A for Accessibility: Evaluation of a Designated Accessible Workstation Ellen Perlow – April 2003

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 A for Accessibility

This presentation and related documents are available on the Web at:http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveypeval.html A for Accessibility

Somewhere Over the Rainbow …(see next page for captions) A for Accessibility

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 A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation What – page 1 of 3 Survey: http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/ataccesssurveyfinal.doc 10-question survey for designated accessible workstation: Texas Woman’s University-Denton Campus Blagg-Huey Library Computer Lab, Room 115. 10 questions=6 multiple choice, 3 multiple answer, 1 short essay/comments A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation What – page 2 of 3 Survey Purpose: To assess usage and user satisfaction of particular workstation. 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. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation What – page 3 of 3 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. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Why Very first evaluation of this workstation Apparent lack of awareness about workstation’s existence Survey provides feedback on user satisfaction, how to improve set-up, signage, access to workstation. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation When Survey Design: February-March 2003 Survey Sampling: March 20-30, 2003 IRB Approval: March 5, 2003 Data Collection:March 31-April 12, 2003 Data Analysis: April 12-13, 2003 Project Submission: April 13-21, 2003 A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Where Designated Accessible Workstation: Texas Woman’s 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. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation How – page 1 of 3 Bright green page: request for participation (=survey cover page) placed at workstation next to 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. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation How – page 3 of 3 Anonymity of identity of participants, including library staff, preserved. To preserve participant anonymity, surveys were not accessed or analyzed until 20th survey completed. A for Accessibility

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). A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research "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 I’m Sixty-Four.” From: Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research " 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.stanford.edu/Projects/Proj.html A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research-Need Oh, when the saints, come marchin’ in … A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research-Need Patron satisfaction Cost considerations Abandonment: Is equipment used? Equipment upgrade needed? Compatibility, accessibility issues Who doesn’t use and need assistive technology? See: http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/atlist42003.doc A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research-Past Medical model: trying to fix what is wrong It’s not about fixing, it’s 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) A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research-Present… The Archimedes Project, Stanford University, Neil Scott, Director - http://archimedes.stanford.edu/ “ The Archimedes Project is 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) A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research-Present… See it at CSUN-http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/index.htm (Nichols, 2002) “California State University Northridge’s seventeenth annual international conference “Technology and Persons with Disabilities” was held in Los Angeles on March 18-23. The conference, often referred to as CSUN, was a mecca of technology companies demonstrating their products and services for people with disabilities. From screen readers to braille embossers to voice recognition software, two hotels were filled with the latest assistive technologies (AT) that hold significant promise for enhancing the lives of people with disabilities. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research-Present… See it at CSUN-http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/index.htm (Nichols, 2002) (continued): “While AT companies were in full attendance, the conference has done a tremendous job over the years of involving mainstream information technology (IT) companies. In fact, some mainstream companies have attributed their ongoing success in the disability arena to CSUN. The conference has provided opportunities for IT and AT companies to build relationships, share research, and forge partnerships that have advanced the interoperability of their technologies.” A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research-Present… See it at CSUN-http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/index.htm (Nichols, 2002) (continued): “Furthermore, as more mainstream companies have become involved with assistive technology companies, IT products in general have become more usable for all segments of the population. In fact, many “mainstream” technological innovations are the result of solutions originally designed to assist people with disabilities. There are some obvious assistive technologies, such as closed captioning, which are used universally by users with and without disabilities. But there are others that many are not aware of, such as digital cameras, the typewriter, and even the telephone. “ A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research-Present… See it at CSUN-http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/index.htm (Nichols, 2002, cont’d) “In 1874, an inventor (who was also a teacher of children that were deaf and in love with a woman that was deaf) began experimenting with a machine called a phonoautograph. He constructed the machine around an ear taken from a cadaver, and when he spoke, the ear’s intact membrane vibrated and turned an attached lever that etched sine-curve speech patterns on a slate of smoked glass. This set the inventor to think that it might be possible to vary the intensity of an electrical current in response to spoken words. To this day, this is the same scientific linchpin that transmits speech over wires. Alexander Graham Bell probably never imagined that his invention would ultimately lead to a telecommunications revolution that impacts virtually billions of lives.” A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research-Present… See it at CSUN-http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/index.htm (Nichols, 2002, cont’d) “So as more and more mainstream companies delve into the area of assistive technology (if history does indeed repeat itself), billions more may benefit from new inventions. Thanks to CSUN, this is happening more rapidly.” The CSUN – California State University at Northridge Annual International Assistive Technology Conference : The Real Oscars / Diversity, Inc. - See: http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/index.htm A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Accessibility Research-Future http://www.media.mit.edu* http://www.kurzweiltechAI.com/* * The future is here. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Program Description / Context-1 A for Accessibility: A Designated Accessible Workstation Evaluation evaluates users' usage and satisfaction with this designated accessible workstation: Texas Woman's University [TWU] Libraries' computer lab, Blagg-Huey Library Room 115, TWU Denton Campus. Workstation, established the Summer 2002 semester, yet to evaluated in terms of usage or user satisfaction. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Program Description / Context-2 Especially during a period of budget crisis, important that this particular service, also mandated by law (U.S. Dept. of Justice, 2003), be maintained, and, if at all possible, without further expenditure, improved. Awareness about workstation  increase in cultural sensitivity and appreciation of universal diversity of differability and universal need for accessibility. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Evaluation Objectives To provide: 1. Indication of the current (Spring 2003) user satisfaction with the designated accessible workstation, as well as current satisfaction with physical access to this workstation. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Evaluation Objectives To provide: 2. A relative indicator of the workstation's usage rate. 3. A set of suggestions how the workstation and access to it could be maintained and improved. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Evaluation Objectives To provide: 4. Suggestions for an acceptable usage policy for the workstation. 5. Suggestions for appropriate signage for the workstation. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Evaluation Objectives To provide: 6. Cost-free suggestions for maintaining and/or improving services provided by this workstation in this time of budgetary restrictions. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Evaluation Objectives To provide: 7. User recommendations for future improvement and expansion of the workstation and its services, if, perchance, future, funding becomes available. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Evaluation Objectives To provide: 8. Helpful (and perhaps cost-free) recommendations in terms of customer service for the appropriate University offices that manage the workstation and the library lab in which it is located. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Evaluation Model Model Chosen: Combination of Art Criticism-Connoisseur Model and Transactional Model Art Criticism Model : “I do not know much about art, but I know what I like.” (McDermott & Sarvela, 1999, 23-24) Ex. Ellen’s AARP Version of the Bachelor[ette] http://www.a4access.org/aarpbachelor.doc A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Evaluation Model Transactional Model “Concentrates on how various people associated with the program actually view it…” (McDermott & Sarvela, 1999, 22) A for Accessibility Evaluation: How users of the workstation actually view it. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Sampling Design Proposal and instrument submitted to professor, TWU Institutional Review Board (IRB), and to Blagg-Huey Library administrator for approval and review. Survey reviewed by other colleagues who indicated survey value and importance. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Data Collection Methods Compilation of survey. Preparation of paper-based survey. Placement of survey at workstation. Solicitation of some individuals to complete survey anonymously. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Reliability -1 “Reliability is a statistical measure of how reproducible the survey instrument’s 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

