A for AccessibilityPerlow

1
A for Accessibility Evaluation of a Designated
Accessible Workstation Ellen Perlow April
2003 This document is available in alternative
formats upon request Web http//www.a4access.org/
accesssurvey/accesssurveypeval.html
2
This presentation and related documents are
available on the Web at http//www.a4access.org/
accesssurvey/accesssurveypeval.html
3

A for Accessibility Designated Accessible
Workstation Evaluated Photograph April 15, 2003
4

Somewhere Over the Rainbow...
5
Is Here !!!!

• Top Row Tack-Tiles Braille Music
• http//www.tacktiles.com
• ALVA Group Mobile Phone Organizer
• http//www.aagi.com/
• V-Com3D Signing Avatar - http//www.vcom3d.com/
• Bottom Row Cyberlink Brain Actuated Technologies
  http//www.brainfingers.com/
• Duxbury Systems Braille Translation Software
• http//www.duxburysys.com/
• For more wonders of this world, see
  http//www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2003/exhibit/exhList.
  htm

6
A for Accessibility Evaluation What page 1 of 2

• Actual Survey http//www.a4access.org/accesssurv
  ey/ataccesssurveyfinal.doc
• 10-question survey for designated accessible
  workstation Texas Womans University-Denton
  Campus Blagg-Huey Library Computer Lab, Room 115.
• 10 questions6 multiple choice, 3 multiple
  answer, 1 short essay/comments
•  

7
A for Accessibility Evaluation What page 2 of 2

• Survey Purpose To assess workstation usage,
  user satisfaction
• Survey Participants Survey designed to include
  all possible workstation users, also first-time
  users, over data collection time period of March
  31-April 12, 2003.
• Survey totally anonymous, voluntary.
• Survey administered in paper format, large print
  (16 point font size) cover sheet with directions
  5 pages, 1 sided
• Alternative formats were available upon
  anonymous request. Requests for alternative
  formats were not received

8
A for Accessibility Evaluation Why / Where

• WHY Very first evaluation of this workstation
• Apparent lack of awareness re workstations
  existence
• Survey Anonymous feedback on usage user
  satisfaction
• WHERE Designated Accessible Workstation
  Texas Womans University TWU Denton Campus,
  Blagg-Huey Library 115
• March 31 25 copies of surveys
  (paper-format),pencils/pen placed at workstation.
• Completed surveys anonymously placed in Reebox
  box at workstation.

9
A for Accessibility Evaluation When

• Survey Design February-March 2003
• IRB Approval February 20, 2003
• Survey Sampling March 20-30, 2003
• Data CollectionMarch 31-April 12, 2003
• Data Analysis April 12-13, 2003
• Project Submission April 13-21, 2003

10
A for Accessibility Evaluation How

• Bright green page request for participation
  (survey cover page) at workstation near surveys.
• Library staff who oversee computer
  lab/workstation and/or who would refer patrons to
  workstation solicited to anonymously complete
  survey.
• 5 minutes maximum to complete survey.
• Anonymity of identity of participants preserved.
• To preserve participant anonymity, surveys not
  accessed or analyzed until 20th survey completed

11
A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility
Research

• What is Accessibility?
• Accessibility is the ability to access, the
  state of being practicable, feasible,
  performable, achievable, surmountable,
  attainable, and obtainable. (Perlow, 2003a).
• What is an accessible workstation?
• An accessible workstation is a computer
  workstation with hardware, software, and
  peripherals that is designed with flexibility in
  mind for universal usability by as broad a
  spectrum of users as possible (Perlow, 2003).

12
A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility
Research

• What is Universal Design?
• "Universal design is the design of products and
  environment to be usable by all people, to the
  greatest extent possible, without the need for
  adaptation or specialized design" (Stewart, 2002,
  Slide 5).
• "The intent of universal design is to simplify
  life for everyone by making products,
  communications, and the built environment more
  usable by as many people as possible at little or
  no extra cost. Universal design benefits people
  of all ages and abilities" (North Carolina State
  University. Center for Universal Design, 2003).

