An Analysis of Web Site Usability for the

Senior Population

CIS 732

Fall 2001 Semester

Submitted to Professor Turoff

Submitted by Mark Boxer

December 17, 2001

Table of Contents

I. Abstract

II. Introduction

III. Background and Statistics

IV. The Concept of Universal Access

V. Physiological and Physical Changes of Aging

VI. The Legislative Arena

VII. Design Considerations

VIII. Usability and Testing Approaches

IX. Examples of Good and Poor Design

X. Recommendations for Future Improvements

XI. Conclusions

XII. Sources

I. Abstract

This paper will focus on researching and analyzing web site design and usability as it pertains to an aging population. For a variety of reasons, aging users typically are representative of the challenges facing the broader disabled population. For example, in a cross-section of seniors, one will find issues related to vision, hearing, mobility and cognitive abilities. The design of a web site needs to reflect the needs of this unique population. In addition, with the guidelines being defined for the American’s with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and Section 508 legislative needs, the design recommendations in this area will become more critical. I will plan to cover research for what issues need to managed, and how those issues can be accommodated in design. From this research, the findings can be extrapolated to a set of design guidelines for challenged users, beyond the aging populations cited in this study.

II. Introduction

The Internet is becoming an increasingly critical tool in our information intensive society. More Americans than ever are going on-line for business and personal reasons, including education, correspondence, commerce and information. Being digitally connected is becoming a requirement to being able to function in this information rich society (Minetta, 2000). Given that a large number of American’s are using the Internet for daily activities, those not connected, or limited in functionality, are at a disadvantage. The aging population is particularly hard hit by these issues.

According to the United States Census, the fastest growing segment of the United States population is persons over the age of 65 (Groff, 1999). In parallel, the use of computers and the Internet are also growing at significant rates. These two trends compounded together would lead one to believe that the use of the Internet by the elderly would be growing as well. That is not the case. The elderly are currently among the lowest users of the Internet. There are barriers that must be overcome in order for the elderly population to be enthusiastic users of the Internet. While there is a general belief that the elderly tend to be more technology phobic than other populations, there are other issues that more clearly act as barriers to adoption (Clarke, 2000).

One of the myths that must be overcome is that the elderly hold more negative attitudes towards computers, and thus are less likely to use them. A study conducted of 384 seniors, completing three real world tasks over three days showed that there were no age-related differences in attitudes. However, there were age-related effects for the dimensions of comfort, efficacy, and control over the systems (Czaja, 2001). This would lead to the conclusion that if systems and interfaces were built in such a way as to accommodate age-related differences, use would increase. The study found that the nature of the computer experience has a direct impact on the attitude change for the use of a system.

If these barriers can be overcome, the potential exists for the elderly to improve their lives by the use of this technology. According to a survey taken by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), only 24% of their population use computers. This is significantly less than the general population (Clarke, 2000).

In North America, at the turn of the century, the average life expectancy was 46 years, today it has grown to over 76 years. It is estimated that by 2031, one in four people will be 65 years of age and older, up from one in seven today. As the post World War II baby boom continues to age, there will be more seniors than ever in the population worldwide (Speizle, 2001). It is impossible to ignore this growing population where design is concerned. However, studies of human computer interaction have, in general, overlooked older people (Clarke, 2000). Some research indicates that while people over the age of 65 make up 12% of the population, by some estimates they may compromise as little as 1% of active Internet users (Clarke, 2000).

Since its creation, the web has been an evolving and changing medium. It has morphed itself many times, as use and applications have grown. Unfortunately, the design and content of the sites on the web typically reflect the interests and personality of the designers themselves. These designers are typically one-third to one-half the ages of the senior population (Spiezle, 2001).

However, there is an emerging approach in interface design that take into account the concept of designing user interfaces over a life span. In this approach, the design of human interfaces would take into account the generation of the user. That is, a user interface for a child will be dramatically different that that for a senior (Brouwer-Janse, 1995). That aligns to the concepts promoted in user centric design. There, the design of user interfaces should always be based on a complete understanding of the users and their tasks.

We have seen that users can be classified into various profiles. These profiles include a classification by function, by nature of use, by skill level and by role (Smith 1997). The profile by age will become increasingly important as the aging segment of the population grows as well. We know from research that there are known changes in information processing capabilities, visual accuracy, hearing and working memory as a population ages. It is the challenge for the designer to deal with these changes (Smith 1997).

Effective usability takes into account navigation, functionality and the degree of interactiveness from the perspective of the user. Understanding generational perspectives requires an understanding of the changes one goes through in the aging process and how that reflects back on these three dimensions in design. Usable design need not be inadequate design.

