Feedback on Draft of Better Web Browsing: Tips for Customising your Computer

Hi,

We reviewed the 2010/01/05 draft of the WAI document Better Web
Browsing: Tips for Customising your Computer, and were encouraged by
Andrew to send our comments to this list.

The comments are based on our own views as researchers interested in
supporting older people become more effective web users. But we plan to
validate and expand on our findings by conducting usability testing of
this document (or perhaps a future draft, depending on EOWG's
preferences) with participants from our pool of older computer users.
Information from this evaluation will be fed back to the EOWG group in
order to help further development of the resource. 

NB In writing these comments we did not consult the public archives of
the list, so we apologise for any case where we repeat known issues with
the current draft, or make suggestions that are known to be impossible
to implement!

As a general comment, the information in document has the potential to
be a very valuable resource which can be referenced from other web sites
and by literature and people involved in teaching people web browsing
skills. However, we believe there is substantial scope for improvement,
so the following comments are offered in the hope that they are helpful
in the drafting process.

We'd be happy to expand on or explain any comments we have below.

Best wishes,
David Sloan
Sergio Sayago


Feedback on Draft of Better Web Browsing: Tips for Customising your
Computer

NB The following comments are based on the assumption that the primary
target audience is people with **mild-to-moderate impairments** and who
have **limited technical knowledge** of web browsers, who would benefit
from knowing how to make adjustments to their browser and/or OS in order
to improve the quality of their browsing experience.

Many of these people, particularly older people, may be unaware they
have impairments that could be accommodated by accessibility
adjustments, and will not be aware that they are considered 'disabled'
in a web accessibility context, but nevertheless could find the
information in this document extremely helpful.


# Lack of statement of purpose

The document currently lacks a clear statement of purpose written in
terms appropriate to the target audience. The main page heading and
opening paragraph do not explain **why** someone might want to customise
their computer. For web accessibility specialists, this is obvious, but
for most of the target audience, customising their web browser (or
computer, in general) is something they are likely to be very reluctant
to do without good reason.

There is a need to clearly state that the purpose of customisation or
adjustment is **to make web browsing easier and more enjoyable**.


# Lack of prominence of Windows information

The document suffers from attempting to be equitable in terms of advice
provided for different operating systems and browsers, with a resultant
negative impact on usability. While it is accepted that the W3C will no
doubt have some obligations in terms of vendor neutrality of the advice
it provides, this is at odds with the nature of the target audience, who
will overwhelmingly be using Windows computers and Internet Explorer. 

The complexity of information is exacerbated by the presence of negative
statements in the form of <no resource exists for this particular
browser>. If no information exists, there should be no need to say so.

Reordering lists of resources so that Windows and most popularly used
browsers comes first will allow those who need information to find it
more quickly.

We appreciate that in some situations, the best advice would be to
encourage people to adopt alternative solutions rather than optimise
what they've got, but this adds to the technical burden on the people
concerned - and also might lead to ideological arguments...which we'll
avoid for now!


# "Difficulty using..."

Allowing users to jump directly to the information they need from an
index at the start of the document is helpful, but the document could
benefit from more description of just what sort of difficulties they
might have, which the advice in question could help overcome.

Currently, the advice generally jumps straight to "this is what to do"
advice. But without explaining in more detail the types of problem the
difficulty in question covers, some people might not recognise a problem
they have as a problem that could be fixed by following the advice in
the document.

We recommend giving illustrations of what sort of difficulties might be
experienced. For example in the section on Difficulty Seeing and Reading
Websites, add examples like "some people have trouble reading text that
is small, or doesn't contrast well with the page's background...",
before presenting options for improving the situation.


# Lack of use of illustrations

While the Nielsen Norman Group, in Web Usability for Senior Citizens,
warned of the problems of use of images of user interface components on
web pages (users may try to click on them), in this case there is a
clear argument for using illustrations to show examples of key browser
UI features that
could be helpful for the target audience.

Currently there are some complex text descriptions of features that
would benefit from illustrations (for example the reference to the
"status bar of the browser window" and the description of keys, both in
the Browsing the Web by Keyboard section). 


# Separation of basic and advanced information

Each section provides a substantial amount of rich information. Some of
this would require a fair amount of technical expertise to follow, so
consideration should be given to whether the advice provided can be
separated into basic and advanced information. This will help to avoid
overwhelming readers who do not have confidence in their own technical
abilities, or who may prefer to ask someone else to help them follow the
advice provided.

A very, very brief explanation of the concept of a browser (as opposed
to web content) would also be useful.


# Use of technical language

There are several technical terms used without definition in the
document - for example 'application', 'media player', 'default'. Given
the nature of the target audience, preferably these terms should be
replaced with less technical equivalents, or failing that should be
clearly explained in the text and added to the glossary.

Talk about 'people' not 'users'. The document's target audience consider
themselves people, not users.


# Use of formal language

The W3C disclaimer seems overly formal for this document, and a more
informal version would be preferable. If it can't be rewritten, move it
to the end of the document?

Also in the introduction, the information explaining that some problems
are artefacts of a web page's design, and cannot be fixed by
customisation seems over-complex. This would benefit from rewriting.


# Optimise your computer set-up

This section provides valuable encouragement that exploration and
familiarisation are good for improving user experience - the target
audience is likely to be particularly resistant to making changes or
trying new things without good reason. However, the way the preceding
text is written in this section, readers might interpret the message as
"some customisation changes cannot be reversed, might delete files or
disrupt things", and therefore be discouraged from making changes.

This section should be rewritten to focus on the positive benefits of
customisation rather than raise the spectre of undesirable side effects
(situations where these might happen can be described in the appropriate
place elsewhere in the document). 


# Captions

No description is provided of what captions are. Explaining that they
are equivalent to what is shown on TV programmes will add a level of
familiarity to the target audience.


# Sign language videos

It is questionable, given the target audience, whether this information
should be included. While there is an argument that it should be
included for completeness in an account of how accessibility needs can
be met, this is not an example of browser or OS customisation, but
relying on content provided by web authors. People acquiring hearing
impairment over time are also less likely to be using sign language than
alternative solutions such as increasing volume or switching on
captions.

Similarly, the need for a separate section on sign language avatars is
questionable. If information for sign language users must be provided,
why not merge this with the sign language video section? Technically, it
is a quite different solution, but to a reader, both are solutions to
the same problem.

David Sloan, Sergio Sayago 12 August 2010

The University of Dundee is a Scottish Registered Charity, No. SC015096.

Received on Thursday, 12 August 2010 11:19:09 UTC