The contrast of a website doesn’t just affect its usability for low-vision individuals; it affects everyone. This study aims to evaluate the effects of contrast (low, medium, or high) on web browsing experience in normally-sighted individuals. Cognitive load associated with the task was assessed using the NASA task load index (NASA-TLX) and the usability of the website was assessed by the systems usability scale (SUS). We found that NASA-TLX scores significantly increased with the amount of time a task took, indicating an effect of task difficulty. The impact of contrast was reported during end-of-study interviews, but no significant difference was found between the three chosen contrast levels in NASA-TLX or SUS scores. This study is part 1 of a multi-part research project and future research will compare low-vision individuals to their typically-sighted peers. Together, the studies in this project aim to quantitatively determine the effects of contrast users’ web browsing experience to further accessibility research and web development guidelines.
AlmeidaR.DuarteC. (2020). Analysis of automated contrast checking tools. In Proceedings of the 17th International Web for All Conference, 1–4.
3.
BachM. (1996). The “Freiberg Visual Acuity Test”—Automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optometry and Vision Science, 73(1), 49–53.
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1-48.
5.
BlackwellA.G. (2017). The curb-cut effect. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 15(1), 28-33.
6.
BrookeJ. (1996). SUS – A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189(194), 4–7.
7.
DrorA. A.MorozovN. G.LayousE.MizrachiM.DaoudA.EisenbachN.RayanD.KaykovE.MareiH.BarhumM.SroujiS.AvrahamK. B.SelaE. (2021). United by hope, divided by access: Country mapping of COVID-19 information accessibility and its consequences on pandemic eradication. Frontiers in Medicine, 7, 618337.
8.
GiesbrechtF. G.BurnsJ. C. (1985). Two-stage analysis based on a mixed model: Large-sample asymptotic theory and small-sample simulation results. Biometrics, 41(2), 477-486.
9.
HansenF.KrivanJ. J.SandnesF. E. (2019). Still not readable? An interactive tool for recommending color pairs with sufficient contrast based on existing visual designs. In The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 636–638.
10.
HartS. G. (2006). Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50(9), 904–908.
11.
HewittD. H.HeY. (2021). Internet accessibility for blind and visually-impaired users: An evaluation of official U.S. state and territory COVID-19 websites. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 65(1), 154-158.
12.
HughesJ. L.CamdenA. A.YangchenT. (2016). Rethinking and updating demographic questions: Guidance to improve descriptions of research samples [Editorial]. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 21(3), 138-151.
13.
KirkpatrickA.O ConnorJ.CampbellA.CooperM. (2018, June5). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
14.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP.B.ChristensenR.H.B. (2017). LmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1-26.
15.
LeggeG. E.BigelowC. A. (2011). Does print size matter for reading? A review of findings from vision science and typography. Journal of Vision, 11(5), 1–22.
16.
LeggeG. E.RubinG. S.LuebkerA. (1987). Psychophysics of reading—V. The role of contrast in normal vision. Vision Research, 27(7), 1165–1177.
17.
R Core Team (2021). R: A Language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.0.5) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
18.
RubinG. S.LeggeG. E. (1989). Psychophysics of reading. VI—The role of contrast in low vision. Vision Research, 29(1), 79–91.
19.
SatterthwaiteF. E. (1946). An approximate distribution of estimates of variance components. Biometrics bulletin, 2(6), 110-114.
20.
SchmutzS.SondereggerA.SauerJ. (2016). Implementing recommendations from web accessibility guidelines: Would they also provide benefits to nondisabled users. Human Factors, 58(4), 611-629.
21.
SchmutzS.SondereggerA.SauerJ. (2017). Implementing recommendations from web accessibility guidelines: A comparative study of nondisabled users and users with visual impairments. Human Factors, 59(6), 956-972.
WebAIM. (2021, April30). WebAIM: The WebAIM Million—An annual accessibility analysis of the top 1,000,000 home pages. WebAIM: Web Accessibility In Mind. https://webaim.org/projects/million/
24.
WickhamH.AverickM.BryanJ.ChangW.McGowanL.D.FrançoisR.GrolemundG.HayesA.HenryL.HesterJ.KuhnM.PedersonT.L.MillerE.BacheS.M.MüllerK.OomsJ.RobinsonD.SeidelD.P.SpinuV.…YutaniH.(2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686.
