Log-based Personalization Tool As An Assistive Technology

Solutions for personalizing websites by automatically changing user interfaces (UI) to fit users' needs have been proposed by the industry and the academy in order to provide individualized user experience. However, the users' perception of changes in the tailored UI is still a topic to be studied. This work presents a tool developed to capture logs, generate, and apply individual adjustments, personalizing websites as people use it. In addition, the tool is proposed as a log-based personalization assistive technology and it is published to the community. The tool was evaluated in depth, qualitatively, counting with the participation of 4 blind users fluent in using the Web, knowing personalization existing features, and fluent on using computers. They were invited so that the understanding of outcomes and limitations of the personalization features offered could be better understood. Based on the results, we highlight possible scenarios where similar approaches could be used to assist people with disabilities and reinforce the importance of considering the users' perception of changes automatically performed in UIs. © 2014 Springer International Publishing.8510 LNCSPART 1433444Abascal, J., Nicolle, C., Moving towards inclusive design guidelines for socially and ethically aware HCI (2005) Interacting with Computers, 17 (5), pp. 484-505Arroyo, E., Selker, T., Wei, W., Usability tool for analysis of web designs using mouse tracks (2006) Proceedings of ACM CHI 2006 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Work-in-Progress, 2, pp. 484-489Atterer, R., Schmidt, A., Tracking the interaction of users with ajax applications for usability testing (2007) CHI, pp. 1347-1350. , http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1240624.1240828, Rosson, M.B., Gilmore, D.J. (eds.) ACMBalbo, S., Goschnick, S., Tong, D., Paris, C., Leading web usability evaluations to wauter AusWeb 2005 - Australian World Wide Web Conference 2005 (2005)Bigham, J.P., Cavender, A., Brudvik, J.T., Wobbrock, J.O., Ladner, R.E., Webinsitu: A comparative analysis of blind and sighted browsing behavior (2007) ASSETS, pp. 51-58. , http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1296843.1296854, Pontelli, E., Trewin, S. (eds.)Carta, T., Paternò, F., De Santana, V.F., Web Usability Probe: A Tool for Supporting Remote Usability Evaluation of Web Sites (2011) LNCS, 6949, pp. 349-357. , Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part IV. Springer, HeidelbergEtgen, M., Cantor, J., What does getting WET (web event-logging tool) mean for web usability? Proceedings of 5th Conference on Human Factors & the Web (1999)(2009) Google Analytics, , http://www.google.com/analyticsHilbert, D.M., Redmiles, D.F., Extracting usability information from user interface events (2000) ACM Comput. Surv., 32 (4), pp. 384-421Hong, J.I., Heer, J., Waterson, S., Landay, J.A., Webquilt: A proxy-based approach to remote web usability testing (2001) ACM Transactions on Information Systems(1998) ISO-9241 - Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Display Terminals (VDTs), Part 11: Guidance on Usability, , International Standardization OrganizationIvory, M.Y., Hearst, M.A., The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces (2001) ACM Comput. Surv., 33 (4), pp. 470-516MBUI-XG - Model-Based UI XG (2010) Model-Based UI XG Final Report, , http://www.w3.org/2007/uwa/editors-drafts/mbui/Model-Based-UI-XG- FinalReport.htmlMikroyannidis, A., Theodoulidis, B., A Theoretical Framework and an Implementation Architecture for Self Adaptive Web Sites (2004) Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI 2004), pp. 558-561Mobasher, B., Cooley, R., Srivastava, J., Automatic Personalization Based on Web Usage Mining (2000) Communications of the ACM, 43 (8)Mørch, A., Three Levels of End-User Tailoring: Customization, Integration, and Extension 3rd Decennial Aarhus Conference, Aarhus, Denmark (1995)Nielsen, J., Customization of IUs and Products (2009) Jabob Nielsen's Alertbox, , http://www.useit.com/alertbox/customization.html(2002) NIST - WebVIP, , http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/WebTools/WebVIP/overview.htmlPaganelli, L., Paternò, F., Intelligent analysis of user interactions with web applications (2002) IUI 2002: Proc. of the 7th Int. Conf. on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 111-118Paternò, F., Santoro, C., Remote usability evaluation: Discussion of a general framework and experiences from research with a specific tool (2008) Maturing UsabilityPierrakos, D., Paliouras, G., Paratheodorou, C., Spyropoulos, C.D., Web Usage Mining as a Tool for Personalization: A Survey (2003) User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 13, pp. 311-372Rubin, J., (1994) Handbook of Usability Testing: How to Plan, Design, and Conduct Effective Tests, 1st Edn., , John Wiley & Sons IncSantana, V.F., Baranauskas, M.C.C., Summarizing observational client-side data to reveal web usage patterns Proc. of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2010 (2010), , http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1774088.1774344Santana, V.F., Paula, R.A., Web Accessibility Snapshot: An Effort to Reveal Coding Guidelines Compliance 10th Int. Cross-Disciplinary Conf. on Web Accessibility (2013)(2005) Web Accessibility Initiative - Introduction Do Web Accessibility, , http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.ph

Understanding accessibility problems of blind users on the web

The web is an eminently visual medium. However, not everyone accesses web content visually. Research shows that using the web is challenging for blind users. To create a good user experience for blind users on the web, we need a comprehensive understanding of the users’ problems. Currently, there is little knowledge about the problem differences between blind and sighted users, which makes it difficult to suggest and test design solutions that address these problems. This research aims to provide a further understanding of the problems blind users have on the web by comparing and contrasting problems between blind and sighted users and testing how design solutions to prevalent problems benefit blind users’ experience. The first study draws together the research literature into a common unified definition of web accessibility that was used to operationalise studies. The second study compared which verbal protocol (concurrent or retrospective) is better in user-based studies. The results showed that retrospective verbal protocol is a better option for eliciting problems on the web for blind and sighted users. Then, an empirical study compared the problems between blind and sighted users on the web. The results showed that the problems the two user groups encounter largely differ. There are specific problem types distinct to blind users, but also the characteristics of the problem types that had instances by both user groups were very different. Moreover, many problems blind users encounter were in relation to the search and browse features of the websites. A further investigation by two studies with blind users of how specific design solutions to prevalent problems users had (poor page structure, lack of feedback and excessive effort) in this specific design aspect showed that simple design solutions improve specific aspects of users’ experience. Although, for major improvements in the overall user experience a combination of design solutions is needed