subasi ureq semantic accessiblity final

User requirement analysis for a railway

ticketing portal for

“older users”

International Cross-Disciplinary

Conference on Web Accessibility Leitner I Subasi I Höller I

Geven I Tscheligi

April 2009

Delivering THE User Experience –

Aim of the Project (Paper)

In this paper we present results concerning universal accessibility

for older users of a nationwide railway ticket and travel

Information portal.

The aim of our study is to reveal relevant findings, which are

currently affecting the usage of this portal negatively.

Website of the Austrian Railways: www.oebb.at


Content

• User Requirement analysis – Literature survey– Focus groups– Interviews– Questionnaire

• Analysis of Findings– Portal related results– User group related results

• Conclusions on Usability and Accessibility


Literature Survey

• General:– Demographics in Austria– Comparative studies with Europe– Internet Usage in Austria– Comparative results within Europe

• Austrian Railways specific:– Reports from other research projects (transport,

railways…)– Reported requests from users

• Guidelines:– General requirements, older user specific requirements,

ticketing portal related requirements.


Literature Survey (Results & Indicators)

• The target group of future users shall not be a homogenous group.

• Ticketing process must be technically and more importantly semantically accessible to this inhomogeneous user group

• Process must be understandable and logical for all user groups in all levels

• Sublevels of the system must be consistent with the process• Users must have the chance to get help in needed points

according to their needs


Portal analysis

• The design and usage of interactive elements, color coding, numbering

• Vertical process vs horizontal process (consistency in sub-levels)• Start page, orientation, data request from user• Help systems (visual, text, audio, video), placement• Help systems: technical, contextual (help icons)• Help systems : Choosing the contrast, type size, audio help• Best practice of tables, navigation elements• Importance of buttons: „Back“, „Cancel“ and „Continue“• Importance of price and trade –off• Placement of terms of use• Reservation systems• Connection to related materials (Stops, train specifications…)


Interviews

• Interviews in railway station• 20 People (10 older then 60 yeas, 10 between 45 and 60)• Objectives of the interviews

– Language specific questions (wordings)– Reasons for consulting the counter personnel (why buying

at the counter and not in the internet/ticket machine)– Information needs on railway tickets


Results from interviews (1/3)

• Importance of correct language, wording and natural sentences• People mostly do understand the often english-based web

language but would prefer german based wordings• Reasons for consulting the counter personnel:

– Learn about different options for price and travel opportunities which the internet cannot provide

– Learn about possibilities for “non-routine trips” which the internet is currently not able to provide

• Other Findings

– Importance of information about train connections and services in buying process

– Tariff information, discount possibilities, terms of use must be introduced in earlier stages in a clear way

– Different information needs for different types of tickets


Results of interviews (2/3)

Information relevant for buying (online) Tickets

Michael Leitner

Kann man glaub ich nicht lesen - ist zu klein die schrift in den grafiken


Results of interviews (3/3)

Why people buy tickets at the counter


Focus Groups

• Focus Group with 14 elderly customers• All users were internet affine and had used the existing online

portal at least once (at least bought one ticket online)• Objectives

– Discuss user experiences and impressions using the site– Discuss improvements and limitations of the site– Overall: gather age specific knowledge on using ticketing

and buying processes


Results of focus groups

• Elderly people in principle appreciate the use of online systems

• Users report positive experiences with the portal• Age related findings:

– Elderly people report fear of loosing control especially in buying process (credit card use)

– First usage (with little internet know-how) is problematic– Advertisements in the context of information and ticketing

processes is wanted as far as it is tailored information– Advertisements (and ticket offers) provide knowledge the

let users browse and explore their possibilities


Online Questionnaire

Questionnaire Outline: • 21 Questions• 1 Month online duration• Over 1200 valid responds

Parts and Aims:• Age, education, internet usage, technology usage• Why/why not buying online tickets• Perception of website matrix (attractiveness, clearness…)• Free comments, recommendations


Sample Results of Online Questionnaire (1/2)

1

2

3

4

5

because it is comfortable

because it is easier aspurchasing at the counter

because I won´t have time atthe station

I don´t know if there will bea counter at the station

because payment is easy

<59 60+

Figure 3: Why people buy rail tickets online (1 = totally agree; 5 = totally disagree)

Michael Leitner

kann man nicht lesen - graphik ist zu klein


Sample Results of Online Questionnaire (2/2)

1

2

3

4

5

because buying online iscomplex/tricky/uncomfortable

because I like buying at the counter more

because online payment iscomplex

because of privacy reasons (stay anonymous)

<59

60+

Figure 3: Why people DO NOT buy rail tickets online (1 = totally agree; 5 = totally disagree)


Overview: Ticketing portal related results

• Online Ticketing portal gives to less information on “non-routine trips”– For routine trips information is currently adequate

• Tailored information vs. advertisement– Information increases the attractiveness of website– Cross linking of different kind of information to increase the

possibilities to explore (“elderly users are explorers”)• Standard structure of ticketing process is urgently needed

– Clear identification where process starts and ends (buying)– Clear identification of actual progress

• Context relevant help is important • Use of “non-web” language increases the accessibility to

information (especially for elderly)


Overview: User group related results

• Older users do not show general antipathy towards the medium “internet”

• Once they have been in contact they appreciate the services even stronger than younger users– Eg.: elderly users appreciate online payment more than

younger users significantly• Older users expect realistic Feedback:

– “a confirmation for payment”– “a guide that indicates what to do next”

• Older adults are less concerned and less critical with technical problems as long as the system is consistent


Final Conclusions

Identified issues

WCAG 2.0 Addition

Organization of information is complicated

3.1 Readable and 3.2 Predictable

Investigate further on older peoples reading habits and cognitive problem solving processes

Older Users tend to not report problems

3.3 Input Assistance (context aware)

Add context aware output assistance for problem reporting in the time the user faces a problem


Final Conclusions

Identified issues

WCAG 2.0 Addition

End-decision making in online processes is uncomfortable, especially in online purchase systems

3.3.4 Error Prevention 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.


Final Conclusions

Identified issues

WCAG 2.0 Addition

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

Older users are explorers and often expect to get a wider range of information on websites

Investigate older users purposes to use your site (e.g. purchase tickets in contrast to purely information purpose) and provide a tailored information pool if necessary


Final Conclusions

Identified issues

WCAG 2.0 Addition

Older adults want to take real feedback like “a guide that indicates what to do next”.

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.


Future Work

• The system and technical specifications are still considered as basics when creating a website and they are treated as non- changeable facts.

• An accessible web is for all people and it should consider the end user from the very first step, users must be the starting point.

• Guidelines must be evaluated with end users and collected & merged.

• Collected data can be counted as basics for all and the control of this part can be automated.


Future Work

• Websites and web experience must be grouped according to user’s needs and perceptions.

• Basic websites like websites from governmental institutions e-health which are needed at first hand must have standardized interaction styles and orders.

• Older users are not likely to report problems but they are likely to solve these problems themselves, these patterns can be collected and analyzed.


THANK YOU

[email protected]

subasi ureq semantic accessiblity final

Technology