the design of manufactured products Part 3 – … service design Part 4 – … design in construction Part 5 – … obsolescence Part 6 – … inclusive design Part 10 – Glossary of terms used in design
management
Page 7
© Simeon Keates 2009
Inside BS7000-6 – the definition of inclusive design
[The] design of mainstream products … that are accessible to, and usable by, as many people as reasonably possible on a global basis, in a wide variety of situations and to the greatest extent possible without the need for special adaptation or specialized design.
Page 8
© Simeon Keates 2009
Inside BS7000-6 – product options
Complete integrated range without need for adaptive accessories
New models added to range, plus adaptive accessories for existing models
Complementary range, co-ordinated with existing range to some degree
Separate range, unconnected with mainstream offer
Decreasingpreference
Page 9
© Simeon Keates 2009
Key aspects of BS7000-6
Role of inclusive design ‘champions’ formalised• Previously “unofficial” champions
Board-level responsibility enforced
Rigorous ‘gateways’ in design process• Independent of design methodology adopted
All user exclusions have to be explained…
… and ‘justified’• Leads to paper trail• Potential basis for legal defence
Page 10
© Simeon Keates 2009
Implementing accessibility - Summary
Design for accessibility is important for industry
Adopting design for accessibility practices requires a plan. It does not just happen overnight; it needs a strategic approach
Design for accessibility affects all levels of the corporate hierarchy within a company
Page 11
© Simeon Keates 2009
The role of senior management
Page 12
© Simeon Keates 2009
Phase 1 – Scoping the business plan
Stage 1.1 – Assigning responsibility• Suggested outcome – a named top manager to champion and have explicit
responsibility for design for accessibility.
Stage 1.2 – Acquiring basic knowledge• Suggested outcome – a common understanding of the basic aims and
principles of design for accessibility.
Stage 1.3 – Understanding the current situation• Suggested outcome – a completed audit of the company’s entire or selected
product lines.
Stage 1.4 – Formulating a plan of action• Suggested outcome – an initial plan of action for the implementation of
design for accessibility.
Page 13
© Simeon Keates 2009
Phase 2 – Shaping the business plan
Stage 2.1 – Communicate design for accessibility intent• Suggested outcome – a mission statement that clearly communicates how
important design for accessibility is for the company.
Stage 2.2 – Define corporate philosophy• Suggested outcome – a design for accessibility “bible” outlining corporate
philosophy and preferred language.
Stage 2.3 – Identify specific objectives to be achieved• Suggested outcome – a master program of clearly stated initial corporate
objectives with an identified time-line for completion.
Stage 2.4 – Promote design for accessibility across the company• Suggested outcome – a structured program for communicating the
importance, benefits and opportunities of design for accessibility throughout the workforce.
Page 14
© Simeon Keates 2009
Phase 3 – Implementing the business plan
Stage 3.1 – Implement management structures for design for accessibility• Suggested outcome – a clearly defined management structure put in place.
Stage 3.2 – Perform pilot studies• Suggested outcome – analysed results from pilot studies that clearly identify
successes and lessons to be learned.
Stage 3.3 – Recognize and enhance expertise• Suggested outcome – a corporate map of teams and individuals with design
for accessibility expertise and a plan for increasing overall corporate expertise.
Stage 3.4 – Review progress• Suggested outcome – a review of progress made to date and
recommendations for further improvements in the implementation of design for accessibility.
Page 15
© Simeon Keates 2009
Phase 4 – Selling accessibility
Stage 4.1 – Identify and leverage competitive advantages• Suggested outcome – a structured plan to transfer the successes in design
for accessibility throughout the company products range and brands.
Stage 4.2 – Identify opportunities for improved corporate image• Suggested outcome – a structured marketing plan for communicating the
new corporate and brand image.
Page 16
© Simeon Keates 2009
Phase 5 – Reviewing and refining business plan
Stage 5.1 – Recognize and reward successes• Suggested outcome – a reward program that recognizes and encourages
innovation.
Stage 5.2 – Review and refine design for accessibility approach• Suggested outcome – a completely realized infrastructure for managing and
implementing design for accessibility.
Page 17
© Simeon Keates 2009
The role of senior management - Summary
Top management plays a pivotal role in implementing design for accessibility practices and a continuing role in maintaining design for accessibility practices
Top management initiates and drives the initial adoption of design for accessibility and retains ultimate responsibility for the success of design for accessibility
Top management shapes the company’s design for accessibility philosophy and is responsible for communicating this throughout the company and ensuring that corporate targets for product accessibility are met.
Page 18
© Simeon Keates 2009
Project management
Page 19
© Simeon Keates 2009
Phase 1 – Define project
Stage 1.1 – Initial research• Suggested outcome – a description of the opportunity.
