Email Usability for Blind Users

Pre-print version of: Wentz, B., Hochheiser, H., and Lazar, J. (2010, in press). Email usability for blind users. In P. Langdon, P. Clarkson and P. Robinson (eds.) Designing Inclusive Interactions (Proceedings of the 2010 Cambridge Workshop on Universal Access and Assistive Technology) . London: SpringerVerlag.

Email Usability for Blind Users B. Wentz, H. Hochheiser, and J. Lazar

#.1 Introduction It is estimated that there are nearly 2 million individuals in the United States who are blind with no residual vision (Lazar, 2007a), 980,000 in the United Kingdom with significant sight loss (RNIB, 2009), 314 million individuals worldwide who are visually impaired and 45 million worldwide who are fully blind (World Health Organization, 2009). When one considers the unemployment statistics of between 70-75% for working-age blind individuals in the United States (NFB, 2007a) and 75% for blind and visually impaired individuals in the United Kingdom (RNIB, 2008), the usability of email becomes a major concern due to its intersection with many vocational responsibilities. As studies have shown that email frustrations waste the time of all users (Williams & Williams, 2006), the difficulties relating to usability issues combined with the required use of email in the workplace may be creating a possible workplace barrier for blind users. Blind users face many challenges and obstacles when using computers at home and in the workplace, including difficulties in accessing websites and using corporate software. Email usability challenges for blind users have not been studied in detail, so gaining a better understanding of any problems that exist can lead to improvements in email software interfaces. To help understand the challenges faced, a web-based survey on email usage by blind users was developed in late 2008 and administered by the researchers in early 2009.

2

B. Wentz, H. Hochheiser, and J. Lazar

#.2 Related Work #.2.1 Usability Issues for Blind Users Accessibility refers to all users (especially users with impairments) being able to technically access technology, while usability is a broader topic, relating to ease of use. This research project is focused on usability. Blind users experience many usability challenges when using technology and software. Assistive technology tools such as screen readers are necessary for blind individuals to use most software. A screen reader such as JAWS or Window-Eyes is software that will audibly read the visual content on a computer screen to a blind user. HearSay, a non-visual web browser developed by Stony Brook University (Borodin, et. al., 2007), and WebAnywhere, a portable screen reader developed by the University of Washington (Bigham, et. al., 2007b), are examples of alternative approaches to screen readers. Another method that blind users access software is through the use of Braille and Braille-supported devices. The challenge with Braille devices is that they are often cost-prohibitive, and the rate of Braille literacy among blind users is very low (an estimated 10-20% in the United States) (NFB, 2007b). Computer frustrations that impact the ability to complete a work task can affect the mood of blind users (Lazar, et. al., 2006). It is also known that blind users are more likely to avoid content when they are aware, in advance, that it will cause them accessibility problems such as the problems often presented by dynamic web content (Bigham, et. al., 2007a). Blind users are also often forced to discover some sort of workaround to complete a particular task (Shinohara & Tenenberg, 2007). An example of the usability challenges that are faced by blind users is well illustrated in the Lazar, et. al. study on the frustrations that screen reader users experience on the web, which identified poorly labeled links and forms, missing or confusing alternate text for graphics, and problems with PDF files as being some of the challenges commonly faced by blind users on the web (Lazar, et. al., 2007b). Reactive solutions to accessibility and usability problems only serve as shortterm fixes to a larger problem (Emiliani & Stephanidis, 2005). A detailed understanding is necessary for developing proactive solutions that can provide long-term fixes (Hochheiser & Lazar, 2007). On the legal front, in the United States, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act specifies the accessibility standards for government web sites and technology, yet it has remained unclear whether the law specifically mandates that private corporate web sites also be accessible. In the UK, the Disability Discrimination Act specifies accessibility standards for websites, though the focus has been for government web sites (W3C, 2006).

