designing accessible experiences for older users: user requirement analysis for a railway ticketing...

LONG PAPER

Designing accessible experiences for older users: user requirementanalysis for a railway ticketing portal

Ozge Subasi • Michael Leitner • Norman Hoeller •

Arjan Geven • Manfred Tscheligi

Published online: 4 May 2011

� Springer-Verlag 2011

Abstract This article presents the results of a survey that

shows that older users differ in their attitude and experience

towards the Internet not only according to their age or to

their previous knowledge with Internet services, but also

according to what they are expecting from this media. The

aim of this study was to collect information about barriers on

usage and perception of an online ticketing service for a

nationwide public railway company, in order to enhance the

notion of ‘‘accessibility’’ toward a broader understanding

including non-technical accessibility factors as semantic

accessibility and/or procedural accessibility. The results of

the survey with 1,208 participants and additionally focus

groups, interviews and qualitative analysis of user feedback

indicate that in order to improve and optimize the usage of

the online system for older adults, it is necessary to develop a

system which is not only universally accessible, but also

satisfies the specific expectations of senior users. This article

concentrates on designing accessible user experiences and

presents several recommendations to the area and for

WCAG 2.0 according to the results.

Keywords Universal accessibility � User experience �Older adults � Experience centeredness � Perceived

accessibility

1 Introduction: user experience and accessibility

This article presents results from a study on barriers on

usage and perception of an online ticketing service for a

nationwide public railway company. The performed anal-

ysis of accessibility barriers also revealed new factors that

play a role on negative perception of systems by older users.

Public railway companies (target of this research) need

to provide access to travel information to their customers

via modern information and communication technologies.

With the responsibility of providing travel services to the

vast majority of the society, these companies need to cope

with a wide range of barriers hindering people with func-

tional limitations to access these distribution channels. This

includes timetable information, ticketing services, journey

planning and further information about the companies and

their services. In addition to technical accessibility guide-

lines addressing barriers for one or more target groups

(e.g., technically correct design for screen reader users

which should follow WAI Guidelines), it is important to

consider that there are users who are not primarily con-

fronted with problems caused by limited technical acces-

sibility, but with problems which are a result of different

reasoning strategies, different perception models or dif-

ferent experiences. Within the existing understanding of

web accessibility, these issues are often not considered as a

major concern, and are not explicitly included in the major

O. Subasi � M. Leitner � N. Hoeller � A. Geven (&) �M. Tscheligi

CURE, Center for Usability Research and Engineering,

Hauffgasse 3-5, 1110 Vienna, Austria

e-mail: [email protected]

O. Subasi


M. Leitner


N. Hoeller


M. Tscheligi


M. Tscheligi

ICT&S, ICT&S Center, University of Salzburg,

Sigmund-Haffner-Gasse 18, 5020 Salzburg, Austria

123

Univ Access Inf Soc (2011) 10:391–402

DOI 10.1007/s10209-011-0223-2

guidelines. Therefore, the work presented here shows

examples that question the ‘‘web accessibility guidelines

and definitions’’ in their existing forms. The study

emphasizes the importance of research on ‘‘user experi-

ence’’ as related to ‘‘technology accessibility’’. It is argued

that the experiences users have with technology have to be

considered as a starting point when thinking towards

‘‘accessible technology’’.

‘‘User Experience’’ (or UX) describes the quality of

experience a person has when interacting with a specific

computer system (with a particular design) using a specific

interaction technique. UX incorporates different aspects

like social experience, ambient conditions, joy of use,

aesthetics (beside others), as well as factors as perceived

privacy and security [1, 2]. Technology experience can be

designed in a more accessible and unified way to help a

wider number of users universally [3, 4]. This process can

be developed by considering users in their own environ-

ments, their usual and/or unusual contexts and with their

particular perception and technology usage patterns.

Older adults are one of the biggest groups that are

affected from the shift from physical media like newspaper

or paper tickets to modern information technologies like

the Internet, which is reflected by lower skills and, at

present, by an underrepresentation of these age groups in

the online world or at least a more seldom use of internet

services (approximately 20% of people aged 65–74 in

comparison to nearly 90% of people between 16 and 24). It

is further reported that in the EU population, people in the

age of 65–74 have the lowest computer skills in compari-

son to other age groups [5]. The shift towards the design,

usage and consumption of Internet applications is not

accompanied by a sufficient assessment of users’ require-

ments, especially in case of older users. This means a lack

of understanding of their usage patterns and their specific

needs while seeking information, buying ticket or on their

mobility. Studies show that these problems cannot be

explained only with possible age-related physical barriers

or lack of experience.

In general, there is an increasing demand for e-systems

like e-society, e-government and e-health applications and

diversity in type of future services (like, e.g., mobile

computing). The broader question is if all these are really

fitting to the expectations and usage patterns of older users.

How can an information service present more accessible

experiences for all and everywhere? Although the older

users are not the biggest group in numbers among Internet

users, daily growth of e-systems carry the doubts to the

front. Literature indicates that the number of aging people

that use ICT is growing [6, 7] and a universal under-

standing of accessibility plays a crucial role in this case [4].

In order to make the existing technologies accessible and

meaningful to older adults, there is a need to investigate the

benefits of these technologies for this population. Acces-

sible media is the basis for e-inclusion, but the usage of

media is also in correlation with a positive ‘‘experience’’ of

the users. As long as a medium has no meaning and no

clear benefit for a target group, it will not be used and is

therefore practically not ‘‘accessible’’ (though the medium

is accessible in a technical sense). Therefore, a broadening

of the research area must include the accessibility of users’

experiences with different technologies. There are different

aspects to be considered for ensuring a positive user

experience, like considering the needs, the background and

level of computer use and knowledge of Internet. Web

tools and services need to be designed considering these

experiential needs of that target group.

