1
This monograph documents the results of research conducted in the Accessibility Evaluation Facility (AEF) of the Georgia Tech Research Institute. The AEF has performed a series of accessibility evaluations for both industry and government customers. Although information about the outcome of specific evaluations has been withheld, the data presented in this monograph is based upon general outcomes and lessons learned stemming from research conducted at the Georgia Tech Research Institute.
For additional information about this monograph please contact:
Dr. Brad Fain
Georgia Tech Research Institute
ELSYS/HSID/HSEB Mail Code 0840
Atlanta, GA30332-0840
Voice (404) 407-7261
Fax (404) 407-9261
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Introduction
Experience with Devices
Product Manual Format Preference
Automated Teller Machines (ATM)
Level of Experience
Difficulty Completing Device Related Activities
Usefulness of Features
Cell Phones
Level of Experience
Difficulty Completing Device Related Activities
Usefulness of Features
Distance Learning or Computer Based Training Software
Level of Experience
Difficulty Completing Device Related Activities
Usefulness of Features
Personal Digital Assistants (PDA)
Level of Experience
Difficulty Completing Device Related Activities
Usefulness of Features
Televisions
Level of Experience
Difficulty Completing Device Related Activities
Usefulness of Features
Voice Recognition Software
Level of Experience
Difficulty Completing Device Related Activities
Usefulness of Features
Appendix A: Georgia Tech Universal Design Survey
List of Tables
Table 1: Age of Participants.
Table 2: Experience with the Product Lines.
Table 3: Product Manual Preference for each User Type.
Table 4: Level of Experience with ATMs by Disability Type.
Table 5: Reported difficulty in Completing ATM Activities by User Type.
Table 6: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants without Vision.
Table 7: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Low Vision.
Table 8: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants without Hearing.
Table 9: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants that are Hard of Hearing.
Table 10: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Upper Mobility Impairments.
Table 11: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Lower Mobility Impairments.
Table 12: Level of Experience with Cellular Phones by Disability Type.
Table 13: Reported difficulty in Completing Cellular Phone Activities by User Type.
Table 14: Usefulness of Cellular Phone Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants without Vision.
Table 15: Usefulness of Cellular Phone Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Low Vision.
Table 16: Usefulness of Cellular Phone Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants that are Hard of Hearing.
Table 17: Usefulness of Cellular Phone Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Upper Mobility Impairments.
Table 18: Level of Experience with Distance Learning Software by Disability Type.
Table 19: Reported difficulty in Completing Distance Learning Software Activities by User Type.
Table 20: Usefulness of Distance Learning Software Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants without Vision.
Table 21: Usefulness of Distance Learning Software Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Low Vision.
Table 22: Usefulness of Distance Learning Software Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Upper Mobility Impairments.
Table 23: Level of Experience with PDAs by Disability Type.
Table 24: Reported difficulty in Completing PDA Activities by User Type.
Table 25: Usefulness of PDA Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants without Vision.
Table 26: Usefulness of PDA Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Low Vision.
Table 27: Usefulness of PDA Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Upper Mobility Impairments.
Table 28: Level of Experience with Televisions by Disability Type.
Table 29: Reported difficulty in Completing Television Activities by User Type.
Table 30: Usefulness of Television Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants without Vision.
Table 31: Usefulness of Television Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Low Vision.
Table 32: Usefulness of Television Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants without Hearing.
Table 33: Usefulness of Television Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants that are Hard of Hearing.
Table 34: Usefulness of Television Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Upper Mobility Impairments.
Table 35: Level of Experience with Voice Recognition Software by Disability Type.
Table 36: Reported difficulty in Completing Voice Recognition Software Activities by User Type.
Table 37: Usefulness of Voice Recognition Software Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants without Vision.
Table 38: Usefulness of Voice Recognition Software Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Low Vision.
Table 39: Usefulness of Voice Recognition Software Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants that are Hard of Hearing.