There are several myths prevalent in web accessibility. Web accessibility for the aging population need not be dull and boring text based services. Accessible web authoring need not be expensive and time consuming. Appropriate design need not be difficult to master and can provide benefits beyond those that are aimed at the targeted aging population (Shum & McKnight, 1997)

In fact, in looking to the future, there are positive steps taking place. In the "Web 97" series, there was a full usability track, more articles are being written and focused workshops on this issue are gaining greater acceptance (Shum & McKnight, 1997). In addition, on the legislative side of the equation, mandates for accessibility are taking on some teeth.

III. Background and Statistics

We know from statistical research that Internet use is growing rapidly (Minetta, 2000). As of April 2000, we know that:

· The share of households with Internet access grew by 58% since December 1998, to a level where 41.5% of all households have access.

· There were 116.5 million Americans online, 31.9 million greater than only 20 months earlier.

· Individual Internet usage grew by one third, from 32.7% to 44.4%. As that growth continues, we expect that half of all Americans will be using the Internet by the end of this year.

Within that tremendous growth, there are still digital “have-nots” in the population (Minetta, 2000). While the gaps continue to close, individuals age 50 and older are still less likely to use the Internet than their younger counterparts. Compounding this issue is the fact that people with a disability are only half as likely to have access to the Internet as those without a disability. Among people with disabilities, those with impaired vision and problems with manual dexterity have even lower rates of Internet access and are less likely to ever use a computer. Americans with disabilities then are less than half as likely as their non-disabled counterparts to own a computer and they are about one-quarter as likely to use the Internet. Elderly people with disabilities are particularly unlikely to make use of these technologies (Kaye, 2000). Among persons age 65 and above, only 10% of those with disabilities have computers, while 25% without disabilities have a computer. Of those with disabilities, only 2.2% use the Internet.

For purposes of the U.S. Department of Commerce Study on Internet Usage, ages were segmented to approximately correspond to the stages of a persons life. Children (ages 3-8), youth (ages 9-17), college/early workforce (ages 18-24), workforce (ages 25-49), late workforce to retirement (ages 50+). One of the issues in defining the aging population for purposes of study on Internet usage is what is the definition of a senior. One definition could be eligibility for membership in the American Association of retired Persons (AARP), where members must be at least 55 years of age. For purposes of traditional retirement, the age of 65 was always considered a milestone. In many research studies, seniors are defined as those 70 and older. For purposes of this research, the age of fifty and above will allow us to use the definitions and statistics gathered by the U.S. Government on Internet usage.

Internet Usage by Age

Source: United States Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics, Oct. 2000

Compounding this age disparity, is the disparity that exists when disabilities are taken into account. When age is factored in with disability, the rates of access drop significantly. As shown in research from the United States Department of Commerce, the lowest rates of access are ages 65 and over with a disability.

Internet Usage by Age by Disability

Source: United States Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics, Oct. 2000

IV. The Concept of Universal Access

"The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect." Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director and inventor of the World Wide Web, from the W3C Web Accessibility Web Site.

Much analysis has been done and much commentary has been written about the idea of access for all, other wise known as universal access. The concept of an inclusive information society has been promoted in both the United States and Europe since approximately 1999, although several efforts predate that position (Stephanidis, 1999). Universal accessibility is the first pre-requisite in achieving an inclusive information society. What do we mean by universal accessibility?

Universal access, universal design or design for all takes on different meanings, depending on the person describing it. In general though, what is accepted as principle is that a web site design must recognize and value the effort required to accommodate the broadest possible range of human abilities, skills, requirements and preferences in the product and supporting environment (Stephandis, 1999).

In making Internet resources accessible to the older population, considerations need to be made for people with a variety of disabilities. A universal design methodology to approach the challenges of access is critical. Universal design means that web sites are designed not for the average user, but for people with a broad range of abilities and disabilities.

If barriers to access are overcome, the Internet can provide many new opportunities for the elderly population in particular, as well as for people with disabilities. Two issues are at the core of this access, though; access to hardware and access to the electronic resources and tools that make up the Internet. The issue of access to hardware can be solved in many ways. For the aging population, hardware and resources have been made available through senior centers and libraries. However, access to the electronic resources and tools are in many cases prevented by the fundamental designs of the web sites themselves.

There are many tangible benefits to be had by adopting the concept of universal access. First, there are economic benefits to be had. By increasing the proportion of individuals that can use the web site for commerce and commerce-related activities, there are larger market shares to be had and a greater proportion of wallet-share to be had. The audience for a site that is universally accessible is much greater than one that is not. Take the example of a building. A store that is accessible to disabled individuals and the elderly is much more likely to have patronage by abled and disabled people, as one that is not accessible (Stephandis, 1999).