This paper presents the results of a study involving older

users of a nationwide railway ticket and travel information

portal. The study shows that—beyond technical accessi-

bility—the target group perceives the website in a different

way from a ‘‘user experience’’ point of view (e.g., attrac-

tiveness or easiness). The aim of the study was to reveal

influencing factors (particular attitudes towards Internet

services, individual experiences with this media, different

usage purposes, etc.), which are currently affecting the

accessibility and attractiveness negatively. This is needed

to suggest improvements towards a better alignment to the

needs of this user group. Suggestions for improvements are

based on existing findings and guidelines in the literature.

Additionally, the paper presents findings for the particular

case of travel and mobility related issues, revealed by a

study containing an online questionnaire (with 1,208 par-

ticipants), focus groups and semi-structured face-to-face

interviews conducted in a railway station.

For future work, these ‘‘specific case’’ related results will

help contribute to a set of generic guidelines for designing

accessible experiences for older adults, independent from

the type of technology introduced. The conclusions pinpoint

the most relevant findings for the given study related to the

realm of travel and mobility. These findings must be con-

sidered as indicators for future studies on relations between

information accessibility, perception and user experience.

This paper seeks to highlight the importance of relations

between accessibility, user centered development and user

experience, by discussing the multifaceted nature of

accessibility and usability for older users. Beyond the lit-

erature findings, the study presented here gives new insights

in the experience of older users with new technologies and

the accessible design of such experience.

2 Related work

In the last years the effects of the web on everyday life

have considerably increased with the emergence of

392 Univ Access Inf Soc (2011) 10:391–402

123

different applications such as e-Government, e-Commerce

and e-Learning [8]. Access to the web in the context of the

‘‘aging society’’ is gaining more importance, due to the

growing number of aging people brought about by demo-

graphic changes [8], and also due to the new definition of

the older user group as a hybrid community with diverse

needs [8, 9]. These two facts have considerably increased

the interest of scholars, technology professionals and

designers regarding the future of web services, as well as

approaches towards ‘‘design for all’’ in web-based appli-

cations. This research area addresses usability, accessibility

and user experience aspects of emerging technologies.

2.1 Universal usability and accessibility

The state of the art in the field of accessibility indicates a

need for user-based studies [8], and better grounded

guidelines for semantic or procedural issues next to tech-

nical issues on how services are visualized and interactions

are designed in a consistent way [10]. Similarly, a uni-

versal usability approach defines steps for solving usability

and accessibility problems for the future [11, 12]. It seems,

however, that currently the existing guidelines—although

being good and very useful—do not always reflect the

importance of people’s individual experiences. As reported

by Shneiderman [13], the main aspects of universal

usability are defined as technology variety, user diversity,

and gaps in user knowledge. Some studies indicated that

there is room for improvement in order to consider indi-

vidual aspects. Petrie and Kheir [14] in their study revealed

that the standard efforts both from the usability and the

accessibility side to improve web services do not relate

significantly with the rankings given to the problems by

users, which means that there is a gap between the existing

and accepted guidelines and the user-based ranking of

problems. They also pointed out that one reason for this

might be lack of detailed research on how ‘‘screen reader

users interact with the web’’ and they concluded that

‘‘research on the relationship between users’ experiences of

problems and the ratings to be given to those problems is

required’’ [14]. The results also show that experience,

problem solving, individual usage habits and interaction

preferences need to be considered in accessibility research.

The Web Accessibility Initiative: Ageing Education and

Harmonisation (WAI-AGE) is also exploring the bound-

aries between usability and accessibility requirements [8]

to develop WAI guidelines in alignment with older users’

feedback [15]. The WAI-AGE project distinguished

accessibility requirements according to WACAG 2.0

principles [16] in the following categories: perceivable,

operable, understandable, robust and miscellaneous [8].

One of the main criticisms of the technical accessibility

guidelines created by the WAI Initiative is that user-based

studies conducted show other priorities than the technical

solutions proposed by these guidelines to optimize tech-

nology users with functional limitations [17]. For example,

the usage of the web by the elderly may be significantly

different from that of younger users, due to computer lit-

eracy or willingness and availability to explore and learn to

use web interfaces, but this might often not be regarded as

a technical accessibility requirement [15].

Existing gaps are clearly described by Kelly et al. [17],

who suggest focusing on ‘‘accessibility 2.0’’. According to

them, accessibility 2.0 should strive for being devolved

instead of centralized, democratic instead of hierarchical,

focusing on purpose of resources instead of resources

themselves. Moreover, accessibility must be tested in

context instead of remotely, and the solutions must reflect a

social science perspective instead of a computer science

one, so that accessibility can be seen as a journey and not a

clear destination [17].

Apart from the limitations in existing guidelines,

accessibility studies uncovered many aspects related to

older users’ web usage. In order to fill the gaps described

in [18] and [16], accessibility and usability scholars

should cooperate on the issue. As Brajnik [19] also

pointed out, accessibility evaluation methods can benefit

from existing work in usability evaluation. Towards

building a framework, in the case of older users, general

work on usability of websites for older people can con-

stitute a starting point [20, 21]. However, there is still

almost no research on the relation of user experience and

perceived accessibility.

2.2 Accessibility and user experience

According to Hoel and Overby [22], there are at least three

different approaches to ensure universal accessibility; these

are syntactic accessibility, semantic accessibility and pro-

cedural accessibility. Syntactic accessibility concerns the

coding sent to the browser device. Procedural accessibility

ensures that similar services have the same sequencing of

events and the same patterns of interaction based on the

information entered into a system. Semantic accessibility

refers to information, services and consistent and predict-

able visualization of the basic elements, such as menus,

advertisement or text are located on a page.

General problems reported in the context of accessibility

for older user are: undesired content like advertisements,

slow connection, insecure connection, broken links, com-

patibility issue, poorly designed pages and undesired

actions like ‘websites that forced users to register’[20].

Problems have been identified in the performance of search

tasks by older participants, concerning information over-

load, complexity of the interface and directory-based

search due to inefficient use of the mouse [23].