#.2.2 Potential Email Concerns for Blind Users While sighted users can visually scan and skip over offensive or non-relevant emails in their inbox, blind users must listen to the email in their inbox one email at a time. Spam can also present a security threat since it is one of the most

Email Usability for Blind Users

3

common carriers of electronic viruses and worms (Stolfo et. al., 2006). The obvious primary solution to managing spam is through aggressive spam filtering software. The major tradeoff with a spam filter is that by its very nature (filtering email) the likelihood of false positive and negative identification of spam email is always possible (Cormack & Lyman, 2007). It is perceived that blind users tend to use high levels of spam filtering, which may filter out legitimate incoming emails that are sent using a BCC (blind carbon copy) (Lazar, et. al., 2005). Studies over a period of 10 years have shown that an email inbox full of messages is something that most users struggle with (Fisher et al., 2006). Some of the most common methods for managing email revolve around archiving and storing messages in folders as well as the common practice of “inbox message visibility” which involves visually scanning the inbox for messages. It is important to determine how blind users handle email organization as well as other extended features such as calendars and contacts in order to develop suggestions for improvement in design.

#.3 Research Methodology A focus group held in May 2008 at the National Federation of the Blind in Baltimore, Maryland, identified some possible usage barriers of email (Wentz & Lazar, 2009). Spam was noted to be frustrating and embarrassing at times. Methods of searching for and organizing email were discussed as an area that needed to be further explored. Web-based email was noted to be cluttered and often difficult to navigate, and the focus group participants further indicated that there were possible problems with the usage of extended features of many email applications (such as the address book/contacts and calendar). Visual CAPTCHAs (distorted letters used to verify that a user is human and not a security threat) were noted to be very problematic for blind users. CAPTCHAs are often required for registering for web-based email accounts and when sending messages through some providers. The results of this focus group prompted the creation of a webbased survey to further explore email usability for blind users. The content of the web-based survey included 4 questions about demographic information, 3 questions about work and educational information, 5 questions about general email usage history and habits, 13 questions about extended email features and organization, 7 questions about phishing and spam management, and specific adaptive sections relating to both stand-alone software and web-based email. In addition, there were 2 questions about using BrailleNote for email access, 2 questions about social networking web sites, and 1 question asking the respondents what could be changed to make email more usable for them. Initially a web-based survey tool called SurveyMonkey was used to develop the survey due to its advertisement as a Section 508 compliant survey tool (SurveyMonkey, 2008). After testing the web-based survey with the JAWS screen reader software, it was determined that SurveyMonkey was not, in fact, entirely accessible. At this time, a different tool, SurveyGizmo was used to develop the web-based survey, and it was tested successfully. The survey was created using

4


skip logic so that if questions were not relevant to a particular respondent, they would not be asked. Example: if a survey respondent indicated that he or she does not use web-based email, the questions relating to web-based email would not be asked. Also, users were permitted to leave questions blank. The web-based survey was advertised through emails to the state chapters of the National Federation of the Blind. In difficult to reach user groups such as those with disabilities, self-selected sampling methods are considered to be valid (Lazar, et. al., 2010). In addition, since the population of interest is blind users and there is no central directory of all blind individuals, a true random sampling would be technically impossible. The goal of this survey was to identify problems and concerns, rather than to rank or prioritize them in a statistically robust manner.

#.4 Results #.4.1 Demographics Data was gathered from January 21, 2009 through April 30, 2009, and 129 valid responses were received from the survey. The survey respondents were asked to be at least 18 years of age, self-labeled as blind, and screen reader users not able to use screen magnification. Not everyone answered every question, since the respondents were permitted to skip questions. Each following statistic discussed will include the number of respondents for the particular survey question. The overall employment rate of 49% of respondents was significantly higher than the national employment average of blind individuals in the United States (National Federation of the Blind, 2007) and that of blind and partially-sighted individuals in the United Kingdom (Royal National Institute of Blind People, 2008). 21 out of 128 (16%) reported being enrolled in academic classes at a college or university. Out of 123 respondents who reported gender, 64 (52%) were female, indicating an almost balanced response from both genders. Out of 126 respondents who answered the question on approximate age, the largest number of respondents were from 22 to 64 years of age. For data on participant age, consult table #.1. Table #.1. Approximate Age of Respondents Age Range 65 and over 55 to 64 45 to 54 35 to 44 22 to 34 18 to 21

Number of responses 7 41 25 20 28 5

Percentage 6 33 20 16 22 4

125 respondents reported on the number of years that they have been using email. 113 (90%) of the respondents had been using email for more than 5 years, so one may propose that the sample represented primarily experienced email users.