Introduction
A total of 402 individuals with disabilities participated in the Georgia Tech Universal Design survey (see Appendix A). The survey provided three general types of accessibility data on six device types: automated teller machines (ATMs), cell phones, distance learning or computer based training software, personal digital assistants (PDAs), televisions, and voice recognition software. For each device, participants were asked to (1) indicate their level of experience with the device, (2) estimate the level of disability-related difficulty in using the device, and (3) rate the usefulness of a set of disability-specific accessibility features that might be associated with the device. Most data are presented in tabular format. Where appropriate, the standard deviation (SD) of a measure has been indicated in parentheses.
The survey captured data from people with a wide range of disabilities, including vision (38%), hearing (29%), and both upper (37%) and lower (42%) mobility impairments. Summary statistics were compiled for six general areas of disability: blindness, low vision, deafness, hard of hearing, and upper and lower mobility impairments. Most respondents (75%) were 35-64 years of age. Table 1 contains a breakout of the survey participants by reported age.
Table 1: Age of Participants.
Age / Proportion of respondents18- 24 / 4%
25 - 34 / 14%
35 - 44 / 25%
45 - 54 / 31%
55 - 64 / 20%
65 - 74 / 5%
75 or older / 2%
As a whole, respondents tended to have a good deal of experience using ATMs, cell phones, and televisions, but little experience with distance learning/computer based training, voice recognition software, and PDAs (though this was sometimes dependent on a person’s disability, as discussed below). While people who are deaf seem to have the greatest difficulty in using voice recognition software, each of the remaining device types under examination presented the greatest barriers to users who are blind.
Experience with Devices
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of experience for each device on a four-point scale. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = no experience, 2 = little experience, 3 = some experience, and 4 = very experienced. Table 2 summarizes the indicated level of experience reported by users for each product line. Respondents were familiar with the use of ATMs, cellular telephones, and televisions. Respondents were less familiar with the use of distance learning/computer based training software, PDAs, and voice recognition software.
Table 2: Experience with the Product Lines.
Device Type / Mean (SD)Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) / 3.3 (1.0)
Cellular Telephones / 3.2 (1.0)
Distance Learning or Computer Based Training software / 2.0 (1.1)
Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) / 1.9 (1.1)
Televisions / 3.9 (0.5)
Voice Recognition Software / 1.8 (1.1)
Product Manual Format Preference
Participants were asked for their preferred format for product manuals. Values represent the proportion of respondents of a particular disability type that preferred that format.Table 3 contains the proportion of respondents that reported a preference for product manual format. While most users preferred a standard print manual, low vision users reported a preference for large print manuals and users without vision preferred either an audio tape manual or electronic manual in accessible HTML. Many users without vision also reported a preference for a Braille manual.
Table 3: Product Manual Preference for each User Type.
Blind / Low Vision / Deaf / Hard of Hearing / Upper Mobility / Lower MobilityStandard print / 2 / 24 / 64 / 54 / 43 / 48
Large print / 4 / 43 / 8 / 17 / 17 / 17
Electronic - web site / 21 / 10 / 0 / 5 / 17 / 15
Electronic - Adobe PDF format / 4 / 4 / 19 / 7 / 13 / 12
Audio tape / 29 / 6 / 0 / 3 / 2 / 2
Video instructions / 2 / 4 / 3 / 8 / 4 / 3
Braille / 29 / 2 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Other / 4 / 6 / 6 / 5 / 4 / 2
1
Automated Teller Machines (ATM)
For the most part, respondents indicated a fairly high level of experience with using ATM machines, along with low levels of difficulty in completing device-related activities. The exception seemed to be with participants without vision. These respondents indicated a slightly lower level of experience with ATMs than the other groups, though the majority in this group indicated they had at least some experience on this device. Furthermore, people without vision seemed to have a greater level of difficulty in using ATMs. While people in the other disability categories tended to have little or no trouble in accomplishing tasks, respondents who were blind indicated they had at least some difficulty on many tasks, including basic tasks such as locating accessible ATMs, making deposits, checking account balances, and printing a statement.