Univ Access Inf Soc (2011) 10:391–402 393

123

According to Gao et al. [24] ‘‘previous studies often

recruited novice older users in their experiments or did not

control for level of web experience’’. The author empha-

sizes the difficulty in finding the real reason of several

problems, e.g., if they are due to age or to the lack of

experience. Moreover, experience factors are also in close

relationship with motivational factors like ‘‘beliefs, atti-

tudes, anxiety, fear, computer literacy, acceptability’’ [25].

These are the experiences that directly affect the perception

of accessibility. Another issue is the lack of understanding

and research on experiences of disabled users, for example

in case of blind users and their frustrating experiences with

Captcha’s [26].

Next to these three aspects of accessibility, another

emerging issue is the experience of the older users with

web and technological developments. In their theory of

user experience, McCarthy and Wright [27] claimed that

the user stories reflect UX factors like experiences

including the persons users interacted with, their actions,

their thoughts and beliefs, the context in which the expe-

rience is taking place, the tools in use, expectations,

memories, anxieties, hopes and the unfolding life of these

elements. User experience, however, is not a trait, but

rather a state, which varies while interacting. This means

that the perceived UX changes over time when interacting

with a system (or a website) [28, 29], which needs to be

considered in terms of ‘‘procedural accessibility’’.

According to Fairweather [30], older adults differ from

younger ones in the ways they experience the web, but

older and younger adults also have different ways to deal

with the situations by following different routes.

In a broader perspective, the user experience is very

dependent on the users’ context-related needs (tools that

she has, the environment where the experience takes place)

and her perception of the benefits from related technolo-

gies. For example, in the case of older users the most

important expectations from the use of technology are:

direct communication within the family [30], ‘‘thinking

together’’ and increase awareness of other family members

[31], measurable improvement in the feeling of connect-

edness with the family and involvement in the lives of

others [32], as well as connecting long distance to maintain

contacts, since phone calls are limited to verbal informa-

tion [33]. In this sense, the Internet’s meaningfulness and

accessibility is not only related to technical issues, but to

positive and negative experiences as a result of this media

use too.

The aim behind this work is to create interactions that

are universally accessible and therefore acceptable.

Towards such objective, accessibility must be viewed in a

broader scope, taking into account each problem in the

context it occurs, the experience of the user while dealing

with it, user’s needs, usage patterns, mind mapping of the

user and user experience. These considerations help to

bring accessibility principles to a point where interface

design, interaction and user experience can be designed in

a universally accessible way. The study of user require-

ments of older adults is an initial example for under-

standing this perspective.

3 Study: user experience of older people

3.1 Study setup

The conducted study was targeted to find the user-specific

problems of older users and optimization opportunities of

an online ticketing system for railway tickets. As state of

the art shows, there is a shift from the notion of ‘‘technical

accessibility’’ towards a broader understanding of ‘‘acces-

sibility’’, as for instance expressed by the terms ‘‘semantic’’

and ‘‘procedural’’ accessibility. However, frameworks like

WAI-AGE and other related studies on older users are still

referring to physical limitations and interface design issues.

This study is targeted to widen the state of the art and

current understanding of older online users, based on the

idea that older users differ in their user experience (com-

pared to younger users), which impacts on the way they use

the web as well as the types of problems they face. This

work intends to contribute to the idea that accessibility is

strongly influenced by both ‘‘soft facts’’ (semantic, proce-

dures, experience) and ‘‘hard facts’’ (technical). The first

step of the study was to obtain a wider point of view

through a questionnaire, which was embedded to the online

ticketing website of the national railway company. Sub-

sequently, the research was deepened with qualitative

analysis in the form of a focus group, expert interviews and

in-place interviews. The main objective was to figure out

the factors that affect older adults on their way to buy an

online ticket.

3.2 Online questionnaire

The online questionnaire was designed to define the users’

attitudes towards online ticketing and their experience with

railway tickets. Another aim was to uncover the possible

barriers that older user might be facing during their expe-

rience with the website, and especially with the online

ticketing system. Here, the priorities of the users and their

possible correlations to age or other factors were further

analyzed. The questionnaire was designed to reveal

potential differences between older and younger users in

their perception of the website. The first part contained

questions on age, education, preferences related to tickets

and railways, as well as other related personal knowledge

like their general attitude towards the Internet, the activities


123

carried out online and attitude over interactive media. In

the second part, the questions were targeted to investigate

the reasons for buying or not buying online tickets. In the

second, the users’ self-report about online ticket purchase

attitude; the possible reasons behind their behaviors were

asked. A general view of the users on the website was

asked through a matrix of aspects like ‘‘attractive’’/‘‘unat-

tractive’’, ‘‘time saving’’/‘‘time consuming’’, ‘‘usable’’/

‘‘unusable’’. The last part of the questionnaire was devoted

to free comments.

Over 1,300 respondents have attended to the questionnaire.

The number of valid records (only fully filled out question-

naires) was 1,208. As the user focus of the study is on older

people, the results are presented with an emphasis on age.

3.3 Survey results

The results of the study mainly indicate that there is a differ-

ence in the usage of the Internet and how the web is perceived

by the elderly due to different facts. Overall, in addition to

common problems reported in other studies, these results

show that different user experiences occur due to different

mobility needs or abilities, perception of benefits, different

aims and different tool usage patterns among older users.

For example, in answering the question ‘‘For which

reasons do you use the railway company website?’’, older

users gave more importance to the information, news and

offers that they find on the website (63%), where less

participants from the younger counterparts reported this as

a reason (54%). This result supports the demographical

findings on media consumption habits of older users

even in online ticket portal. For instance, the results from

Eurostat [6] and Austrian Statistics [7] about Internet usage

and demographics also show similar findings: older users

use the Internet mainly for info gathering and communi-

cation purposes (81% of all internet users who are between

55 and 74 years old use e-mail. 73% of same group use the

Internet for information finding relevant to product and

services. In comparison to younger users, people over 50

use Internet less for entertainment purposes).

In another question (as shown in Fig. 1), the participants

rated the website according to different factors. The

following factors were examined in a one-to-five scale

question related to the website: attractiveness, clarity of

overview, time-saving, informativeness, clarity of struc-

ture, speed and usability. In the results all users rated the

same site by using same items, but older users in general

rated the site more positively than the younger user groups.