5

Since the survey was of a self-selected group, the respondents may have been more likely to be employed and experienced. 84 (68%) of 124 respondents reported that they check their email more than 3 times per day, and 76 (61%) noted that they primarily use email at home. The amount of time spent using email per day was reported by 124 particpants. For data on the number of times per day respondents reported checking email, consult table #.2.

Table #.2. Times Per Day Checking Email Times per day Once per day Twice per day Three times per day More than three times per day

Number of responses 5 15 20 84

Percentage 4 12 16 68

#.4.2 Stand-alone Email Software Usage 100 of the survey’s 129 respondents (78%) reported using stand-alone email software to some extent (some of these respondents also reported using web-based email). Based on the their responses, 42 out of 129 respondents (33%) indicated that they use stand-alone email software exclusively (i.e. no web-based email used). The most popular email software was from Microsoft. Respondents were restricted to selecting only one type (their primary choice). Some examples of the email software in the “other” category included Mozilla Thunderbird, Eudora, and Windows Mail. For data on the type of stand-alone email software used, consult table #.3. Table #.3. Type of stand-alone email software used Email software Lotus Notes 8 Microsoft Outlook Express Microsoft Outlook 2002 Microsoft Outlook 2003 Microsoft Outlook 2007 Novell GroupWise 6 Novell GroupWise 7 Other (not listed)

Number of responses 1 43 4 28 7 1 1 15

Percentage 1 43 4 28 7 1 1 15

#.4.3 Web-based Email Usage 76 out of 129 (59%) of the survey respondents reported using web-based email. 17 out of 129 respondents (13%) indicated that they use web-based email exclusively. On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the most important), 43 out of 75 (57%) reported

6


that web-based email was moderately to highly important (selecting 3 to 5 on the scale). The most popular specified type of web-based email was Gmail, which was used by 22 out of 74 respondents (30%). Respondents were restricted to selecting only one type (their primary choice). For data on the type of web-based email used, consult table #.4.

Table #.4. Type of web-based email used Web-based email used AOL Gmail GroupWise Webmail Hotmail Outlook Web Access 2003 SquirrelMail Yahoo Mail Other (not listed)

Number of responses 2 22 1 11 2 2 9 25

Percentage 3 30 1 15 3 3 12 34

Problems that users experienced with web-based email were things such as the use of poorly composed HTML tags for headings, difficult navigation because of the excessive number of links, cluttered interfaces that can make it difficult to directly access email messages, and the use of visual CAPTCHAs.

#.4.4 Handling Spam Survey respondents were asked to select the statement that best describes their experience with spam emails. A majority (66 out of 119; 55%) of respondents noted that spam is somewhat of an annoyance to them, however, only 12% indicated that spam is very frustrating and embarrassing. 2% of those respondents did note that spam is so frustrating that it almost prevents them from using email at all. Respondents were next asked whether they were using a spam filter. 82 out of 127 (65%) users reported using a spam filter. 3% of the users were not certain whether or not they were using a spam filter. 82 respondents answered the next question which asked how often their spam filter mistakenly filters out legitimate email. 48% of those responding rarely experienced this problem. For data on how respondents reported spam filtering blocking legitimate email, consult table #.5. Table #.5. Spam Filter Blocking Legitimate Email Occurrence Never Very rarely Once or twice a week Several times a week