13
A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility
Research

• Technology environments that are designed for
  universal access will also significantly reduce
  the need for, and the costs associated with,
  individual accommodation Any network or
  technical environment should have plug and play
  capabilities so that individuals are able to plug
  in any number of personal technologies to
  optimize their abilities. A more flexible
  technology environment would also be able to
  support the ever-increasing range of mainstream
  personal technologies, such as personal digital
  assistants and cell phones (Canada. Treasury
  Board, 2003).

14
What does an Accessible Workstation Look Like?

AbilityInfo Accessible Workstation (2003) Product
Information http//www.assistivetechnologies.com/
proddetails/ATI01B.htm
15
No special needs? Then why care about
accessibility?

• "When I get older, losing my hair, many years
  from now,
• Will you still be sending me a Valentine,
  birthday greetings, bottle of wine?
• If I'd been out 'till quarter to three, would you
  lock the door?
• Will you still need me, will you still feed me,
• When I'm sixty-four?
• Hmm------mmm---mmmh. You'll be older, too.
  Aaah .
• John Lennon/Paul McCartney (1966) When Im
  Sixty-Four. From Sergeant Peppers Lonely
  Hearts Club Band album  (Assayas Meunier,
  1996, 46-47)

16
No special needs? Then why care about
accessibility?

• in larger print for us AARP folks
• " Individuals older than 65 represented just 4
  of the US population 100 years ago. Now they
  represent 13 and in 30 years will represent 22
  of the population.
• U.S. Veterans Administration (2003b). Palo Alto
  Rehabilitation Research and Development Center.
  Center of Excellence on Mobility. Projects.
  Retrieved April 9, 2003, from http//guide.stanfor
  d.edu/Projects/Proj.html
• Oh when the saints .

17
A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility
Research-Need

• Patron satisfaction
• Cost considerations
• Abandonment Is equipment used?
• Equipment upgrade needed?
• Compatibility, accessibility issues
• Who doesnt use and need assistive technology?
  See http//www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/atlist42
  003.doc

18
A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility
Research-Past

• Medical model trying to fix what is wrong
• Its not about fixing, its about compensating
  and coping and making the best of what you have
  (Perlow, 2003)
• A valid criticism of may innovations in
  assistive technology is that they have not been
  evaluated. However, there are obstacles which
  make this form of technology difficult to
  evaluate according to conventional paradigms.
  (Stevens, 1996)

19
A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility
Research-Present

• The Archimedes Project, http//archimedes.stanford
  .edu/
• a multi-disciplinary research group devoted
  to ensuring universal access to information
  regardless of an individual's needs, abilities,
  or preferences. Current research projects include
  development of the Total Access System (TAS),
  which will provide universal access to any
  computer-based equipment (Knight, 2002)
• PIADS Psychosocial impact of Assistive Devices
  Scale
• U. of Toronto, Assistive Tech. Resource Centre,
  2003b)
• http//www,utoronto.ca/atrc/reference/atoutcomes/P
  IDS.html
• CSUN 2002 Assistive Technology Conference
  (Nichols, 2002) Ability Magazine.
  http//www.abilitymagazine.com/nichols_csun.html

20
A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility
Research-Future

• CSUN The California State University at
  Northridge Annual International Assistive
  Technology Conference
• The Real Oscars / Diversity, Inc. -
• See http//www.csun.edu/cod/conf/index.htm
• http//www.media.mit.edu
• http//www.kurzweilAI.net/
• The future is here.

21
A for Accessibility Evaluation Program
Description / Context

• A for Accessibility evaluates usage , users
  satisfaction with designated accessible
  workstation Texas Woman's University TWU
  Libraries' computer lab, Blagg-Huey Library Room
  115, TWU Denton Campus.
• Workstation established Summer 2002 semester
• Yet to evaluated in terms of usage or user
  satisfaction.
• Especially during period of budget crisis,
  important that service, also mandated by law
  (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2003), maintained, and,
  if at all possible, without further expenditure,
  improved.
• Workstation awareness increases cultural
  sensitivity, appreciation of universal diversity
  of differability, universal need for
  accessibility.