Unfortunately, the study did not cover the reasons for this

positive rating, but the qualitative backups as well as other

studies indicate that a reason may be the overall appreci-

ation of the developments (as for instance Internet fea-

tures allowing to buy online) that make life easier. As

seen in details in Table 1, the results indicate a positive

perception of the website from both parties. The most

appreciated factor was the logical information structure of

the service. As Fig. 1 and Table 1 show, all the results

show (highly) significant differences in relation to the

involved age groups. The biggest difference is observed in

perception of time and the time-saving factor of the website:

older users do report that they perceive the site as signifi-

cantly more time saving than young users (\59). Other

highly significant findings concern the value-pairs ‘‘over-

view vs. confusing’’ and ‘‘fast vs. slow’’. The latter one also

refers to the notion of time and task-time, which—accord-

ing to this data—seems to be one of the major differences in

the experience of these two age groups.

The next question ‘‘Why do you buy rail tickets onli-

ne?’’(Fig. 2; Table 2) was asked to people who at least

once bought online railway ticket using the system

(answering the prerequisite question was the key to access

this question).

According to the results, both the easiness of payment,

the easiness of purchasing tickets online and its comfort

were significantly perceived as more important among

people older than 60 than among younger people. On the

other hand, ‘‘not having time on the station’’ was consid-

ered less important for the same group in comparison to

younger people, but still it was perceived as important.

In Fig. 2 and Table 2 it can be seen that the experience

of buying online is rated significantly higher by 60?

people, where other reasons like having less time or not

knowing to have the opportunity at the station were given

less importance, which indicates again the importance of

the benefits of the system with respect to other concerns (in

this case the overall time saving due to easier access to

ticketing). Here, two conclusions can be derived. First, the

elderly have usually more time and online buying has less

Fig. 1 Results from the perception matrix ‘‘please rate the following

items in reference to the website (1 = very attractive; 5 = very

unattractive)’’


123

to do with difficulties of traditional buying. Second, the

elderly rate a system for its sake, which means they use the

online system because it is easy and comfortable, but not

because they want to replace their rituals on traditional

buying ticket process. This also becomes clear when

looking at the opposite question.

In the opposite question (Table 3), which was answered

only by the users who had never bought online rail tickets

with the system but still filled in the questionnaire, older

adults (60?) preferred to a significant extent to buy at the

counter as they liked to do so as opposed to younger adults

(U = 1,869,00, n1 = 169, n2 = 29, p = 0,031). Privacy

reasons were considered more important by this group

compared to younger users, but remained at a neutral level.

The online system’s trickiness or complexity had less

effect in their decision not to buy online tickets compared

to younger users. On the other hand, younger users who did

not buy online tickets also considered that they prefer to

buy at the counter as they like to do it, but the complexity

and discomfort of the system were considered more

important among these (younger) users. The group of older

adults who answered this question can be considered as

users who have experience with the Internet but do not

have experience with online ticketing. According to their

answers, it is clear that they prefer to buy at the counter as

they like it more, and the complexity or easiness of the

system is not considered as important in their decision.

When comparing these two answers, it becomes clear

that if an older user buys a ticket online it is because she

recognizes benefits of the system such as easiness and

comfort, but if the user does not buy online it is not because

she perceives it as complex. Qualitative results in the fol-

lowing sections also support the findings.

3.4 Qualitative answers/comments (online

questionnaire)

At the end of questionnaire the users were asked to com-

ment on other possible barriers or concerns. Through their

Table 1 Results from ‘‘please rate the following items in reference to the website (1 = very attractive; 5 = very unattractive)’’

Age \59 Age 60? Stat. analysis Mann–Whitney U test

Mean SD Mean SD

Good overview/confusing** 2.48 0.89 2.22 0.91 U = 59,217.5, n1 = 961, n2 = 155, p = 0.000

Saves time/takes time** 2.66 1.07 2.28 1.07 U = 63,161.5, n = 962, n2 = 155, p = 0.002

Informativ/not informative* 2.52 1.13 2.23 1.07 U = 66,804, n1 = 961, n2 = 155, p = 0.028

Logic structure/confusing stucture* 2.25 0.91 2.11 0.94 U = 65,821, n1 = 961, n2 = 155, p = 0.016

Fast/slow** 2.78 1.11 2.56 1.17 U = 62,625.5, n1 = 962, n2 = 155, p = 0.001

Good usable/bad usable** 2.54 1.06 2.24 0.97 U = 63,899, n1 = 961, n2 = 155, p = 0.003

Attractive/not attractive** 2.49 1.04 2.25 1.08 U = 61,799, n1 = 961, n2 = 155, p = 0.000

*,** indicates statistical significance

Fig. 2 Graph of the question ‘‘Why do you buy rail tickets online

(1 = totally agree; 5 = totally disagree)’’

Table 2 Results of the question ‘‘Why do you buy rail tickets online (1 = totally agree; 5 = totally disagree)’’


Mean SD Mean SD

Because its comfortable** 1.54 0.96 1.26 0.75 U = 42,808, n1 = 806, n2 = 128, p = 0.000

Because its easier than purchasing at the counter** 2.03 1.32 1.49 0.92 U = 39,723 n1 = 806, n2 = 127 p = 0.000

Because I won’t have time at the station 2.04 1.27 2.24 1.31 U = 46,533, n1 = 806, n2 = 127, p = 0.079

I don’t know if there will be a counter at the station 3.02 1.60 2.88 1.50 U = 48,415, n1 = 805, n2 = 127 p = 0.325

Because payment is easy** 2.10 1.31 1.53 0.96 U = 38,279 n1 = 805; n2 = 127, p = 0.000



123

comments, an insight about older adults’ problems was

obtained. Although the webpage and system was perceived

as generally well designed and clear in its sequence

according to the questionnaire, the comments indicate sev-

eral optimization opportunities according to the users’ needs.