Stage 1.2 – Develop design brief• Suggested outcome – a design brief that states the general objectives and
requirements of the project.
Page 20
© Simeon Keates 2009
Phase 2 – Design, detail and implement solution
Stage 2.1 – Generation of solution concepts• Suggested outcome – a range of potential alternative solutions that meet the
design brief.
Stage 2.2 – Selection and refinement of most effective solution• Suggested outcome – a solution that meets the design brief most effectively.
Stage 2.3 – Detail design of solution• Suggested outcome – a detailed design of the chosen solution.
Stage 2.4 – Ready solution for production• Suggested outcome – a production-ready solution.
Page 21
© Simeon Keates 2009
Phase 3 – Go to market
Stage 3.1 – Launch of product in marketplace• Suggested outcome – a carefully planned and executed launch strategy.
Stage 3.2 – Evolution of product• Suggested outcome – a series of product updates and augmentations based
on customer and market feedback.
Stage 3.3 – Extension of product range• Suggested outcome – a series of new or modified products to complement
and build on the success of the original product.
Page 22
© Simeon Keates 2009
Phase 4 - Project closure
Stage 4.1 – Decommissioning of product • Suggested outcome – a carefully planned and executed market withdrawal
strategy.
Stage 4.2 – Final review and lessons learned• Suggested outcome – a comprehensive final review of all aspects of the full
life of the product with clearly identified successes and lessons to be learned.
Page 23
© Simeon Keates 2009
Project management - Summary
Project managers must embrace the concept of design for accessibility if it is to be implemented successfully within the company
Project managers are responsible for ensuring that the design team meets the design for accessibility targets set by senior management
Document everything. Written records of why particular decisions were taken are the basis of an invaluable knowledge resource
Page 24
© Simeon Keates 2009
What is “reasonable accommodation”?
Page 25
© Simeon Keates 2009
Defining “reasonable accommodation”
Must offer “reasonable accommodation”• BUT what is reasonable?
Not defined explicitly• Companies left guessing
Will be defined in courts• Major risk/headache for companies
Page 26
© Simeon Keates 2009
Attitudes to “reasonable accommodation”
EQUITABLE ACCESS
MINIMUM(compliance)
Access to functionality
IDEALAccess to
functionalityin same time
EQUITABLE ACCESS
MINIMUM(compliance)
Access to functionality
IDEALAccess to
functionalityin same timeIDEOLOGICAL
DIVIDE
Prag
mat
ists
Idea
lists
Page 27
© Simeon Keates 2009
Interesting questions for companies
Is the equitable access ideal possible?• Is the equitable access minimum possible?• “ Equal, but different ” problem
Users with functional impairments => longer times
Can technology always make up the difference in user capabilities?
3 case studies…
Page 28
© Simeon Keates 2009
Case study 1: The personal information point
Page 29
© Simeon Keates 2009
The information point accessibility assessment
Sensory assessment: Screen too high and not adjustable Audio output not duplicated Visual output not duplicated
Motor assessment: Need to stand Reaching and dexterity demands
53% of target users excluded
Is this “reasonable”?
Page 30
© Simeon Keates 2009
Case study 2 – Cursor assistance for motor-impaired users
Symptoms that can affect cursor control:
Tremor Spasm Restricted motion Reduced strength Poor co-ordination
Page 31
© Simeon Keates 2009
User group behaviours
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Group OA Group P Group Y Group A
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Group OA Group P Group Y Group A
Target activation times
Peak velocities
No. of incorrect clicks
0
1
2
3
4
5
Group OA Group P Group Y Group A
Page 32
© Simeon Keates 2009
Summarising the differences
Younger adults (IBM interns)• Shortest (1), fastest (1), more errors (3) - slapdash
• “I can fix it”• Games culture?
Adults (IBM regulars)• Shorter (2), faster (2), fewest errors (1)
• Best compromise between speed and accuracy?
Parkinson’s users• Longer (3), slowest (4), fewer errors (2)
• Slow, but sure
Older adults• Longest (4), slower (3), most errors (4)
• Vision difficulties?• Lack of experience
Page 33
© Simeon Keates 2009
A method of cursor assistance
Haptic gravity wells:
Target
Gravity well
Attractive force
Page 34
© Simeon Keates 2009
Experimental set-up
Page 35
© Simeon Keates 2009
The effect of gravity wells
Target
Page 36
© Simeon Keates 2009
Motor impairment in practice…
Page 37
© Simeon Keates 2009
Results - Throughput
0
2
4
6
8
10
MI AB
Page 38
© Simeon Keates 2009
Case study 2 summary
Haptic gravity wells are clearly very helpful MI users “with” on similar level to AB users “without”
BUT: AB users also improve “with” Is this “equal” time? Is this “reasonable”???