22
A for Accessibility Evaluation Evaluation
Objectives

• To provide
• Indication of the current user satisfaction with
  the designated accessible workstation,
  satisfaction with physical access to this
  workstation.
• Relative indicator of workstation's usage rate
• Suggestions acceptable usage policy, signage
• User recommendations for improvement, expansion
  of workstation, if available
• Cost-free ideas to improve accessibility awareness

23
A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology
Evaluation Model

• ModelArt Criticism-Connoisseur/Transaction Combo
• Art Criticism Model I do not know much about
  art, but I know what I like. (McDermott
  Sarvela, 1999, 23-24)
• Ex. Ellens AARP Version of the Bachelorette
• http//www.a4access.org/aarpbachelor.doc
• Transactional Model How various people
  associated with program actually view
  it.(McDermott Sarvela, 1999, 22)
• A for Accessibility Evaluation How users of
  workstation actually view it.

24
A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology
Sampling Design

• Proposal, instrument submitted to TWU professor,
  Institutional Review Board (IRB), Blagg-Huey
  Library/Information Technology Services
  administrators
• Survey reviewed by other colleagues who
  indicated survey value and importance.
• Compilation, preparation of paper-based survey
• Placement of survey at workstation.
• Solicitation of some individuals (library staff)
  to complete survey anonymously.

25
A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology
Reliability -1

• Reliability is a statistical measure of how
  reproducible the survey instruments data are
  (Litwin, 1995, 6).
• Adequate reliability is a precondition to
  validity. Reliability means consistency.
  Reliability includes both the characteristics of
  the instrument and the conditions under which it
  is administered (Oppenheim, 1992, 159).
• A for Accessibility Survey One administration
• Test of Internal Consistency Reliability
  indicator of how well the different items measure
  the same issue.

26
A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology
Reliability -2

• Internal Consistency Cronbachs Coefficient
  Alpha measured (Litwin, 1995, 21-25)
• Ten A for Accessibility Questions fall into 2
  groups
• Questions 1, 3, 7, 8 measure usage usage
  frequency items used, recommended usage policy
  and signage
• Reliability Coefficients N of Cases 20.0 No
  of Items 8 Alpha .3513
• Questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, measure general,
  specific, access satisfaction, wish list,
  10-additional comments
• Reliability Coefficients N of Cases 20.0 No
  of Items 14 Alpha .4460

27
A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology
Validity

• Validity indicates how well the survey measures
  what it sets out to measure (Litwin, 1995,
  33-45). Face, Content, Criterion, Concurrent,
  Predictive, Construct (convergent/divergent) To
  measure A for Accessibilitys validity, face
  validity (a cursory review by novice judges) and
  content validity (subjective measure of item
  appropriateness by knowledgeable reviewers).
  Survey reviewed by health studies, IRB
  professors, Information Tech. personnel, novices
  (participants, others who reviewed document but
  not survey participants). Feedback to evaluator
  survey valid to measure usage, user satisfaction
  of designated workstation.

28
A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology
Limitations

• Permissions
• Time Frame
• Format
• Publicity
• Awareness of existence of workstation
• Sampling ability

29
A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology
Data Analysis Techniques

• Statistics compiled with SPSS v. 11.0
• Measurements for Questions 1-9 multiple choice
  and multiple answer frequencies, percentages,
  correlations between various questions, groups of
  questions
• Q. 10 Comments Yes (given) / No (not given)
  Ratio Comments compiled, descriptively evaluated

30
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results
Introduction

• Limited number of participants (20)
• Solicitation of participation required
• Cover sheet, notice survey directions, purpose,
  assurance of anonymity, survey voluntary,
  submission of questionnaireconsent to
  participate in research
• SPSS and Excel used for evaluation
• http//www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveys
  ign.doc

