<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Study of conditions of use of E-services accessible to visually disabled persons</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>BOBILLIER CHAUMON M.E Laboratoire GRePS</string-name>
          <email>marc-eric.bobillier-chaumon@univ-lyon2.fr</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>ACM Classification Keywords Accessibility</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>Visually disabled Government</addr-line>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Instit de Psychologie, Université Lyon 2 69676 BRON Cedex</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>F</addr-line>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2007</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>15</fpage>
      <lpage>18</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>The aim of this paper is to determine the expectations that French-speaking disabled persons have for electronic administrative sites (utility). At the same time, it is a matter of identifying the difficulties of use that the manipulation of these Eservices poses concretely for blind people (usability) and of evaluating the psychosocial impacts on the way of life of these people with specific needs. We show that the lack of numerical accessibility is likely to accentuate the social exclusion of which these people are victim by establishing a numerical glass ceiling.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>persons</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>INTRODUCTION &amp; CONTEXT
The development of new technologies may prove to be
a tremendous springboard for the integration of disabled
persons (DP) provided that these environments are
accessible, usable, and useful; in other words that they
take into consideration the various characteristics of the
activity and the needs and particularities (cognitive,
perceptive, or motive) related to the disability of the
users (7, 9).</p>
      <p>
        This question is even more pertinent in the context of
quasi-generalized media coverage of the service
relationship (E-administration, E-banking, E-commerce,
etc.). Various studies worldwide have shown the very
weak respect of accessibility criteria despite the
numerous standards (section 508 in the USA, the law
concerning digital accessibility of administrative
services in France, etc.) or labels (Blindsurfeur in
Belgium, See it Right in England, Accessiweb in France,
etc.) required during the conception of these online
services [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]: more than 75% of the assessed sites
present level 1 WAI guideline accessibility flaws [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
        ],
meaning that accessibility to these sites is impossible
for DP [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2 ref3 ref4">2, 3, 4</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        This is becoming a serious problem insomuch as
accessibility seems to be one of the social and political
levers playing a role in the amelioration of the quality of
life of people with disabilities [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref6 ref8">6, 8, 10</xref>
        ]. Indeed, if on
the one hand, accessible Internet sites can allow DP
greater autonomy by giving them the possibility to
complete various activities by themselves; on the other
hand, these technologies are also the source of a new
type of social stigmatism because of their lack of
technological accessibility. The DP must first ask for
help to use the system and perform the act.
      </p>
      <p>The objective of our communication is to determine the
real contributions of accessible E-services for visually
disabled persons as well as evaluate the repercussions of
the lack of digital accessibility to these E-services on
this population4. This is based on the hypothesis that
inaccessible technologies will only confirm the
inequalities of access to information and services
between able-bodied persons and disabled persons, and
could even reinforce and intensify them.</p>
      <p>In this perspective, we studied the conditions of use of
accessible electronic services.</p>
      <p>In this perspective, we propose an original approach to
study the conditions of use of electronic services
accessible to disabled persons. The methodological
approach is indeed both:</p>
      <p>Multidimensional: by diagnosing their utility
(adaptation to user expectations), usability (ease of
use), accessibility (respect of standards and
principles), and acceptability (meaning and stakes
attributed to the technologies).</p>
      <p>And comparative: since carried out on two user
samples (able-bodied and visually impaired) with
various levels of E-service experience (novice to
expert).</p>
      <p>METHODS
Our approach draws on three complementary studies:
• The utility of the sites was studied using an online
questionnaire on 439 DP with motive, perceptive, and
cognitive disabilities in order to determine what the
E-services bring to the DP and what the DP expect
from them.
• The usability and accessibility of the sites was
4 These results are extracted from research on the digital
accessibility of electronic administration (ADELA
project) financed by the Minister of Research and New
Technology (Ministère Délégué à la Recherche et aux
Nouvelles Technologies) (Nov. 2004 to Dec. 2005).
evaluated5 with user tests based on 3 scenarios
(specified below) and two populations: 10 visually
disabled participants (VDP) and 10 sighted
participants. The participants had comparable
sociobiographical characteristics (age, sex, education,
etc.), only the mastery of the Internet varied equally
in each group (5 novices and 5 experts). For this
confrontation, we wanted to know if the problems
encountered by the blind were the same as those of
the sighted (general problems of usability), or if the
problems were amplified by a choice of technology
incompatible with their perceptive limits (problems of
accessibility). The data collection tools used were
simultaneous verbalisation, observations and a
satisfaction questionnaire (adapted from the Wammi
grid6). The indicators measured were the efficiency
(time, frequency and nature of errors, omissions,
number of selections/strategies to perform a
scenario), satisfaction (score out of 5 on the Wammi
scale) and efficacy (pass/fail test).