Page 39
© Simeon Keates 2009
Case study 3 – Paperless office
AN Other wants to move to a paperless office• Currently receives 3.5 million pages per day
Paper documents are stored as TIFFs
Section 508 accessibility requirements• Sight-impaired• Low vision
Current solution – employ readers• “ Equal, but different. ”• Is this reasonable?
Page 40
© Simeon Keates 2009
The study documents
Almost fully unconstrained Content:• Unconstrained vocabulary
Text:• Typed• Handwritten• Annotated• Stamps
Graphical content:• Diagrams• Charts • Graphs
Page 41
© Simeon Keates 2009
Examples of the study documents
Page 42
© Simeon Keates 2009
Examples of the study documents (cont.)
Page 43
© Simeon Keates 2009
Examples of the study documents (cont.)
Page 44
© Simeon Keates 2009
Readability metrics (text)
Translation rates:• Character-by-character• Word-by-word
Number and %ages of errors:• Level 1 - Minor• Level 2 - Moderate• Level 3 - Serious
Page 45
© Simeon Keates 2009
TIFF file
OCR – The scanning process
...............
...............
....11111......
...11...11.....
..11.....11....
..11.....11....
.........11....
......11111....
....111..11....
...11....11....
..11.....11....
..11.....11....
..11....111....
..111..1.11.1..
...1111..111...
...............
111
1
1
1
11 11
11
1
11
1111
11
1
111 1111
11 1
11
1
1 111
11
111 1
11 1
1
111111 1
1 1
1
1
Page 46
© Simeon Keates 2009
OCR – Possible sources of scanning errors
Data LOSS NOISE
Page 47
© Simeon Keates 2009
Comparing three OCR engines
“…also develop the skills to invert containers to get objects *inside. He should begin to find small details in a favorite picture book (a bird in a *tree, a small fish in the *ocean). His understanding of familiar objects should…”
FineReader:
“…*also *develop *the *skills *to *irxvert *containers *to *get *ob^ects *inside. *?e *should *begin *to *Znd *small *details *i? *a favorite *picture *baa? *?a *bird *in *a *true, *a *small *ash *in *the *ocean}. *his *understanding *of *familiar *ob^ects *should…”
OmniPage:
“…*also *de???op *the *s?il?s *ta *ivart?an#ainer?to *e?ob??cts?n?id?. *?e *shau?ti *b?ta *Znd *srnali *details *i?a *favarita *picture *baa??bi?rd *in *a *tra?,a *srr?a????in *tk?e *o?ean}. *?is *und?rt?a?af *fa.?i?iar *ob?ects *hau?d *co??i?u?ta *de?eiap *d?i?houi d…”
Recognita:
Page 48
© Simeon Keates 2009
OCR results – Calculating the error rates
Record the document properties• # of words, characters• Font types (e.g. typed, handwritten) and sizes
Count instances of error types• Redaction errors• Spaces +ed, -ed• Format errors (e.g. wrong case, incorrect text positioning)• Extraction errors (i.e. incorrect translation)
• By character• By word
Classify severity• Level 1 – minor• Level 2 – moderate• Level 3 – severe
Calculate %age error rates
Note: classification for sighted users
Page 49
© Simeon Keates 2009
OCR results – An example extracted document – 1
Extracted text:
*evaluators, shQWfag’an interest in imitating words *and sp *eech.^j^kd real words along^vith j argon to exjgpss. himself . *dflffVily indicated that they understand most of what tie *says.^H^^owedhisuse of two+ word phrases
Original text:
[Typed page document]
Page 50
© Simeon Keates 2009
OCR results – An example extracted document – 2
Extracted text:
*IBISES6?? *fc?day *?P *a *yearly *SJn *exam’ *She *is *a *40 *^ear *old *white *feraale status post ^aginal hysterectomy five years ago. She has continued to have some difficulty with loss || of urine upon coughing or sneezing. I had given her some samples of Ditropan last year but || *SShZ *^ *t0 *^ *theSe’ *ShS *feelS *that *her *wei^ contributes a ^reatleal *Z *££ problems *with *mcontmence She has had some continuing problems with depressive *sympW *S^e cries very easily and it is getting a little bit worse. She also feels very *withdrawn *She tells roe that her sister in Florida had a similar history and was on *Paxil and did.
Original text:
[Typed page with notes document]
Page 51
© Simeon Keates 2009
OCR results – An example extracted document – 3
Extracted text:
*2j*»rlfar Cardiology || *^^m Chart: *3£4U3& *Dr *-^ || *0 _. *, Medications: *Adenosinc *Dose: || Dose: *jjj&f»- *f-^- *\ *Dobutaimne
Original text:
[Pictures and Graphs document]
Page 52
© Simeon Keates 2009
OCR results – Overall word error % rates
Typed page 6.50 %
(1 word in 15)
Typed page with notes
8.12 %
(1 word in 12)
Faxes 14.45 %
(1 word in 7)
Pictures and graphs
23.45 %
(1 word in 4)
Handwritten reports
36.35 %
(1 word in 3)
EKGs 49.72 %
(1 word in 2)
A “typical sentence” contains 7 words.