In the qualitative part of the questionnaire, the oldest

group of older adults (?65) did not report any problem

related to other media (like cell phone/sms ticket etc.),

whereas the users between 60 and 65 years old reported

recommendations like ‘‘not able to find a time plan for

pocket pc’’, and the users between 40 and 59 asked for

different possibilities both on the web (paypal), related to

tickets (sms, cell phone, palm, Symbian cell phone) and

infrastructure in the stations (WLAN) and other related

possibilities such as teletext information about the time

plan. This feedback suggests that the oldest users who use

Internet services are not yet familiar with extended services

like SMS tickets or alternative payment services. Also, the

older adults mentioned several concerns but did not offer a

solution or some preference, whereas users between 60 and

65 years old offered examples from other websites like for

example airline online booking options. This also indicates

that the current digital divide is around 65 for the adoption

of upcoming technologies.

Users (from all age groups) almost equally mentioned

why they do not trust the system or why they do not prefer

to pay for tickets or buy tickets online, giving reasons like:

‘‘I was not able to use the ticket I bought online for my

transports in the city’’ or ‘‘Although I can manage my

trip from counter, the same trip is not available in the

same way online’’ or ‘‘I should pay the same amount of

money if I buy an online ticket, although in that case I

have to pay the paper and the ink as well’’.

By analyzing the comments, it was noticed that the users

are not discouraged when they discover problems during

interaction with the site. Noticeable effort of the users was

observed in trying to find out how the site works and

understanding the information presented. For instance,

some problems were reported (e.g., semantic problems due

to missing information) about searching for destinations

and train connections. Again the experiences reported in

the qualitative part of the questionnaire show that one

common way of solving this kind of problem is to check

another equivalent but better-known travel connections

with which they already have experience. Only after they

find out that the system works for a destination perceived

as equivalent, but does not work in the same way for the

one they are looking for, they start to buy these tickets from

the counter. Likewise, several comments indicate that some

users have tried to find out if these kinds of problems are

due to their knowledge or to the system.

In conclusion, people are likely to report technical

problems only if these are clearly identified as not due to

user’s lack of capabilities. On the other hand, all the pos-

sible recommendations or concerns related to either

semantic accessibility or procedural accessibility are not

likely to be reported, as the user is not sure if this is her

own fault or not. But as a result of negative experience—

which might only be assumed at this stage—due to the

procedural and semantic problems they change their usage

patterns, avoid using the system, etc. This point is very

important and needs to be further researched, as it is very

hard to collect these problems from users, if they do not

report them. Additionally, older users (not very different

from all users) have their own ways of dealing with

problems. As far as they can control the system and reach a

solution, they do not like to report negative experiences.

But actually these experiences usually sum up to barriers at

the end. With the help of different techniques, it might be

possible to collect these experiences and react to them

before it is too late. For example, the Experience Sampling

Method (ESM), a psychological self-reporting in situ

method for collecting information about the context and the

content of the daily life of individuals, could be used for

this purpose [34].

3.5 Focus group

The focus group was targeted to figure out the procedural

and semantic factors that might create barriers for older

users, and their relations to the older users’ daily experi-

ences. The group was conducted with 14 older adults, 7

males and 7 females (all over 65 years old). They were

Table 3 Results of the question ‘‘Why do you not buy rail tickets online (1 = totally agree; 5 = totally disagree)’’


Mean SD Mean SD

Because buying online is complex/tricky/uncomfortable* 2.67 1.42 3.23 1.38 U = 1,960.00 n1 = 169, n2 = 30, p = 0.043

Because I like buying at the counter more* 2.44 1.56 1.76 1.24 U = 1,869.00 n1 = 169, n2 = 29, p = 0.031

Because online payment is complex 2.62 1.49 2.86 1.46 U = 2,175.50 n1 = 169, n2 = 29, p = 0.321

Because of privacy reasons (stay anonymous) 3.69 1.60 3.41 1.66 U = 2,202.50 n1 = 169, n2 = 29, p = 0.348



123

selected randomly among senior railway discount card

holders. They are all (according to self-reporting) experi-

enced with the existing online ticketing system and capable

of using the Internet easily. All of them have bought online

rail tickets at least once.

The focus group helped to identify more ‘‘general’’

issues that people experience using the site in contrast to the

rather task-focused and detailed feedback obtained through

the online questionnaire. General issues in this context are

understood as value factors of the website (e.g., perception

of privacy and security in online paying processes). In this

way, it was possible to deepen the discussion in the group

on some of the issues and circumstances reported, which

was not possible with the online questionnaire.

During the focus group participants mostly reported

positive experiences and feelings related to the

existing system. For example, Participant 1 stated

‘‘Basically I am very happy with…’’. Participants

reported a common fear to start using web-based

systems (referring to a feeling of insecurity the first

time they were using the system), especially when

they are making an online payment. It was also

mentioned by the participants that their user group—

due to age—can be considered as more likely to be

novice in the use of the Internet. For example, par-

ticipant 11 explained that ‘‘the website should have

been designed considering laymen, in my age people

have a common fear to start with it’’.

Summarizing different aspects concerning the particular

website under investigation, different issues were identified

that might be as well relevant not only to this but also to

general web and online ticketing design. In this regard,

according to the results from the focus group, user guid-

ance during the online ticketing process needs improve-

ments. Especially, an ‘‘end reporting’’ like a final summary,

which includes the display of all kind of selected infor-

mation up to that time to control the data before com-

pleting the process and making the payment, was

considered as a necessity. This was reported together with

the fear of completing the transaction without controlling

the data. During the online ticket purchase process, the

current selections of the user (route/price/payment oppor-

tunities, etc.) must be clear and must be presented in a

consistent way.

Participants also provided several recommendations.

Especially, the names of the navigation elements and

several links that help to travel inside the ticketing process,

providing shortcuts to different processes, must be clearly

designed and named. In contrast to initial thoughts that

older users might have a problem with the language, as

many expressions on the site were in English, like ‘‘lost and

found’’ or ‘‘online ticket’’ (etc.), though the site’s main

language is German, it came out that older users come

along quite well with such issues. Although they mention

that they would prefer using the site with all expressions in

German, they said that they got used to the English version

or mixed versions.