Second, the concepts and approaches of universal accessibility make a web site more efficient. Many of the design concepts promoted for universal accessibility reduce the costs to develop and support the web site itself. Separating the structure and content from the presentation make the web site easier to maintain. In addition, many of the simplifications driven by universal design can actually reduce the cost to maintain the site on an ongoing basis (Stephandis, 1999).

Third, there is an inherent reduction in legal liability by embracing universal design early. As legislative mandates evolve, strengthen and grow, many of the early concepts of universal access will not be just guidelines but law. Design with them in mind will reduce future legal penalties and eliminate the cost to retrofit web sites with usability templates (Stephandis, 1999).

Lastly, there are the benefits of promoting socially responsible behaviors. Web site that are aligned with the needs of the disabled and elderly are more likely to receive positive press. A company who embraces these concepts is more likely to be viewed as an employer of choice and may in fact be able to attract a more diverse workforce. Many accessibility solutions described in this document contribute to universal design

by benefiting non-disabled users as well as people with disabilities. For example, support for speech output not only benefits blind users, but also Web users whose eyes are busy with other tasks; while captions for audio not only benefit deaf users, but also increase the efficiency of indexing and searching for audio content on Web sites (Stephandis, 1999).

The concept of an inclusive information society will continue to be a prominent theme among leading thinkers in the technology arena. The International Scientific Forum (ISF) continues to drive a broad set of issues related to accessibility, usability and ultimately the acceptability of an information society for all (Stephanidis, 1999). As work by prominent researchers, such as Shneiderman, becomes more prevalent, these practices will become more accepted. Shneiderman promotes three steps for universal usability: providing for technology variety, user diversity and gaps in knowledge (Browne, 2000). While admirable goals, there is much work left to do in order to operationalize these concepts into web site design. For the elderly, as we will see, the most important guidelines are those that relate to vision, motor skills, hearing and working memory.

V. Physiological and Physical Changes of Aging

There are many changes one goes through in the aging process. These natural changes typically reflect the degernative effects of aging and include diminished and impaired vision, varying degrees of hearing loss, issues with hand eye coordination and fine motor impairments, as well as a decrease in cognitive abilities (Spiezle, 2001). Some of these are brought on simply through the aging process, while others are the result of strokes or other illnesses or disease states. These may lead to secondary issues that may cause a disability. Many times defining the disability is not always easy, since the degree and impact may vary by individual.

As of yet there are no universally accepted categorizations of disability. Commonly used disability terminology varies from country to country and between different disability communities in the same country. There is a trend in many disability communities to use functional terminology instead of medical classifications. This paper does not attempt to comprehensively address issues of terminology. For purposes of this analysis, we will use the common definitions of disability as they relate to changes in functional ability, associated with the aging process (Spiezle, 2001).

Regardless of how they are medically defined, we know that the number and severity of limitations tend to increase as people age, and may include changes in vision, hearing, memory, or motor function. Aging-related conditions can be accommodated on the Web by the same accessibility solutions used to accommodate people of any age with similar disabilities. And in fact, different disabilities many times require similar accommodations (Spiezle, 2001).

Some people with the described conditions not consider themselves to have disabilities. They may, however, have limitations of sensory, physical or cognitive functioning which can affect access to the Web. These may include injury-related and aging-related conditions, and can be temporary or chronic.

For purposes of web site design, the functions of vision, hearing, motor ability, cognitive ability and issues related to stroke and seizures are those that will be defined and evaluated. It is common in the elderly population to see various combinations of all disabilities present, which compound and complicate design considerations above and beyond when only one barrier is present.

Vision is the most common physiological change associated with aging (Spiezle, 2001). This can include deterioration of muscle ability or cataracts. Eyeglasses and more recently available corrective surgery can correct many issues. However, there is a portion of the population that will experience irreversible deterioration of the eyesight.

Vision related disabilities include those associated with low vision, color blindness and blindness itself. Estimates now are that 10 million Americans have low vision or functional vision loss, which prevents them from performing routine tasks. We know that statistically, after age 55, most people will experience some changes in the ability to resolve images and have a reduced field of vision. Other changes may include the inability to distinguish colors and adapt to changes in light intensity.

The most common issue in aging related to vision, is a decreasing ability to focus on near tasks, also called presbyopia. It is interesting to note that bifocals are typically designed for reading at a distance of 16 inches with a 25-30 degree downward slope. Most computer screens sit 24 inches from the user, at a 10-15 degree angle (Spiezle, 2001).

The second most common visual issue experienced by the aging population is declining sensitivity as the lens yellows and increases in density, from cataracts and discoloration of the eye fluids. This greatly affects color perception and sensitivity. Yellowing of the lens causes images to appear as if they are being filtered through a yellow veil. Less violet lights is seen by the eye as a result, and thus it makes it easier to see reds, oranges and yellows, than it does to se blues, greens and violets (Spiezle, 2001).