• The acceptability of E-services was analysed using
semi-directive interviews of 8 blind participants. The
objective was to determine to what extent these
services could transform the practices, contacts, and
status of the blind. These interviews were recorded
and entirely transcribed. A thematic content analysis
was performed on this corpus.</p>
      <p>MAIN RESULTS
Study of utility of the sites
Of the 439 DP who answered the online questionnaire,
52% indicated having help with their classic
administrative processes. This is due to difficulties in
mobility (33.5%) physical accessibility to the building
or administrative hours (30.5%), the complexity of
forms (23%), or difficult contact with agents (feelings
of “being different”) (13%). E-administration thus
seems like an alternative solution that, incidentally,
52.4% of participants declared to have already used and
32.4% would like to use. These users benefited from
them. The role of these E-services as a facilitating tool
(finding information, avoiding going out to fill out
forms, etc.) is thus confirmed by 90%. The fact that
these electronic services allow the DP to avoid
requesting someone’s help to perform tasks that are
often intimate and personal and that they favour the
social integration of the DP by providing the same
access as an able-bodied person is underlined by,
respectively, 90% and 96% of participants.</p>
      <p>For the 40% who refuse to use E-services, this position
is principally due to technical and ergonomic causes
(lack of reliability and accessibility of environments,
data protection, delay of data processing, etc.)
5 Ergonomic inspections of accessibility were also
performed during the research but won’t be presented
here due to lack of room.
6 http://www.wammi.com/using.html
informational causes (services not complying with the
users’ needs, unawareness of services offered) and
personal reasons (preference for classic modes of
access, fear of social isolation, entry errors, etc.). DP
support (sensitisation, education, etc.) in the acquisition
of E-services would certainly help breakdown these
barriers at least in part. Finally, even though 46% were
opposed to transforming classic services into
Eservices, and this despite the benefits indicated above,
this position should not be seen as a rejection of
innovation, but rather as concern and worry, shared by
60% of participants that their specific needs and profiles
would not be sufficiently taken into account in the
conception of these technologies.</p>
      <p>Evaluation of the usability and accessibility
Three scenarios were used for these tests: information
retrieval from the ANPE (French national employment
agency) site (Scenario 1: informational), participation in
a public forum (Scenario 2: interactive) and filling out
an online form on the Nancy les Vandoeuvre municipal
site (Scenario 3: transactional).</p>
      <p>Scen. 1
Scen. 2
Scen. 3
Efficiency</p>
      <p>Efficacy Satisfac- Mean Mean Mean number
(% of success in tion explora-tionnumber of of selections
the scenario) (mean scoretime (sec) strategies per scenario
/ 5) deployed
Sighted
(S)</p>
      <p>Blind
(B)
100% 60%
62.5% 20%
66 % 10%</p>
      <p>S</p>
      <p>B</p>
      <p>S</p>
      <p>B</p>
      <p>S</p>
      <p>B</p>
      <p>S</p>
      <p>B
4.17 3.42 105 814 1.38 3.40 4.38 8.20
2.84 2.86 230 1134 2.29 3.70 6.43 7.30
2.84 2.86 334 1176 3.00 3.44 10.83 8.22
From these analyses (Cf. Table 1), large divergences
between the two populations emerge concerning the
usability of E-services, as would be expected. The
efficacy and efficiency are thus lower for the blind
participants than for the sighted participants (with the
performances, notably the time, that are up to seven
times superior to those of the sighted). However, the
satisfaction is globally the same for both groups. We
even note a surprising result concerning scenario 3
where the efficiency (for the strategy and selection) is
almost advantageous for the blind participants. This
piece of data could be explained by a learning effect
since the users performed scenarios 2 and 3 on the same
site. So, it is the blind expert participants who exploited
this learning the best, undoubtedly being used to taking
advantage of each action to compensate for their
disability.</p>
      <p>We note moreover that the usage difficulties penalize
mainly the blind the least habituated. The novice blind
users seem, in fact, extremely resourceless in dealing
with the problem of accessibility of the interface
whereas the expert blind users, from their practice and
their experience, solicit mental models to compensate
for the ergonomic deficiencies of the tool. We can
therefore observe a recourse to such schemas when
certain blind users anticipate the display of information
or interpret inexplicit or polysemous wording by calling
on their navigation habits: “Normally, we should find
this information by clicking here…” On the level of
navigation strategies, we can observe that novices opted
more often to use search engines to enter the key words
of the scenarios to perform (on average 4 of 5 novices)
whereas the experts preferred going to the home page to
systematically read the proposed links with a voice
synthesiser (3 experts of 5). The results show that the
failures are more frequent for novices because the key
words entered in the search engine are often vague and
imprecise. This strategy, which we could qualify as
heuristic, is less efficient than the experts’ more
systematic and general strategy: their mastery of the
Jaws system allowed them indeed to consult different
the different links very quickly and their experience
with E-services also gives them the possibility to