Number of responses 12 39 17 5

Percentage 15 48 21 6


Almost every day

9

7

11

#.4.5 Extended Email Features #.4.5.1 Address Book / Contacts The first question relating to extended features of email usage was whether an email address book was used to manage contacts, and out of 127 respondents who answered the question, 110 (87%) reported using an email address book. When asked about the level of difficulty that is experienced when using the email address book, 58 (53%) out of 109 respondents rated their email address book as a 1 (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most difficult). The next question was whether there would be a benefit from an email function that would allow a user to automatically add a contact to their address book by checking a box when replying to an email. Out of 118 respondents, 85 (72%) indicated that this would indeed be a useful feature. While some email programs do provide this feature, many do not. Respondents using Microsoft stand-alone email software were asked whether they used the auto-complete feature (automatically remembering and suggesting an email recipient when composing an email), and 46 (56%) reported that they do use that feature. On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the most satisfied), 37 out of 46 (80%) reported being moderately to greatly satisfied with the feature (selecting 3 to 5 on the scale). It should be noted, however (refer to the automatic contact function discussed above), that many blind users would prefer more than simply the autocomplete functionality. #.4.5.2 Calendar The next question asked relating to extended email features was whether the email calendar was used. Out of 128 respondents to this question, only 25 (20%) reported using an email calendar. When asked about the level of difficulty experienced when using the email calendar, only 23 respondents answered the question. The majority of those (9; 39%) selected a 3 on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the most difficult). 18 respondents answered the follow-up question which was to describe the difficulties that they experience with with their email calendar. Navigation and labeling were among the problems that users noted. While not every email client supports calendar integration, stand-alone email software such as Microsoft Outlook and web-based email such as Gmail and Yahoo are examples of common products that do support email and calendar integration. #.4.5.3 Reminders 128 respondents answered a question about the use of email reminders. An email reminder is a method of flagging an email for follow-up at a later time when the user selects a format and timeframe to be reminded. The reminder itself is typically a pop-up at the predetermined time, and there is often also an audio cue. 93 respondents (73%) indicated that they did not use email reminders When asked about the ease of use of email reminders, 18 out of 34 respondents (53%) selected a 1 on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being the most difficult). One of the few problems

8


with email reminders that was described was the reminder causes the screen reader software to lose the focus (position) on the screen. #.4.5.4 Storage and Organization Sorting and searching for email was noted to be problematic for some users, with 40 out of 123 respondents (32%) indicating a moderate to difficult time sorting email and 49 out of 127 respondents (39%) indicating a moderate to difficult time searching for email (selecting 3 to 5 on the scale). 127 respondents reported on the amount of email stored in their inbox on a regular basis. 55 (43%) reported storing 50 or more messages in their email inbox. Only 20% noted that they kept only a few messages in their inbox. The most common method of organizing email selected was responding to or deleting a message immediately, with 101 out of 127 respondents (80%) utilizing this method as one of their methods of email organization. Storing a message in a folder was almost as common, with 92 respondents (72%) utilizing this method. A majority of respondents (67) also noted that they often wait until an email is no longer needed and then delete it. Respondents were permitted to select more than one utilized method of organizing email. 61% (50 out of 83 responses) of those using Microsoft stand-alone email software responded that they do not use Microsoft “rules” to organize email messages, and out of the 39% who reported that they do, 54% reported a moderate to high level of difficulty when using this feature (3 to 5 on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the most difficult). It is possible that sighted users may also experience difficulties with this feature. Respondents using stand-alone email software were asked whether they change email folder settings to make them easier to use with their screen reader software. Out of 84 responses to that question, 48 respondents (57%) indicated that they did not. Additional details concerning which settings users changed were included in the survey. The two most reported changes reported were changing the sorting order of messages and disabling the preview pane.

#.4.6 Important Improvements Survey respondents were asked an open-ended question regarding what they felt would be the most important changes for blind users that could be made to email software. 100 of the survey’s respondents offered a variety of suggestions. A summary of the most common responses (ordered according to the number of times an improvement was suggested, with the most common suggestion appearing first) is contained in table #.6. Table #.6. Suggestions for Improvement of Email Applications Summary List of Suggestions: Improved search usability within stand-alone and web-based email applications Easier to use contacts/address books


9

Easier method of reading and recognizing attachments More accessible and usable web-based email Overall simplification of the use and navigation of email applications Easier to use email calendars A concrete solution to spam email Easier to use message “rules” A unique sound to indicate a message of high importance Better alternatives to visual CAPTCHAs

#.5 Discussion The data from this survey revealed several important facets of email that could be improved for blind users. The email calendar functionality is a vital part of enabling an individual to fully collaborate in the workplace, as exemplified by the use of the calendar to schedule meetings and manage one’s schedule, yet a large percentage of blind users are not using an email calendar. Contacts could also become more usable, with 85 out of 118 (72%) of respondents reporting that a feature to more easily automatically add contacts to the address book would be a benefit to them (not simply an auto-complete cache of email addresses). It was also clear from the comments of the 76 out of 129 (59%) of respondents who reported using web-based email that a focus on creating more usable webbased email would be important to blind users. There were many positive comments about the usability of many of the current web-based email products, but reducing cluttered interfaces, making attachments easier to recognize and simplifying navigation were repeatedly noted as needed improvements. The next step in this research is to obtain more in-depth information about the highlighted problems by formal usability testing of individual stand-alone and web-based interfaces with blind users. The proposed research agenda with desired outcomes for more in-depth usability testing is prioritized in table #.7. Table #.7. Prioritized Agenda and Outcomes for Usability Testing Priority 1 2 3 4

