A for Accessibility1 A for Accessibility: Evaluation of a Designated Accessible Workstation Ellen Perlow – April 2003 This document is available in alternative

A for Accessibility 1

A for Accessibility: Evaluation of a

Designated Accessible Workstation

Ellen Perlow – April 2003This document is available in alternative

formats upon requestWeb: http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveypeval.html


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


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


Is Here !!!!

Top Row: Tack-Tiles Braille Musichttp://www.tacktiles.comALVA Group Mobile Phone Organizerhttp://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 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



• 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.



• 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 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 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 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 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 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 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).



"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



" 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 Evaluation Accessibility Research-Need

•

•Oh, when the saints, come marchin’ in …


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 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 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)



•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.



•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.”



•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. “



•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.”



•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 Evaluation Accessibility Research-Future

•

•http://www.media.mit.edu*

•http://www.kurzweiltechAI.com/*

* The future is here.


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 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 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.



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.



To provide:

4. Suggestions for an acceptable usage policy for the workstation.

5. Suggestions for appropriate signage for the workstation.



To provide:

6. Cost-free suggestions for maintaining and/or improving services provided by this workstation in this time of budgetary restrictions.



To provide:

7. User recommendations for future improvement and expansion of the workstation and its services, if, perchance, future, funding becomes available.



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 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 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 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 Evaluation Methodology: Data Collection

Methods

1. Compilation of survey.

2. Preparation of paper-based survey.

3. Placement of survey at workstation.

4. Solicitation of some individuals to complete survey anonymously.


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 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 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 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 Evaluation Methodology: Validity

• Validity indicates how well the survey measures what it sets out to measure (Litwin, 1995, 33).


A for Accessibility Evaluation Methodology: Limitations

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


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 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 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)



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 EvaluationThis 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 ResourcesPlease circle your answers.



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.



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%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%



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%



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%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%



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%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%



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%



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



10. Comments: 55% participants:• Participant #4: “Make sure all is really useable [sic] accessible before putting it up for students & others w/ disability.”• Participant #7: “None that I know of.”• Participant #9: “I do not like the location, needs to be more accessible.”



10. Comments: 55% participants: (continued)• Participant #10: “It needs to be marketed to its users. For they may not know that such a workstation is available and that it will better suit their needs than other workstations.”• Participant #11: “I believe this study needed to be done. Those using the workstation deserve the best devices to make learning as easy as possible. I don’t think I use the accessible workstation enough to know what else is needed however.”



10. Comments: 55% participants: (continued)• Participant #12: “The computer lab is small – but if it is accessible 24 hrs./day it will be of great help to students who don’t have access to computers … specially the international students… If not 24 hrs…. Increase hours at least till 2 am.”• Participant #15: “It is great.”• Participant #16: “I don’t like the stigma attached to using this workstation.”• Participant #17: “The keyboard need [sic] to change.”



10. Comments: 55% participants: (continued)•Participant #18: “Existence of this accessible workstation needs to be well-publicized throughout the university community. All Library staff members need to be aware of this workstation, be trained in its use, and be able to refer and help patrons with this workstation. Please do not stigmatize users of this workstation: “Accessible Workstation” is proper terminology– not “ADA.” People are not defined by a law. People who need the workstation should have top priority, otherwise all patrons should be able to use it … building appreciation and respect for this universal type of diversity and the universal need for accessibility.



10. Comments: 55% participants: (continued)•Participant #18 (continued): • “Door to computer lab Room 115 where workstation located VERY difficult to open-IMMEDIATE attention to this access issue is needed. •There needs to be an additional workstation in another room with voice recognition software-so other computer lab users are not disturbed. The electronic magnifier at the workstation needs immediate attention. •Please investigate acquiring surplus assistive technology from the Texas State Library and Texas Technology Access Project that would cost very little or be cost-free.”


A for Accessibility Evaluation Results – Page 15 of 15

10. Comments: 55% participants: (continued)•Participant #20: “Accessible workstation needs to be updated, create many more such workstations.”

•Summary of Comments (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


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….


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


A for Accessibility Evaluation Conclusion – page 1 of 3

“Accessibility - the ability to access, the state of being practicable, feasible, performable, achievable, surmountable, attainable, and obtainable - is about and for everyone. …”



“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.”



“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).


A for Accessibility Evaluation Documents

http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveypeval.html

• A for Accessibility Survey: http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/ataccesssurveyfinal.doc

• Formal Paper: http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accessproject.doc

• This PowerPoint Presentation: http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accessprojectblue.ppt

• References for Paper & Presentation: http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accessprojectrefs.doc


A for Accessibility Evaluation Appendices

http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveypeval.html

• Appendix A: Contract http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveyappa.doc

• Appendix B: Budget http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveyappb.doc

• Appendix C: Timeline http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveyappa.doc

• Appendix D: Accessibility Resources http://www.a4access.org/accesssurvey/accesssurveypeval.html#d


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.