promptly locate the most pertinent elements to reach
their goal.</p>
      <p>These usage problems come specifically from the
choice of conception that does not take into account the
perceptive limits of the level of participants, and more
generally the principles of accessibility: for example,
we can cite newly opening contextual menus remaining
unsignalled the appearance of contextual menus not
signalled, the density of information presented (over 84
links on a single opening page of a municipal site), the
absence of textual alternatives to images, the incoherent
structure of pages organised in table format, the use of
javascript which makes the screen reader used (Jaws)
obsolete, insufficiently explicit links (with do not
consider the remaining text content), the opening of
new windows not signalled, etc.</p>
      <p>
        Other difficulties common to both groups show, instead,
a lack of ergonomics of the sites (according to [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]). It is
mainly a matter of certain polysemic terms
(Téléprocédures~Téléservices), of confusing visited and
non-visited links, of the non-deactivation of links on
the current page, of unclear error messages, of the
dynamic reorganisation of the menus from one page to
another, etc. In the end, these results prove that these
sites do not take into consideration the inabilities of
VDP, and specifically for E-services novices. The
accessibility to certain content is very difficult, short of
impossible; but moreover, the use of E-services
generates a greater mental load that hinders all
involvement in the process (shown by the mediocre
level of efficiency and by the efforts made to overcome
the obstacles to use).
      </p>
      <p>Analysis of acceptability
The thematic analysis performed on these data brought
out several themes grouped into contributions and risks
related to the use of E-services (cf. Table 2 below).
Impact of E-References to E-services perceived E-services perceived
services on the theme in 8 more as a source of more as a source of
the lives of interviews improvement deterioration
VDP</p>
      <p>Social
dimension
Psychological
dimension
Cognitive
dimension
Instrumental</p>
      <p>and
operational
dimension</p>
      <p>Total
21
12
11
13
57
Overall, the visually disabled persons questioned felt
that the benefits of the E-services far outweighed the
difficulties posed (63% to 37%). E-services thus open
“spaces of possibility” that allow DP not only to avoid
the cognitive and operative constraints (spatial and
temporal) due to their disability, but also to regain a
certain autonomy and freedom of action.</p>
      <p>These new perspectives contribute to their
psychological stability and personal fulfilment
(selfesteem). Nevertheless, these people do not idealise
these new services either since they are well aware of
the stakes linked to the lack of accessibility. Therefore,
if administrations are not able to better organize their
electronic services, there is a great risk of marginalizing
people with specific needs even further. From this point
of view, the lack of accessibility represents an
additional factor of exclusion and an obstacle to the
integration of disabled persons.</p>
      <p>Conversely, an exclusive and excessive use of these
tools could also turn out to be dangerous since leading
to a social isolation (doing everything remotely from
home) and the loss of a know-how of physical mobility
combined with a loss of autonomy of the VDP. “The
problem is that staying home, not moving much, that
can create a certain isolation but also a small decline in
my mobility comfort level. If I stay at home for a long
time and do everything on the Internet, at a certain
point, there will be certain things I wouldn’t have the
courage to do anymore”.</p>
      <p>CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
Our study enables us to show that the conditions of use
of E-services depend on three principal factors:
Utility factors in such that the proposed E-services must
meet the expectations of the visually disabled persons
and bring them a real added value through their use (by
augmenting their ability to act, interact, and be
informed).</p>
      <p>Ergonomic factors (usability and accessibility) in which
the specificities of visually disabled persons as well as
their level of expertise (with the internet and screen
readers) are taken into consideration from the
conception.</p>
      <p>Psychosocial factors of acceptability where the
proposed E-services offer the possibility to truly
compensate, assist, and valorise visually disabled
persons.</p>
      <p>These technologies can, in fact, give value to the
individual and confirm/reinforce his place in society by
providing him autonomy. The mastery of these ICT
could therefore result in the modification of his own
perception, the redefinition of his relationship with his
entourage and the amelioration of his capacity for social
integration. However, these contributions could be
limited by the choice of conception. We have, in fact,
shown that the quality of ergonomics and the
insufficient level of accessibility of the interfaces risk
frustrating the user’s interaction with the administrative
sites and in the end hindering their appropriation and
acceptance.</p>
      <p>Also, in opting for environments that do not take into
account the specific needs and aptitudes of disabled
persons, the site creators risk establishing a sort of
"technological glass ceiling" that prevents their disabled
users from using the E-services offered naturally,
whereas able-bodied persons do so with no apparent
difficulty. This digital exclusion would be amplified by