31
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results page 1
of 10

• Q. 1. During the academic year when the
  university is open, how often do you use this
  particular accessible workstation?
• no answer (1/20) 5
• a. every day (5/20) 25
• b. at least 3 days a week (2/20) 10
• c. once a week (3/20) 15
• d. rarely (2/20) 10
• e. This is my first time using this workstation.
  (7) 35

32
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results page 2
of 10

• Q. 2. In general, are you satisfied with the
  set-up and features of this accessible
  workstation?
• no answer (0/20) 0
• a. Yes, very much (8/20) 40
• b. Yes, somewhat (6/20) 30
• c. No (1/20) 5
• d. Very unsatisfied (0/20) 0
• e. I don't know. (5/20) 25

33
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results page 3
of 10

• Q. 3. What components of
• this accessible workstation do
• you commonly use, or have you
• used in the past?
• Please circle all answers
• that apply.
• No answer (1/20) 5
• a. Large monitor/enlarged print (13/20) 65
• b. Voice recognition software
• (4/20) 20
• c. Electronic magnifier (3/20) 15
• d. Enlarged keyboard (1/20) 5
• e. Adjustable chair (7/20) 35

34
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results page 4
of 10

• Q. 4. What components of this accessible
  workstation needs improvement? Please circle
  all answers that apply.
• No answer (4/20) 20
• a. Large monitor/enlarged print
• (2/20) 10
• b. Voice recognition software
• (7/20) 35
• c. Electronic magnifier (4/20) 20
• d. Enlarged keyboard (6/20) 30
• e. Adjustable chair (6/20) 30
• f. None / No improvements
• needed (2/20) 10

35
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results page 5
of 10

• Q. 5. For me, access to this workstation has
  been
• No answer (1/20) 5
• a. Excellent (9/20) 45
• b. Usually good (9/20) 45
• c. Sometimes good (1/20) 5
• d. A negative experience (0/20) 0
• e. Problematic (0/20) 0

36
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results page 6
of 10

• Q. 6. Issues that I have faced in accessing this
  workstation have been (Please circle all answers
  that apply)
• a. No issues to report. For me, access is fine.
  (11/20) 55
• b. Technology or software provided not current or
  available on workstation. (4/20) 20
• c. Lack of workstation availability (lab/library
  hours not adequate, or fact that only one
  workstation is available) (3/20) 15
• d. Ease of physical access to lab/room. (2/20)
  10
• e. Atmosphere, i.e. lack of comfort, stigma,
  attached to using workstation. (4/20) 20

37
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results page 7
of 10

• Q. 7. What do you think the usage policy for this
  workstation should be?
• a. Use by authorized users only (i.e.
  registration with "Accessibility Office"
  required). Sign-in with TWU I.D. at Lab
  information desk is required. (3/20) 15
• b. Use by authorized users only (i.e.
  registration with "Accessibility Office"
  required). No sign-in at lab information desk
  required. (5/20) 25
• c. Priority use by authorized users only
  otherwise available for use by other Library Lab
  patrons. (4/20) 20 d. Priority use by patrons
  expressing need otherwise available for use by
  other Library Lab patrons. (3/20) 15 e. Open
  access for all Library Lab patrons on first
  come-first-served basis. (5/20) 25

38
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results page 8
of 10

• Q. 8. What type of signage should this accessible
  workstation have?
• a. "Accessible Workstation. Authorized Users
  Only. (4/20) 20
• b. "Accessible Workstation. Authorized users have
  top priority. (5/20) 25
• c. "Accessible Workstation. Patrons with usage
  need have top priority. (9/20) 45
• d. "ADA workstation. Authorized users only
  (2/20) 10
• e. "For disabled users (or "the disabled")
  only. (0/20) 0