An extraction error rate of 6.5% equates to 1 word error every 2 sentences.
Page 53
© Simeon Keates 2009
OCR results – Context metrics Text location awareness – PARTLY SATISFIED – columns only
• Does the data extraction technology output provide an indication of where the text is on the page?
Table search – VERY LIMITED – recognised individual columns, not tables• Does the data extraction technology recognise tables and support searching within them?
Diagram detection – VERY LIMITED – recognised as “not text”• Does the data extraction technology recognise diagrams and support searching within them?
Graph detection – VERY LIMITED – as for diagram detection• Does the data extraction technology recognise graphs (charts) and support searching within
them?
Dealing with uncertainty – SATISFIED – all engines highlighted uncertain text • Does the data extraction technology recognise entities on the page that it cannot translate and
highlight this?
Text emphasis – PARTLY SATISFIED – could, but not always correct• Does the data extraction technology recognise when the author of the document has selected a
particular item of text for special emphasis?
Multiple selection lists – VERY LIMITED – words and columns, but no “meta” info• Does the data extraction technology recognise multiple selection lists and can it identify the
item(s) selected?
Page 54
© Simeon Keates 2009
Conclusions of OCR investigation
“ Current OCR technology is not capable of providing an acceptable level of text extraction from medical evidence as it is now received. ”
“ Technology cannot provide equitable access in this case. Alternative methods are required. ”
“ Equal, but different. ”
Page 55
© Simeon Keates 2009
Overall summary
Some products clearly not “reasonable”• Case study 1
Technology cannot always make up for lack of user capability• Case study 2• Even when it does – the goalposts move!!!
Page 56
© Simeon Keates 2009
Conclusion
What is needed is a framework for evaluating “reasonableness”
Based on quantifiable metrics
Reliable, repeatable, consistent, robust
Page 57
© Simeon Keates 2009
A framework for assessing acceptability – 1
Stage 1 – Identify each target user group/persona• e.g. blind users, >65s, etc.
Stage 2 – Identify each component step in the interaction per group• e.g. press Enter, activate OK button, move cursor to icon, etc.
Stage 3 – Compare number of steps per group• e.g. 10 for able-bodied, 30 for blind using screen reader
DECISION GATEWAY 1
Are the numbers of steps roughly equal?
If not – differences need to be justified or remedied
Page 58
© Simeon Keates 2009
A framework for assessing acceptability – 2
Stage 4 – Perform user studies with baseline user group• Calculate times, error rates, etc.
Stage 5 – Perform user studies with target user groups• Calculate times, error rates, etc.
DECISION GATEWAY 2
Could all of the users complete the task?
If not – causes of difficulties need to be removed or remedied
Page 59
© Simeon Keates 2009
A framework for assessing acceptability – 3
Stage 6 – Compare error rates for each group• e.g. 2 per trial able-bodied, 5 per trial blind using screen-reader
DECISION GATEWAY 3
Are the error rates the same or similar across user groups?
If not – significant differences have to be justified or remedied
Page 60
© Simeon Keates 2009
A framework for assessing acceptability – 4
Stage 7 – Compare times to complete tasks for each group + modifiers• e.g. number of component steps per group +• proportion of component steps affected by group disabilities +• relative importance of each step (3 = critical, 1 = peripheral) +• relative severity of the level of disability +• additional latencies from AT used
DECISION GATEWAY 4
Are the modified times the same or similar across user groups?
If not – significant differences have to be justified or remedied
Page 61
© Simeon Keates 2009
Coming to a lecture room near you…
User trials• How to plan the trials• How to select users• How to conduct the sessions• How to analyse the data gathered• How to make design recommendations
Designing and evaluating for unusual circumstances• Airports• Mobile phones
Making the business case for usability• How to calculate the “bottom line” impact
Project• Finishing your design and then testing with “real” people!
Page 62
© Simeon Keates 2009
Exercise
Page 63
© Simeon Keates 2009
Exercise – part 1
Perform an exclusion analysis on your web-site • (As you did on Wednesday)
Prepare a summary of your calculation• Assumptions• Levels of capability required• Exclusion (total and %age) for 16+ and 75+
Make any changes necessary to your site• + any outstanding ones from last couple of weeks
Page 64
© Simeon Keates 2009
And finally…
Turn to the back page of today’s handout…
Page 65