Current functionalities of the website, the information

supplied and the online ticketing system were perceived as

a good opportunity and therefore appraised. Generally, the

users wished that the online information and ticketing

system and the potential of cross-referencing information is

enhanced, so that one can find all related info at a time

(cross-referencing describes linking relevant and semanti-

cally related information to user selections and context

awareness, e.g., buying a ticket for a certain destination the

system should give advice about local and related tickets

that might be useful or interesting). At this point, the

linking of several pieces of information must follow the

needs of the user, and it should never lead to false rec-

ommendations or be misunderstood as advertising. In this

sense advertising is understood as information without any

comprehensible reason and without any semantic relation

to the content and context provided.

The focus group was a good opportunity to get an

insight regarding experienced older users and their atti-

tudes about online ticketing and advertising. Experienced

older users reported their problems and their needs related

to the specific website. They had a clear idea about what

they like and what they do not like about the system.

For example, according to participant 2, ‘‘Through the

web service one should encourage people through giving

embedded information (e.g., alternative products), but

while doing this the system must be designed in a way that

this extra information should never cause user to have fear

to buy something that might than turn out to be the wrong

thing’’. Participant 11 stated: ‘‘I would like to have the

opportunity to choose from offers that are related to my

selected destination’’.

These comments and further discussions indicate a dif-

ferentiation between random advertising and tailored info

usage, although older people do not prefer non-related/

random advertisement on the web pages. The participants

agreed on the fact that presenting too many offers at a time

might result in decreased perception and inefficient han-

dling of the system. The advertisement should not block

the main usage and relate to the context. The participants

also agreed that such semantic cross links to relevant offers

are not considered as troublesome as long as it is possible

to choose among them, as well as to ignore them. Partici-

pant 11 stated: ‘‘The one who searches for a specific des-

tination does not look at the offer given by the system’’.

Which means that offers are for those who need more

information, those who are clear about what to buy will not

necessarily be distracted.


123

Older users are not against advertisement; on the con-

trary they defined this as an enriching experience for

acquiring related information without looking for it, as long

as it provides an added value. This finding was rather

surprising, as some guidelines indicate that older users are

disturbed by this kind of website contents. In contrast, it

was noticed that older users perceive advertisements as a

way to receive more information. This finding might

somehow be underpinned by the quantitative data that was

found and discussed earlier in this article, which indicates

that older users are ‘‘information seekers’’. However, this

discussion indicates a need of researching on the benefits

and harms of different type of advertising and cross-linking

possibilities for older users.

These findings correlate with the findings of Sangangam

and Kurniawan [35], who state that unwanted content

hinders the experience of older web users. But according to

the findings of the focus group, in the case of online

information—especially for complex information like rail,

tariff, price and travel information—contextual and

meaningful ‘‘advertisement’’ in the form of semantic offers

is appreciated by older uses. The reason is that it might

enhance the possibilities of online investigations, which

makes the online services more attractive. A general

overview of the conclusions of the whole study is provided

in the next section.

4 Discussion and future work

In current research, accessibility studies mainly focus on

the accessibility of the medium and the software. In the

study presented in this paper, it was found that, although

older adults do not show major differences from their

younger counterparts in their needs and preferences related

to the existing online ticketing service, they differentiate

according to their experiences (e.g., perceptions, motiva-

tions, prior experiences with similar systems, etc.) with the

specific website. The obtained results lead to conclusions

regarding:

1. Older user’s experiences with web services

2. Ticketing services related recommendations

3. WCAG 2.0 optimization possibilities

4. Future challenges.

4.1 Older user’s experiences with web services

A very significant result of the study is that older user’s

perceive the benefits of the ticketing portal differently

in comparison to their younger counterparts (results of

the online questionnaire, later referred to ‘‘Survey

Results’’). This result brings the following contributions

to the area:

Finding 1 Older users distinguish between real life

ticketing services and web ticketing services in their per-

ception of benefits (Survey Result). Therefore, benefits and

harms of using one of two services must be clear for the

older user. In detail:

• Older adults who buy tickets online perceived online

service related functions as significantly more impor-

tant than younger users in means of perceived comfort

and easiness.

• Older users prefer online services as they experience

this as more comfortable (in case they have once

chosen to use the online system instead of buying from

the counter). But if they did not choose online services,

this was not because they found it uncomfortable or

cumbersome but for other reasons than that.

• Older adults perceive the web environment as a real

environment and want to take real feedback like ‘‘a

confirmation for payment’’ and ‘‘a guide that indicates

what to do next’’. They do not have problems with

interaction as long as they can control it. This result

also indicates a difference in user experience related to

one’s own needs (Focus Group).

Finding 2 Older adults experience the functions of the

web service more positively than younger users (Survey

Result):

• Older adults rather do not report or define the problems

they experienced. The number of reported problems

and comparisons with other services increases inversely

in correlation with age (Survey-Qualitative Part).

• Older adults are less concerned with, and less critical

about technical problems and privacy issues, as long as

the system is consistent with its results and allows the

users to do what they want to do (Survey Result in

combination with focus group and qualitative feedback

of survey).

4.2 Ticketing services related recommendations

The survey results contribute to the state of the art

regarding the accessibility of ticketing portal web services

as follows:

Finding 1 Tailored advertisement is not perceived as

promotion, but rather as contextual and useful information

(Result from survey-qualitative comments part and focus

group).

• Tailored offers and alternative travel options should

replace misleading advertisements within the ticketing

and information process.


123

• Experience-centered arrangement of ‘‘information’’ can

increase the attractiveness of the portal and enhance the

user’s interest.

• Direct linking of relevant information instead of simply

placing advertisements (with no further logic, which

will decrease the value of the services) helps user to see

easily the benefits and therefore it is important for a

better user experience.

Finding 2 The older user wants to get more information

in a way that the online portal can be used for investiga-

tions, to compare prices, travel opportunities and other

relevant information (Result from survey-qualitative com-

ments part and focus group).