a social exclusion if the services could only be accessed
by the technological channel -- as is planned in the law
concerning administrative modernisation.</p>
      <p>In sum, the digital chasm resulting from the lack of
technological accessibility can be addressed as an
additional dimension that adds to the social chasms that
disabled persons are subjected to and as a factor
contributing to their exclusion and their social isolation.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Bastien</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.M.C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Leulier</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , &amp;
          <string-name>
            <surname>Scapin</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1998</year>
          )
          <article-title>L'ergonomie des sites web</article-title>
          . In J.
          <string-name>
            <surname>-C. Le Moal</surname>
          </string-name>
          &amp; B.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Hidoine</surname>
          </string-name>
          (Eds.),
          <source>Créer et maintenir un service Web</source>
          , ADBS, Paris, (
          <year>1998</year>
          ),
          <fpage>111</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>173</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Beckett</surname>
            <given-names>D.J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          (
          <year>1997</year>
          )
          <article-title>30% accessible - a survey of the UK Wide Web</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Web</source>
          <volume>29</volume>
          , (
          <year>1997</year>
          ),
          <fpage>1367</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1375</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Braillenet</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Pour une meilleure accessibilité des sites publics aux personnes handicapées</article-title>
          . (
          <year>2002</year>
          ) http://www.dusa.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/braillenet.pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fagan</surname>
            <given-names>J.C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Fagan</surname>
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>An accessibility study of state legislative Web sites Government</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Information Quarterly</source>
          <volume>21</volume>
          , (
          <year>2004</year>
          ),
          <fpage>65</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>85</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jaeger P.T.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Telecommunication's policy and individuals with disabilities: Issues of accessibility and social inclusion</article-title>
          .
          <source>In the policy and research agenda. Telecommunications Policy</source>
          , Vol
          <volume>30</volume>
          , (
          <year>2006</year>
          ),
          <fpage>112</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>124</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          6.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Roy</surname>
          </string-name>
          . C.
          <article-title>Accessibilité</article-title>
          . In A.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ambrosi</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Peugeot</surname>
          </string-name>
          et D. Pimienta (Eds)
          <article-title>Enjeux de mots : regards multiculturels sur les sociétés de l'information.</article-title>
          <string-name>
            <surname>C&amp; F Edition</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>Québec</year>
          ,
          <year>2006</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          7.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Paciello</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Web accessibility for people with disabilities</article-title>
          .
          <source>Lawrence</source>
          , KS: CMP Books,
          <year>2000</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          8.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Can Bastalaer P. Améliorer</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>l'accessibilité des sites Web publics pour les personnes handicapées de la vue</article-title>
          . In Actes de la 16°
          <string-name>
            <surname>conférence</surname>
            <given-names>IHM</given-names>
          </string-name>
          '
          <volume>04</volume>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Namur</surname>
          </string-name>
          , (
          <year>Septembre 2004</year>
          ), pp
          <fpage>3</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>6</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          9. WAI.
          <source>Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Checklist</source>
          . 2005a. http://www.w3.org/ TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20050630/ checklist.html
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          10.
          <string-name>
            <surname>WAI</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Accessibility is a Social Issue</article-title>
          .
          <year>2005</year>
          http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/ Drafts/bcase/soc#social
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>