39
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results page 9
of 10

• Q. 9. If TWU won the Texas lottery and/or
  received a grant, and could upgrade this
  workstation with the latest, most advanced
  assistive technology, what two (2) items would be
  on the top of your wish list? No answer 2/20
  (10) a. A second workstation similar to the
  existing one, one with devices or location so
  that voice recognition software could be used.
  (9/20) 45 b. Screen reader software with
  headphones. (8/20) 40 c. The latest electronic
  magnifier (4/20) 20 d. Alternative input
  devices (mouse and keyboard alternatives) (3/20)
  15 e. Alternative output devices (Braille
  display, embosser, and translation software
  Avatar software) (6/20) 30

40
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results page 10
of 10

• Q. 10. Short essay format In the space below,
  please give your thoughts about the accessible
  workstation being evaluated, especially any
  issues of concern not addressed in the previous
  questions.
• Comments Yes (11/20) 55 participants No
  (9/20) 45 participants

41
A for Accessibility Evaluation Results -
Comment Summary

• Summary of Comments 11/20 or 55 participants
• Participants 7,15 No comments needed/ It is
  great
• Participants 4, 9,10,11,12,16,17,18,20
  Improvements Needed Access to location, more
  hours, more and better quality assistive
  technology, better more user-friendly
  atmosphere, increased awareness and marketing of
  existence of this workstation, including library
  staff training

42
A for Accessibility Evaluation Discussion

• Despite limited number of participants (20) and
  survey method employed (paper format during
  2-week period), survey results suggest
• Need for accessible workstation in library lab
• Need for improved service and atmosphere
• Need for more education, awareness, and training
  about accessibility and accessible workstation
• Positive interest in topic once awareness
  generated
• Need to appreciate this type of universal
  diversity
• These goals achievable in part via low-cost,
  cost-free means. Caring costs nothing, but is
  worth millions.

43
A for Accessibility Evaluation Recommendations

• Administration of this survey during longer
  period of time and with many more participants,
  including administrators, faculty, staff
  (especially Library) , as well as students. This
  survey is in process of being converted to an
  accessible online format that may assist in this
  endeavor.
• University-wide dissemination of information
  about existence of workstation, assistive tech
  availability
• University-wide, university-supported awareness
  campaign about accessibility, assistive
  technology

44
A for Accessibility Evaluation Conclusion page
1 of 3

• (In large print for us AARP folks )
  Accessibility - the ability to access, the state
  of being practicable, feasible, performable,
  achievable, surmountable, attainable, and
  obtainable - is about and for everyone.  

45
A for Accessibility Evaluation Conclusion page
2 of 3

• Today it may be someone else who needs that
  assistive technology or alternative format.
  Tomorrow, virtually all of us will. Then again,
  we all enjoy assistive technology every day from
  pens and paper clips, to cell phones, umbrellas,
  and spurs on our cowboy boots.

46
A for Accessibility Evaluation Conclusion page
3 of 3

• To truly embrace diversity, our libraries and
  information centers, and their resources must be
  accessible. Especially during these lean economic
  times, our accessibility solutions preferably are
  cost-free. We are all people, people with
  differences who do things differently. We are all
  diverse. Let us celebrate our diversity (Perlow,
  2003a, 2003b, 2003c).

47
A for Accessibility Evaluation Documentshttp//w
ww.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveypeval.htm
l

• A for Accessibility Survey
• http//www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/ataccesss
  urveyfinal.doc
• Formal Paper
• http//www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesspro
  ject.doc
• This PowerPoint Presentation
• http//www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesspro
  jectblue.ppt
• References for Paper Presentation
• http//www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesspro
  jectrefs.doc

48
A for Accessibility Evaluation Appendiceshttp//
www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveypeval.ht
ml

• Appendix A Contract
• http//www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurvey
  appa.doc
• Appendix B Budget
• http//www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurvey
  appb.doc
• Appendix C Timeline
• http//www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurvey
  appa.doc
• Appendix D Accessibility Resources
  http//www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveyp
  eval.htmlh

49
A for Accessibility Evaluation Thank you!

• A special thank you to HS 5483 Program Evaluation
  Professor Extraordinaire Dr. Jody Oomen for her
  enthusiastic support, guidance, and expertise,
  and believing that
• A IS for Accessibility.

50
(No Transcript)