• In that case the cross linking of different kind of

information (and not only offers) is perceived as useful.

• The placement and presentation of this information

must be designed according to older users mind

mapping and usage patterns, so that they can benefit

from it in an optimized way.

4.3 Optimization of WCAG 2.0

In the study several aspects emerged which can add value

to the existing accessibility guidelines. In Table 4 the most

common problems, given solutions in WCAG 2.0 and

possible contributions are suggested.

4.4 Future research

Existing accessibility requirements are very statically

designed, which makes their applications for older users

and for new technologies very difficult. It should not be

forgotten that the borders between technological products

and real world are blurring. In order to expand the scope of

accessibility research regarding technology for older users

towards new interactions and experiences, pointing two

research streams for future research are proposed.

First of all, accessibility research should consider that

computing is breaking the barriers of ‘‘desktop’’ or even

‘‘mobile’’ computing, heading towards ‘‘pervasive’’ and

‘‘ubiquitous’’ computing. Understanding of computing

includes a wide design space for user interfaces and

interaction imposing further challenges for technical,

semantic and procedural accessibility beyond current

understanding of (web) accessibility. Accessibility research

of advanced computing should concentrate on an experi-

ence-based process and a bottom-up research agenda for

expanding accessibility requirements to every context. The

underlying aim is to focus on a standardizable but still

dynamic framework for developing accessible user expe-

riences for future technologies.

Secondly, another challenge that is not yet addressed is

collecting usage patterns in order to define accessibility

requirements. Older users are not likely to report problems

that they can partly deal with, as they prefer to solve these

Table 4 Problems reported by older adults, related WCAG guidelines and further implications

Identified issues WCAG 2.0 Addition

Organization of information is complicated 3.1 Readable and

3.2 Predictable

Investigating further on older peoples reading habits and cognitive

problem solving processes. By using techniques like probing or

ESM (experience sampling method), a better insight can be

gathered from users

Older users tend not to report problems 3.3 Input

Assistance

(context aware)

Adding context aware output assistance for problem reporting, which

helps at the time the user faces a problem. In and output models

must support different type of users, they must be designed specific

to the foreseen needs

‘‘End-decision’’ making in online processes is

uncomfortable, especially in online purchase

systems

3.3.4 Error

Prevention and

2.4 Navigable

Support users’ awareness on critical information and sequence

changes and make feedback recognizable to the older user

Names of navigation elements are not clear 3.1 Readable and

2.4 Navigable

Set older user-specific requirements for linking and naming including

link number, link size, language, etc

Tailored information/advertisement is not perceived

as promotion but as contextual and useful

information

Define and standardize the placement of tailored information with

rules on the page in relation with its relevance for the prospective

user

Older users are explorers and often expect to get a

wider range of information on websites

Investigate older users experiences to use your site (e.g., purchase

tickets in contrast to purely information purpose) and provide a

tailored information pool if necessary

Older adults want to take real feedback like ‘‘a

guide that indicates what to do next’’

Guideline 3.3 Input

Assistance

Set rules for the language and placement of assistance in an

understandable way. Older users do not have problems with

interaction as long as they can control interaction


123

problems themselves, but in the long term this might cause

the rejection of a technology due to a significant decrease

in the benefits for the user. The patterns of user interaction

when dealing with such problems must be collected and

analyzed and reflected in the (re)design. Inter-disciplinary

methods could be very useful for gathering user feedback

in this respect. Several human–computer interaction

methods can be applied to the accessibility research both to

gather insight on problems (e.g., probing [36]) and to report

these problems to technical developers (e.g., personas [37])

in a dynamic form.

The results presented in this study must be seen as an

initial step for researching the older users’ experiences with

technologies, their expectation from a technological prod-

uct, their expected benefits and perceived harms from

interacting with it.

References

1. Buxton, B.: Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design

Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

(2007)

2. Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience—a research

agenda. Behav Inf Technol 25(2), 91–97 (2006)

3. Lazar J.: Universal Usability: Designing Computer Interfaces for

Diverse User Populations. John Wiley and Sons (2007)

4. Stephanidis, C.: Universal Access. In: HCI: Towards an Infor-

mation Society for All, Proceedings of HCI International ‘2001

(the 9th International Conference on Human-Computer Interac-

tion), New Orleans, USA, August 5-10, 2001, Volume 3, Law-

rence Erlbaum (2001)

5. Empirica: Assessment of the Senior Market for ICT Progress

and Developments, Bonn and Bruxells, http://ec.europa.eu/

information_society/newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm?item_id

=4286. Accessed 17.01.2011 (2008)

6. Europaische Kommision Eurostat: Wissenschaft und Technolo-

gie. Accessed on 01 December 2009. http://epp.eurostat.ec.

europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136250,0_45572555&_dad=

portal&_schema=PORTAL (2004)

7. Statistik Austria: IKT-Einsatz in Haushalten 2008 Wien. http://

www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/informationsgesellschaft/ikt-

einsatz_in_haushalten/index.html. Accessed 01.12.2009 (2008)

8. WAI-AGE Initiative. http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/. Acces-

sed 17.01.2011

9. Hanson VL.: Age and web access: the next generation. In: W4A

‘09: Proceedings of the 2009 International Cross-Disciplinary

Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A), ACM, pp. 7–15 (2009)

10. Hoel, T., Overby, E.: Access to digital information—the need for

a change of paradigm. T4P Conference http://www.t4p.no/t4p.no/

conference/programme/workshop/media/Overby-WS3-paper.pdf.

Accessed 17.01.2011 (2007)

11. DiBlas, N., Paolini, P., Speroni, M.: Usable accessibility to the

Web for blind users. In: Stary, C., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) User-

centered interaction paradigms for universal access in the infor-

mation society. lecture Notes in Computer Science, No 3196.