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Reliability -2 For A for Accessibility Survey: One Administration: Test of Internal Consistency Reliability: indicator of how well the different items measure the same issue. Internal Consistency measured by measuring Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha (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 Questions 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, measure general, specific, access satisfaction, wish list, #10-additional comments A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Reliability - 3 Results: http://www.a4access.org/surveyresults.doc Group A: Usage Questions # 1, 3, 7, 8 Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha (SPSS v. 11, 4/13/2003) Correlation based on inter-item consistency: Group A Q.s 1, 3 (actually 5 qs.), 7, 8 – Usage Questions: R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 20.0 No of Items = 8 Alpha = .3513 A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Reliability - 4 Results: http://www.a4access.org/surveyresults.doc Group B: User Satisfaction Questions Cronbach’s Coefficient Alpha (SPSS v. 11, 4/13/2003) Correlation based on inter-item consistency: Group B Q.s 2, 5; 4 and 6 (actually 5 qs. each), 9 (actually 2 qs.) – Satisfaction Questions: R E L I A B I L I T Y A N A L Y S I S - S C A L E (A L P H A) Reliability Coefficients N of Cases = 20.0 No of Items = 14 Alpha = .4460 A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Validity Validity indicates how well the survey measures what it sets out to measure (Litwin, 1995, 33). A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Limitations Permissions Time Frame Format Publicity Awareness of existence of workstation Sampling ability A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Data Analysis Techniques – Page 1 of 2 Statistics compiled with SPSS v. 11.0 Measurements for Questions 1-9: multiple choice and multiple answer: Mean, Mode, Median Frequency comparisons among questions A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Data Analysis Techniques – Page 2 of 2 Question 10: Comments: Yes (given) / No (not given); Ratio Comments compiled, descriptively evaluated A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Results – page 1 of 15 Limited number of participants (20) Solicitation of participation required Student-organized survey. No support, endorsement by relevant campus offices (TWU Libraries, Information Services, Health Services, Accessibility Office) A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Results – page 2 of 15 Directions preceding survey questions. The return of your completed questionnaire constitutes your informed consent to act as a participant in this research. A for Accessibility: A Designated Workstation Evaluation This survey is to be completed voluntarily and anonymously. Key: TWU = Texas Woman's University The meaning of "Accessibility Office" as used in this survey is: - For TWU students: The TWU DSS Office - For TWU faculty, staff, administration: TWU Human Resources Please circle your answers. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Results – page 3 of 15 Directions following survey questions: Participation in this survey is totally voluntary. Your responses remain totally anonymous. The return of your completed questionnaire constitutes your informed consent to act as a participant in this research. Please leave your completed survey in the "Reebok" box located to the left of the workstation. Please do not identify yourself on the form. Thank you for participating in this survey. A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Results – page 4 of 15 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% 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% A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility Evaluation Results – page 5 of 15 3. What component[s] 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% 4. What component[s] of this accessible workstation need[s] 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% A for Accessibility

A for Accessibility: Evaluation of a Designated Accessible Workstation Ellen Perlow – April 2003