Universal Access in Practice: Usability Evauation of Cellular Telephones for Users with Disabilities

Abstract

Cellular telephones provide a portable means of communication and facilitate many communication tasks in daily life. Persons with disabilities, however, have limited access to these devices, which may be due to product designs that do not always consider their needs. Usability evaluations can identify the needs and difficulties when using cellular telephones, and those with disabilities are also likely to benefit from focused evaluations. The usability of cellular telephones was investigated among those with visual and upper extremity disabilities. Both objective and subjective evaluation methods were used to determine the effects of several telephone display and keypad design features. Lateral key pitch is reported here. Objective and subjective measures were similar among participant categories, with the 12 mm and 13 mm levels of lateral pitch generally the best across all measures. Results suggest keypad design features to consider when designing accessible cellular telephones. Universal design implications are also discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bailey

R. W.

(1993). Performance vs. Preference. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Seattle, WA, HFES.

Bass

(2001). Interaction Technologies: Beyond the Desktop. In Stephanidis

, User Interfaces for All - Concepts, Methods, and Tools (pp. 81–95). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kay

(2001). User Modeling for Adaptation. In Stephandis

, User Interfaces for All - Concepts, Methods, and Tools (1 ed., Vol. 1, pp. 271–294). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kaye

(2000). Disability and the Digital Divide. Published by U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR).

Langton

A. J.

Ramseur

(2001). Enhancing employment outcomes through job accommodation and assistive technology resources and services. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 16, 28–37.

Loricchio

D. F.

Lewis

J. R.

(1991, September 2–6). User Assessment of Standard and Reduced-Size Numeric Keypads. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Francisco, CA.

Newell

Gregor

(1997). Human Computer Interfaces for People With Disabilities. In Helander

M. G.

Landauer

T. K.

Prabhu

P. V.

, Handbook of Human Computer Interaction (pp. 813–824). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.

Nielsen

(1993). Usability Engineering. San Diego, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

Saetersdal

(1997). Forbidden Suffering: The Pollyanna Syndrome of the Disabled and Their Families. Family Process 36(4): 431–435.

10.

Sanders

M. S.

McCormick

E. J.

(1993). Human Factors In Engineering And Design. New York, N.Y., McGraw-Hill, Inc.

11.

Stephanidis

(2001). User Interfaces for All: New Perspectives into Human-Computer Interaction. In Stephanidis

, User Interfaces for All - Concepts, Methods, and Tools (Vol. 1, pp. 3–17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

12.

Vanderheiden

(1990). Thirty-Something (Million): Should They Be Exceptions? Human Factors, 32(4), 383–396.

13.

Vanderheiden

Henry

S. L.

(2001). Everyone Interfaces. In Stephanidis

, User Interfaces for All - Concepts, Methods, and Tools (Vol. 1, pp. 115–133). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14.

Wickens

C. D.

Hollands

J. G.

(2000). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.