Springer, Berlin (2004)

12. Thatcher, J., Waddell, C.D., Henry, S.L., Swierenga, S., Urban,

M.D., Burks, M., Regan, B., Bohman, P.: Constructing accessible

web sites. Glasshaus, San Francisco (2003)

13. Shneiderman, B.: Universal usability. Commun ACM 43(5),

85–91 (2000)

14. Petrie, H., Kheir, O.: The relationship between accessibility and

usability of websites. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference

on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California,

USA, April 28—May 03, 2007). CHI’07 (2007)

15. Proceedings of Accessible Design in a Digital World Conference,

How Web Accessibility Guidelines Apply to Design for the

Ageing Population, York, UK (2008)

16. W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, W3C Candidate

Recommendation 30 April 2008 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/

CR-WCAG20-20080430/

17. Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J., Petrie H, Lauke, P.,

Ball, S.: Accessibility 2.0: people, policies and processes. In:

W4A ‘07: Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplin-

ary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), ACM, 2007,

pp. 138–147 (2007)

18. Baguma, R., Lubega, J.T.: A web design framework for improved

accessibility for people with disabilities (WDFAD). In: W4A ‘08:

Proceedings of the 2008 international cross-disciplinary confer-

ence on Web accessibility (W4A), ACM, pp. 134–140 (2008)

19. Brajnik GA.: Comparative test of web accessibility evaluation

methods. Assets ‘08: Proceedings of the 10th international ACM

SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility, ACM,

2008, pp. 113–120 (2008)

20. Zhao H.: Universal usability web design guidelines for the elderly

(age 65 and older) Universal Usability in Practice, http://www.

otal.umd.edu/UUPractice/elderly/. Accessed 01.12.2009 (2001)

21. Coyne, K.P., Nielsen, J.: Web usability for senior citizens—

design guidelines based on usability studies with people age 65

and older. Nielsen Norman Group, April 2002, pp. 126. An

overview is available at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/seniors.

html. Accessed 01.12. 2009 (2002)

22. Hoel, T., Overby, E.: Access to digital information—the need for

a change of paradigm online available: http://www.t4p.no/t4p.

no/conference/programme/workshop/media/Overby-WS3-paper.

pdf. Accessed 01.12. 2009

23. Sayago, S., Blat, J.: A preliminary usability evaluation of strat-

egies for seeking online information with elderly people. In:

W4A ‘07: Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplin-

ary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), ACM, 2007,

pp. 54–57 (2007)

24. Gao, Q., Sato, H., Rau, P., Asano, Y., Jacko, J.: (eds): Design

Effective Navigation Tools for Older Web Users. Springer,

Berlin, LNCS 4550, pp. 765–773 (2007)

25. Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Nischelwitzer, A.: On some aspects of

improving mobile applications for the elderly. In: Stephanidis, C.

(ed.) Coping with Diversity in Universal Access, Research and

Development Methods in Universal Access, Lecture Notes in

Computer Science (LNCS 4554), pp. 923–932. Berlin, New York

(2007)

26. Bigham, J.P., Cavender, A.: Evaluating existing audio CAPT-

CHAs and an interface optimized for non-visual use. In: Pro-

ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems CHI 2009: 1829–1838 (2009)

27. McCarthy, J., Wright, P.C.: Putting ‘felt-life’ at the centre of

human-computer interaction (HCI) Cog Tech Work 7,

pp. 262–271 (2005)

28. Benford, S., Giannachi, G., Koleva, B., Rodden, T.: From inter-

action to trajectories: designing coherent journeys through user

experiences. In: Proceedings of the 27th international Conference

on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Boston, MA, USA,

April 04–09, 2009). CHI ‘09. ACM, New York, NY, pp. 709–718

(2009)

29. Wimmer, B., Woeckl, B., Leitner, M., Tscheligi, M.: Measuring

the dynamics of user experience in short interaction sequences.


123

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm?item_id=4286



http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=0,1136250,0_45572555&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL



http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/informationsgesellschaft/ikt-einsatz_in_haushalten/index.html



http://www.w3.org/WAI/WAI-AGE/

http://www.t4p.no/t4p.no/conference/programme/workshop/media/Overby-WS3-paper.pdf


http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/

http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-WCAG20-20080430/

http://www.otal.umd.edu/UUPractice/elderly/

http://www.otal.umd.edu/UUPractice/elderly/

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/seniors.html

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/seniors.html




In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human–Com-

puter Interaction: Extending Boundaries (NordiCHI ‘10). ACM,

New York, NY, USA, pp. 825–828 (2010)

30. Fairweather, PG.: How older and younger adults differ in their

approach to problem solving on a complex website. Assets ‘08:

Proceedings of the 10th international ACM SIGACCESS

conference on Computers and accessibility, ACM, pp. 67–72

(2008)

31. Mynatt ED, Rowan J, Craighill S, Jacobs, A.: Digital family

portraits: supporting peace of mind for extended family members.

In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems (Seattle, Washington, United States) CHI

‘01 ACM New York, NY, pp. 333–340 (2001)

32. Romero, N., Markopoulos, P., Baren, J., Ruyter, B., Ijsselsteijn,

W., Farshchian, B.: Connecting the family with awareness sys-

tems. Personal Ubiquitous Comput 11(4), 299–312 (2007)

33. Rodrıguez, M.D., Gonzalez, V.M., Favela, J., Santana, P.C.:

Home-based communication system for older adults and their

remote family. Comput Hum Behav 25(3), 609–618 (2009)

34. Larson, R., Csikszentmihalyi, M.: The experience sampling

method. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behav-

ioral Science 15, 41–56 (1983)

35. Sangangam, P., Kurniawan, S.: A three-countries case study of

older people’s browsing. In: Assets ‘06: Proceedings of the 8th

international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and

accessibility, ACM, pp. 223–224 (2006)

36. Boehner K, Vertesi, J, Sengers P, Dourish, P.: How HCI inter-

prets the probes. In: CHI ‘07: Proceedings of the SIGCHI con-

ference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM, 2007,

pp. 1077–1086 (2007)

37. Mulder, S.: The User is Always Right: A Practical guide to using

Personas for the Web. New Riders, California (2007)


123

designing accessible experiences for older users: user requirement analysis for a railway ticketing...

Documents