China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Literature Review of Computer Tools for the Visually Impaired: A Focus on Search Engines
Published in Kayvan Najarian, Delaram Kahrobaei, Enrique Domínguez, Reza Soroushmehr, Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Medicine, 2022
Guy Meyer, Alan Wassyng, Mark Lawford, Kourosh Sabri, Shahram Shirani
As an example, consider a university web page terminal that allows students and staff to check for events and updates around campus. Studies have compared a collection of university sites that are ideally supposed to be accessible to all students and yet include surprising levels of inaccessibility (Harper and DeWaters, 2008; Menzi-Çetin et al., 2017; Muwanguzi and Lin, 2012). After evaluating the compliance levels of each site it becomes clear that most visually impaired students cannot access a substantial percentage of university content. This results in a lack of knowledge and frustration for the students. In addition, these sites did not comply with the Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines (WAI) published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Consortium (1999).
Common and Assistive Technology to Support People with Specific Learning Disabilities to Access Healthcare
Published in Christopher M. Hayre, Dave J. Muller, Marcia J. Scherer, Everyday Technologies in Healthcare, 2019
Dianne Chambers, Sharon Campbell
Accessibility of web-based content is an area that should be considered, and there are a number of tools that developers/website owners can use to ensure that they are meeting the needs of all users of a website. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) released updated guidelines, which include reference to the success criteria for people with learning disabilities (W3C WAI, 2018). The updated Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 suggest that developers include autocomplete features in commonly used fields, appropriate text spacing (or the ability to work with style sheets) in relation to line height, paragraph, letter and word spacing and provide timeout warnings for users. All of these considerations are relevant to people accessing healthcare on a computer or tablet device, including tasks such as making appointments and filling in electronic forms.
The Systemic User Experience Assessment
Published in Stefano Federici, Marcia J. Scherer, Assistive Technology Assessment Handbook, 2017
Simone Borsci, Masaaki Kurosu, Maria Laura Mele, Stefano Federici
The concept of accessibility is linked to that of rights of “access” to a wide “range of services, information, cultural exchanges, identity reaffirmations and social transactions […] seen as a basic right of citizens in many advanced society contexts” (Roulstone, 2010, p. 9). In this sense “Web accessibility” means that “people with disabilities can use the Web […] more specifically [they] can perceive, understand, navigate, and interact with the Web” (Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), 2006). Di Blas and colleagues stated that “W3C [World Wide Web Consortium] guidelines only guarantee ‘technical readability,’ that is, the very fact that screen readers can work; they do not ensure at all the fact that the Website is ‘accessible’ by blind users, in the sense that blind users can effectively access it.” (2004, p. 1). These authors underline that the most important aim of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is to ensure an effective user experience, or “usable accessibility” (Di Blas et al., 2004). It is interesting that although definitions of accessibility are less comprehensive, there is more agreement and better definition of methods of assessment than in the case of usability. Assessment of accessibility takes the form of objective analysis of the system through assessment of compliance with international guidelines, whereas there are no unique methods of evaluating usability. Usability evaluations focus on whether users achieve their goals, how easily they do so, and how satisfied they are, which makes usability a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach to assessment. Usability evaluation is driven by the personal (subjective) interaction experience immediately after the use. In tune with that usability is a subjective-oriented assessment to gather, with several methods, insights people performance and perception of an interactive system.
Web- and app-based tools for remote hearing assessment: a scoping review
Published in International Journal of Audiology, 2023
Ibrahim Almufarrij, Harvey Dillon, Piers Dawes, David R. Moore, Wai Yeung, Anna-Pavlina Charalambous, Chryssoula Thodi, Kevin J. Munro
Although dual sensory impairments (i.e. hearing and vision) are quite common among older adults (Dawes et al. 2014; Saunders and Echt 2007), many remote hearing assessment tools were developed with small, non-customisable buttons. Users of such tools can partially mitigate this issue by increasing the font and display sizes of their smartphones, tablets or computers. However, such issues may instantly deter users from completing the hearing test. Involving patients and the public in developing hearing-health tools could greatly assist in improving the usability of such tools (Vaisson et al. 2021). Using the Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines (http://www.w3.org/wai) while developing hearing-related tools will also help enhance the usability for older people and those with sensory, physical and cognitive impairments.
Development of the “Kalmer” relaxation intervention: co-design with stroke survivors with aphasia
Published in Disability and Rehabilitation, 2023
Rebecca El-Helou, Brooke Ryan, Ian Kneebone
It is important to note that a bias in this study’s participant sample likely exists as this study was conducted online with participants who had access to technology and were either independent in their use of technology and/or had support to participate. Other individuals with aphasia may not have sufficient IT literacy to access the intervention. Research trials in the future may therefore need to include IT support or involve carers to overcome this potential barrier to treatment. In addition to this, researchers may address previously identified barriers and facilitators to internet use by people with aphasia, to help mitigate digital exclusion [87]. Future trials may also wish to consider the guidelines and resources developed by the Cognitive and Learning Disabilities Accessibility Task Force, the Web Accessibility Initiative, or the World Wide Web Consortium (i.e., W3C) to improve accessibility for people with aphasia. Another potential bias in this study’s sample may exist given participants volunteered to participate in this study. Thus, we cannot rule out that participants with experience of relaxation may have been more likely to participate in the study and more likely to display positive attitudes towards relaxation.
The importance of individual predictors and psychosocial working conditions in assessing the work ability index of people with low vision
Published in International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2021
Maja Belevska, Jovica Jovanovic, Emilija Gjosevska Dastevska, Zoran Velkovski
Using a Tukey post hoc analysis, we assessed the average WAI scores in relation to the level of education and professional orientation of all 450 respondents with low vision, and found a statistically significant difference in relation to laborers/office workers (r = 0.003) in favor of the better work ability of office workers; to laborers/farmers (r = 0.005) in favor of the better work ability of laborers; to laborers/others (r = 0.004) in favor of the better work ability of respondents from other professions; to office workers/farmers (r = 0.001) in favor of the better work ability of office workers; and to farmers/others (r = 0.003) in favor of the better work ability of respondents from other professions. Lavasani et al. [30] aimed at measuring the work ability of employees with a disability and reported that the WAI for employees with primary education was 28.92 ± 8.36, with secondary education was 30.99 ± 7.77 and with higher education was 41.11 ± 4.47. In similar research focused on the work ability of various categories of medical and nursing staff in hospitals, Habibi et al. [37] found that the WAI score was 38.25 ± 4.4 and that there were WAI variations regarding the level of education, qualifications and subprofessional specifications.