Item Obtaining suggestions for simplification of email interfaces Identifying the navigation problems of web-based email Examining issues relating to email calendaring Articulating a solution to easily adding contacts to the address book

10


#.6 References Bigham J, Cavender A, Brudvik J, Wobbrock J, Ladner R (2007) WebinSitu: a comparitive analysis of blind and sighted browing behavior. In Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 51-58 Bigham J, Prince C, Ladner R (2007) WebAnywhere: a screen reader on-the-go. In Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 225-226 Borodin Y, Mahmud J, Ramakrishnan I, Stent A (2007) The HearSay non-visual web browser. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary conference on Web accessibility (W4A), 128-129 Cormack G, Lynam T (2007) Online supervised spam filter evaluation. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst., 25(3), 1-31 Emiliani P, Stephanidis C (2005) Universal access to ambient intelligence environments: Opportunities and challenges for people with disabilities. IBM Systems Journal, 44(3), 605-619 Fisher D, Brush A, Gleave E, Smith M (2006). Revisiting Whittaker & Sidner's "email overload" ten years later. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 20th anniversary conference on Computer supported cooperative work, 309-312 Hochheiser H, Lazar J (2007) HCI and societal issues: a framework for engagement. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 23(3), 339-374 Lazar J (Ed.) (2007) Universal Usability: Designing Computer Interfaces for Diverse Users. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons. Lazar J, Allen A, Kleinman J, Lawrence J (2005) Methodological Issues in Using Time Diaries to Collect Frustration Data from Blind Computer Users. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (HCII). Proceedings on CD-ROM Lazar J, Allen A, Kleinman J, Malarkey C (2007) What Frustrates Screen Reader Users on the Web: A study of 100 Blind Users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 22(3), 247-269 Lazar J, Feng J, Allen A (2006) Determining the Impact of Computer Frustration on the Mood of Blind Users Browsing the Web. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Assistive Technology (ASSETS), 149-156 Lazar J, Feng J, Hochheiser H (2010) Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons. National Federation of the Blind (2007) Assuring Opportunities: A 21st Century Strategy to Increase Employment of Blind Americans. Retrieved September 17, 2007, from http://www.nfb.org/nfb/Randolph-Sheppard_facts.asp?SnID=2 National Federation of the Blind (2007) Promoting Braille: A Campaign to Increase Literacy for Blind Youth. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from http://www.nfb.org/nfb/ Louis_Braille_coin_facts.asp?SnID=1758554996 Royal National Institute of Blind People (2008) Increasing Employment Amongst Blind and Partially Sighted People. Retreived June 30, 2009, from http://www.rnib.org.uk/ xpedio/groups/public/documents/PublicWebsite/public_campemploy.hcsp Royal National Institute of Blind People (2009) Statistics – number of people with sight problems by age group in the UK. Retrieved July 1, 2009 from http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_researchsta ts.hcsp Shinohara K, Tenenberg J (2007) Observing Sara: a case study of a blind person’s interactions with technology. In Proceedings of the 9th International SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 171-178


11

Stolfo S, Hershkop S, Hu C-W, Li W-J, Nimeskern O, Wang K (2006) Behavior-based modeling and its application to Email analysis. ACM Trans. Inter. Tech., 6(2), 187-221 SurveyMonkey (2008) Are your surveys 508 compliant and accessible? Retrieved June 9, 2009, from http://www.surveymonkey.com/HelpCenter/Answer.aspx?HelpID=247 Wentz B. and Lazar J (2009). Email Accessibility and Social Networking. In Proceedings of HCI international 2009. A Ozok and P Zaphiris, Eds. Lecture Notes In Computer Science, vol. 5621. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 134-140 W3C (2006) Web Site Accessbility and UK Legislation. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/ukofficewai.html Williams T, Williams R (2006) Too much e-mail! Communication World, 23(6), 38-41 World Health Organization (2009) Visual Impairment and Blindness. Retrieved July 30, 2009, from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en/