Non‐Visual Access to the Digital Library (NoVA): The Use of the Digital Library Interfaces by Blind and Visually Impaired People

Citation

Turner, R. (2003), "Non‐Visual Access to the Digital Library (NoVA): The Use of the Digital Library Interfaces by Blind and Visually Impaired People", New Library World, Vol. 104 No. 7/8, pp. 321-322. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074800310488095

This report explores the ways in which visually impaired people seek information from Web‐based resources. A sample of 20 sighted and 20 visually impaired people undertook a series of four information‐seeking tasks using four different electronic resources. The results confirmed that it takes visually impaired people longer to complete searching and browsing tasks, the difference depending on the design of the sites. The starting‐point for this research is a commitment to overcoming exclusion from access to information for the visually impaired.

The project was undertaken by Peter Brophy and Jenny Craven, of the Centre for Research in Library and Information Management (CERLIM), at Manchester Metropolitan Library. The domain of this project was digital library services and the aim was to better understand the differences between sighted and visually impaired users in this sector, with the ultimate goal of being able to contribute to the development of more accessible services.

The ways in which the visually impaired adapt to everyday tasks is briefly covered, followed by a deeper analysis of accessibility and design for visually impaired people. This section includes accessible Web interfaces, legislation, interaction design considerations and the information‐seeking behaviour of both sighted users and the visually impaired.

The methodology of the NoVA project is clearly defined in a declaration of aims, the experimental framework, the sample, the tasks, pre‐ and post‐task interviews, recording tasks and data analysis. This is followed by a careful review of the search process, which was to use a search engine, an OPAC, a directory and online shopping.

The research analysed the number of keystrokes per task and serial steps (i.e. clicking on a link or clicking back) and parallel steps (i.e. scrolling up and down, typing in search terms, clicking in edit boxes or preferences, etc.) used by sighted users and visually impaired users. This is followed by general questions to both groups, such as how they know whether a page is loading, or has finished loading, comments about the interface and which electronic resource is best for each of the four tasks. Each of these questions is illustrated by many user comments for each of the four tasks.

After general questions, the researchers asked usability questions of both sighted and visually impaired users for each of the four tasks. Again, conclusions and comments are included for each section. The usability questions include how easy navigation of the interface was, whether it was easy to locate where the search terms should be entered, how easily hyperlinks were located, whether the results pages were easy to “read”, if it was clear where the user was in the task, how satisfied the users were with the task performed and whether error messages or pop‐up windows were explained.

A detailed summary of findings draws together the research, including time spent searching, surveying the page, keystrokes, serial and parallel steps and search terms. The conclusions drawn reveal that, unsurprisingly, people who are sighted find searching the Web much easier than visually impaired people. The level of visual impairment also affects the accessibility level. The design of a Web site can substantially affect the time needed by the visually impaired to access information.

Most of the conclusions and findings of this research seem to be startlingly obvious. More important are the recommendations. The recommendations cover Web page design, assistive technology, staff training issues, user training, universal design (unless there are pressing reasons not to do so) and the appropriateness of digital approaches.

The report also recommends that further research should be undertaken in such areas as how learning styles impact on visually impaired people’s access to information resources; the effect of the usability of online resources on users’ motivation to continue searching; the performance of screen reader technology; effects of screen magnification on common character sets, along with advice for all users.

The report has an excellent bibliography, appendices of basic tables of information and the contents page is very thorough, so that the absence of an index is not a major problem.

Although the results of this research can at first reading seem glaringly obvious, the attention to detail and the comments by the sample group make it of some use. The usefulness of the project of course is whether the recommendations are actually acted upon. It is also praiseworthy that the research is freely available in several formats from the project Web site.