Level of Experience
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of experience using automated teller machines (ATMs) on a four-point scale. Results are presented in Table 4. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = no experience, 2 = little experience, 3 = some experience, and 4 = very experienced.
Table 4: Level of Experience with ATMs by Disability Type.
Disability Type / Mean (SD)Blind / 2.6 (1.0)
Low vision / 3.2 (1.0)
Deaf / 3.5 (0.9)
Hard of hearing / 3.3 (1.1)
Upper mobility / 3.3 (1.0)
Lower mobility / 3.4 (0.9)
Difficulty Completing Device Related Activities
Respondents estimated the difficulty they had in personally accomplishing activities in the previous year due to physical or cognitive limitations caused by a disability. Results are presented in Table 5. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = little or no difficulty, 2 = some difficulty, 3 = great difficulty. Users without vision reported great difficulty in performing the following activities:
- Locating an ATM
- Locating an accessible ATM
- Making a cash withdrawal
- Making a deposit
- Checking account balances
- Printing a statement
- Reading a receipt
Low vision users reported some difficulty in locating an accessible ATM, making a deposit, and reading the receipt. Users without hearing or hard of hearing users reported little difficulty in performing the activities associated with ATM usage. Users with mobility impairments reported some difficulty in locating an accessible ATM, inserting the bank card, entering the PIN number, making a cash withdrawal, making a deposit, retrieving a receipt, and retrieving the bank card.
Table 5: Reported difficulty in Completing ATM Activities by User Type.
Activity / Blind / Low Vision / Deaf / Hard of Hearing / Upper Mobility / Lower MobilityLocating an ATM / 2.3 (0.9) / 1.4 (0.6) / 1.1 (0.4) / 1.3
(0.6) / 1.3
(0.5) / 1.3
(0.5)
Locating an accessible ATM / 2.7 (0.8) / 1.8 (0.9) / 1.2 (0.5) / 1.5
(0.8) / 1.9
(0.8) / 1.9
(0.8)
Inserting the bank card / 1.8 (0.9) / 1.6 (0.7) / 1.1 (0.3) / 1.5
(0.8) / 1.9
(0.8) / 1.8
(0.8)
Remembering a PIN number / 1.2 (0.7) / 1.3 (0.7) / 1.3 (0.6) / 1.3
(0.6) / 1.3
(0.6) / 1.2
(0.5)
Entering a PIN number / 1.7 (1.0) / 1.5 (0.7) / 1.2 (0.5) / 1.5
(0.8) / 1.7
(0.8) / 1.7
(0.8)
Making a cash withdrawal / 2.3 (0.9) / 1.6 (0.7) / 1.1 (0.2) / 1.4
(0.7) / 1.8
(0.8) / 1.7
(0.8)
Making a deposit / 2.6 (0.8) / 1.7 (0.8) / 1.1 (0.3) / 1.5
(0.9) / 1.9
(0.9) / 1.8
(0.9)
Checking account balances / 2.4 (1.0) / 1.6 (0.8) / 1.2 (0.6) / 1.5
(0.8) / 1.6
(0.8) / 1.5
(0.8)
Printing a statement / 2.5 (0.9) / 1.6 (0.9) / 1.1 (0.6) / 1.3
(0.7) / 1.6
(0.9) / 1.5
(0.8)
Retrieving a receipt / 1.8 (1.0) / 1.6 (0.8) / 1.1 (0.2) / 1.4
(0.7) / 1.8
(0.9) / 1.8
(0.9)
Retrieving the bank card / 1.6 (0.9) / 1.5 (0.7) / 1.1 (0.4) / 1.4
(0.7) / 2.0
(0.8) / 1.9
(0.9)
Reading a receipt / 2.9 (0.6) / 1.8 (0.9) / 1.2 (0.6) / 1.3
(0.7) / 1.3
(0.6) / 1.3
(0.6)
Usefulness of Features
Participants were asked to estimate the usefulness of accessibility features associated with the device on a four-point scale. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = not useful, 2 = slightly useful, 3 = moderately useful, 4 = extremely useful. Features differed by disability typeand therefore are presented as such. Table 6 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users without vision. Features associated with the operation of an ATM with voice displays (Talking ATM) were consistently rated as useful. However, users rated voice control of ATMs as moderately useful. Users also rated items associated with touch discernable keys (nib on the ‘5’ key, keys discernable by touch, and Braille labels) as useful.
