For this assignment, I had to review an article which was about the topic for the week. I had to post it to the Canvas discussion board, with few questions, and reply to any answers. My topic was search interfaces. I had a false start, as I chose a much older, though still-relevant, article at first. I chose and article about Dyslexia and Search Interfaces.
Article Review: Module 11: Search Interfaces
This article, Is visual content in textual search interfaces beneficial to dyslexic users?, focuses on the effect the layout
and look of a search interface, specifically how it helps or hinders someone
with dyslexia. Dyslexia, like other sensory processing disorders, effects how
the brain processes input from the sensors, in this case, words and letters. As
the article discusses, there have been several studies about font and font
sizes for those with dyslexia, but that few studies have focused on search
interfaces from the perspective of the users.
The authors of
this article created a study to test their hypotheses about those with dyslexia
and search interfaces. They hypothesized several things, including that those
with dyslexia would prefer icons over words, and would do better in tasks with primarily
visual aspects. They ultimately recruited 42 volunteers, of whom half had
dyslexia and half did not (as a control group). The researchers tracked eye movement
to see how both groups did, studying how long the gaze lingered. The groups
were matched (gender, age, and class), to better ensure good results. All
participants had to complete multiple rounds of testing, and the data was
collected, collated, and analyzed.
The researchers
noticed that those with dyslexia took longer to find the target of the search
on all tests, with the exception of the test with no text. Those with dyslexia
also showed no significant speed different between icon arrays and word arrays,
while the control group was significantly faster using word arrays to complete
the search.
The survey found that:
1. Those with
dyslexia did take longer in the tests with words than tests without words;
2. Those with
dyslexia (and those without) do benefit from having words as well as icons (or
icons as well as words), but only if one is outside of where the eye is
actively looking;
3. Those with
dyslexia do seem to prefer icons to words, but icons take more processing
power; and,
4. While the group
with dyslexia did search less efficiently than the control group, this could be
remedied by changing the layout of the interface.
The authors
suggested that further research be conducted as to the effect of layout on
search interfaces, and concludes that presenting both words and icons would
help everyone, not just those with dyslexia. The author add that the layout of
the icons could actively hinder any user, and advises how to ameliorate that.
This article is
very relevant to this class, as it deals with how researchers interact with
search engine interfaces. As the authors mentioned, very little research has
gone into studying how those with dyslexia interact with and use search
interfaces. With the proliferation of digital libraries and their availability
to anyone with an Internet connection, the way they can be searched is very
important. If the search interface is not accessible to potential users. The
addition of icons to a search bar may not occur to more than a few people, but
it could potentially help hundreds.
Questions for class:
1. Most of
Google’s Gmail commands are icons, as opposed to words. How do you think that
improves accessibility?
2. Upon landing
in Kyiv, one is directed through passport control, then to baggage claim, and
from there to customs.
2a. Without
knowing Ukrainian, do you think that you would be able to get where you needed
to go in Boryspil Airport?
2b. Do you think
it is important that the signs in Boryspil are in Ukrainian, Russian, English,
and icons (such as a man dragging a large suitcase)?
2c. How does
this question relate to this article?
International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies 92-93(2016) 17–29
No comments:
Post a Comment