Table 6: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants without Vision.
Feature / Mean (SD)Private headphone jacks for Talking ATMs / 3.7 (0.8)
Replay control for Talking ATMs / 3.7 (0.8)
Instructions provided in audio / 3.6 (1.0)
Raised area (nib) on the '5' key / 3.6 (0.9)
Talking ATM (ATM with voice displays) / 3.6 (0.9)
Volume controls for Talking ATMs / 3.6 (0.9)
Ability to request additional time / 3.5 (1.0)
Keys on the keypad that are discernible by touch / 3.5 (1.0)
Pause control for Talking ATMs / 3.5 (1.0)
Braille keypads / 3.2 (1.2)
ATMs that can be controlled by a cell phone or PDA / 2.9 (1.3)
Large keys for the keypad / 2.6 (1.3)
Voice recognition for Talking ATMs / 2.6 (1.4)
High contrast displays / 1.7 (1.1)
Large fonts on the display / 1.7 (1.2)
Large display screens / 1.5 (1.0)
Table 7 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users with low vision. Users with low vision preferred to enhance the visual displays by increasing the contrast of the displays and introducing larger displays and keys, as opposed to using a voice display. Users with low vision also reported that the ability to request additional time is useful.
Table 7: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Low Vision.
Feature / Mean (SD)High contrast displays / 3.5 (0.9)
Ability to request additional time / 3.4 (1.1)
Large display screens / 3.4 (1.1)
Large fonts on the display / 3.4 (1.1)
Large keys for the keypad / 3.3 (1.2)
Replay control for Talking ATMs / 3.2 (1.2)
Keys on the keypad that are discernible by touch / 3.1 (1.4)
Pause control for Talking ATMs / 3.1 (1.3)
Instructions provided in audio / 2.9 (1.3)
Volume controls for Talking ATMs / 2.9 (1.3)
Raised area (nib) on the '5' key / 2.8 (1.5)
Private headphone jacks for Talking ATMs / 2.7 (1.4)
Talking ATM (ATM with voice displays) / 2.7 (1.3)
Voice recognition for Talking ATMs / 2.6 (1.3)
ATMs that can be controlled by a cell phone or PDA / 2.4 (1.3)
Braille keypads / 2.4 (1.5)
Table 8 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users without hearing. Users rated accessibility features associated with providing text or graphical equivalents of auditory information as useful.
Table 8: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants without Hearing.
Feature / Mean (SD)Visual alerts / 3.8 (0.5)
Graphical instructions / 3.6 (0.7)
Text equivalents for auditory information / 3.6 (0.9)
Remote control (cell phone or PDA) / 2.3 (1.5)
Table 9 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users that are hard of hearing. Users that are hard of hearing rated the usefulness of accessibility features associated with providing text or graphical equivalents of auditory information as useful. The rating scores of usefulness for users that are hard of hearing were slightly lower than scores associated with users without hearing.
Table 9: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants that are Hard of Hearing.
Feature / MeanText equivalents for auditory information / 3.4 (1.2)
Visual alerts / 3.3 (1.2)
Graphical instructions / 3.2 (1.2)
Remote control (cell phone or PDA) / 2.5 (1.5)
Table 10 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users with upper mobility impairments. Most users reported the listed accessibility features as being only moderately useful. The accessibility features receiving the highest scores were larger keys and increased spacing between the keys. Ease to press keys was also rated as a useful feature.
Table 10: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Upper Mobility Impairments.
Feature / Mean (SD)Increased space between adjacent keys / 3.1 (1.2)
Large keys for the keypad / 3.0 (1.2)
Keys that may be operated without human contact / 2.9 (1.4)
Touchscreen displays / 2.9 (1.3)
Detachable controls / 2.8 (1.4)
Replay control for Talking ATMs / 2.8 (1.3)
Voice recognition for Talking ATMs / 2.8 (1.4)
Rubberized keys / 2.7 (1.4)
Concave (curved inward) keys on the keypads / 2.6 (1.3)
Pause control for Talking ATMs / 2.6 (1.4)
Talking ATM (ATM with voice displays) / 2.6 (1.4)
Volume controls for Talking ATMs / 2.6 (1.4)
ATMs that can be controlled by a cell phone or PDA / 2.5 (1.4)
Raised area (nib) on the '5' key / 2.5 (1.4)
Private headphone jacks for Talking ATMs / 2.3 (1.4)
Table 11 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users with lower mobility impairments. Users rated the accessibility features listed in the survey as only moderately useful. Accessibility features associated with making the display screen easier to read (high contrast displays, large fonts, and large display screens) and larger keys were rated as most useful.
Table 11: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Lower Mobility Impairments.
Feature / Mean (SD)High contrast displays / 2.9 (1.3)
Large keys for the keypad / 2.9 (1.4)
Detachable controls / 2.8 (1.3)
Large display screens / 2.8 (1.3)
Touchscreen displays / 2.8 (1.3)
Large fonts on the display / 2.7 (1.4)
ATMs that can be controlled by a cell phone or PDA / 2.6 (1.4)
Keys on the keypad that are discernible by touch / 2.6 (1.4)
Replay control for Talking ATMs / 2.6 (1.4)
Voice recognition for Talking ATMs / 2.6 (1.4)
Pause control for Talking ATMs / 2.5 (1.4)
Voice Display (Talking ATM) / 2.5 (1.4)
Instructions provided in audio / 2.4 (1.3)
Volume controls for Talking ATMs / 2.4 (1.3)
Private headphone jacks for Talking ATMs / 2.2 (1.4)
1
Cell Phones
Respondents also indicated a fairly high level of experience with using cell phones. People who were deaf had a lower level of experience overall with this device, and seem to have a good deal of trouble using cell phones. People who were blind reported having great difficulty with many aspects of using this device, including determining signal strength, sending and receiving text messages, storing phone numbers, and accessing caller ID (functions and information that are normally only provided on the display).
Level of Experience
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of experience using cell phones on a four-point scale. Results are presented in Table 12. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = no experience, 2 = little experience, 3 = some experience, and 4 = very experienced. Most users were experienced with using cellular phones. Users with hearing impairments, particularly deaf users, were less experienced than others.
Table 12: Level of Experience with Cellular Phones by Disability Type.
Disability Type / Mean (SD)Blind / 3.4 (0.9)
Low vision / 3.2 (0.9)
Deaf / 1.9 (1.0)
Hard of hearing / 3.0 (0.9)
Upper mobility / 3.4 (0.8)
Lower mobility / 3.5 (0.8)
Difficulty Completing Device Related Activities
Respondents estimated the difficulty they had in personally accomplishing activities in the previous year due to physical or cognitive limitations caused by a disability. Results are presented in Table 13. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = little or no difficulty, 2 = some difficulty, 3 = great difficulty. Users without vision had great difficulty using the advanced functionality of cellular phones. Users without vision rated storing a phone number, recalling a stored phone number, receiving caller-id information, determining battery status, determining signal strength, detecting when the phone is in roam mode, and using text messaging as extremely difficult primarily because of the inaccessibility of the visual display. Low vision users reported the most difficulty in using text messaging features. Users with hearing impairments reported difficulty in receiving a phone call and accessing voice mail. Users with mobility impairments generally found cellular phones to be accessible but reported some difficulty in using text messaging.