As the aging process continues, blindness will occur in a subset of the population. This will typically come on as diminished vision first, as opposed to a sudden onset of blindness. However, the total loss of vision or a severe impairment may also be a secondary impact of a stroke or cerebral incident.

People who have hearing impairments may be able to hear some sound, but may not be able to distinguish between sounds. In other cases, people may not be able to hear at all. For people with hearing impairments, computer prompts such as beeps and spoken messages may be problematic. The older population that is hearing impaired will need to get visual signals for all information conveyed by sound. At present, such impairments have minimal impact on the seniors ability to use the web. However, as multimedia becomes more prominent, this could become problematic (Hanson & Fairweather, 2000).

A wide range of illnesses and accidents, such as strokes, Parkinson’s Disease or arthritis can cause mobility impairments. Poor muscle control and weakness can make using a standard keyboard or mouse difficult. Some people may be unable to type two keys at once. Seniors may have very general motor impairments with their hands, such as tremors, which may make web navigation problematic. Scrolling is particularly difficult since it requires a complex series of moving the mouse (Hanson & Fairweather, 2000).

Cognitive and language impairments can include areas such as remembering, problem solving or perceiving sensory information. They may experience problems comprehending and interpreting language. For these people, complex or inconsistent visual displays or menu choices can make a system difficult to use. We know from research that working memory decreases with age. Brain imaging studies indicate that ventral prefrontal cortex (PFC) is active when information is retained in working memory and that dorsal PFC is further activated for retention of large amounts of information. (Rypma, et. al., 2001). Aging is shown to impact dorsal PFC brain regions that are important for working memory. Thus, any design that requires significant working memory will have limited usability in an aging population.

The statistical abstract of the United States indicates that, for individuals over the age of 75, several physical ailments are the most prevalent. These include hearing issues (447/1000), arthritis (430/1000) and vision problems (114/1000). These would be most critical as design issues are addressed. In designing for older users, it is important to keep in mind that seniors will experience more than one disability to some degree. This can make designing the interface more challenging than dealing with just one issue (Hanson & Fairweather, 2000).

VI. The Legislative and Policy Arena

On April 7, 1997, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) announced the launch of the Web Accessibility Initiative (termed WAI). The primary objective of WAI was to promote and achieve web functionality for people with disabilities. This initiative was endorsed by the White House, the European Community and the W3C membership. Disability organizations worldwide embraced the work as one of the premier technological advances on behalf of people with disabilities (Paciello, 1997). The WAI has five primary objectives. These include technology development, tools development, guidelines for the use of technology, education of content creators and research and development support.

While these voluntary approaches will work to a certain extent, it will take legislative action to truly drive the adoption of design for all principles. There are two primary pieces of legislation that will mandate accessibility design for web sites. The first is the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, also termed the ADA. Any entities covered under the ADA are required to provide effective communication regardless of media. Any entity that uses the Internet for communicating products, services or goods must offer these through an accessible mechanism (Benner, 2001).

The ADA applies to about 35 million people in the United States that have disabilities. Worldwide, the World Health Organization estimates there are about 750 million people with disabilities (Petersen, 2000).

The second is termed the rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in federal government. A 1998 amendment to Section 508 requires the federal government to purchase computers, software and electronic equipment that meet new standards for accessibility. In order to meet these standards, web sites will need to write text descriptions of pictures and multimedia files into their HTML code, will need to be easily navigated and used with a mouse, a keyboard or even with text commands alone. The web sites will need to avoid frames and pop up windows, that cannot be translated by screen readers (Benner, 2001). It is clear that this law has been a wake up for the industry. With the federal government accounting for a large portion of IT spend in the vendor community, software designers and others will not be able to ignore the ramifications. For the elderly, it means a greater degree of freedom in accessing and navigating what traditionally may have been inaccessible sites (Benner, 2001).

Lest we believe that these are abstract concepts, one only need look at several legal cases. In November 1999, the National federation for the Blind sued AOL for violating the ADA. A lawsuit was also filed against the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Commission claiming its web site violated ADA, as well (Petersen, 2000).

VII. Design Considerations

“When blind people use the Internet and come across unfriendly sites, we aren’t surfing, we are crawling…Imagine hearing pages that say ” Welcome to [image], this is the home of [image]. Link, link, link.” It is like trying to use Netscape with your monitor off and the mouse unplugged. See how far you’ll get.”

A user, from the NY Times Cybertimes

When considering design options for the aging population, one must consider the areas of layout and style, color, text, customization and general usability testing. Shneiderman offers the following guidance on design: “proper World Wide Web design is largely a matter of balancing this structure and relationship of menu or home pages and individual content pages or other linked graphics and documents. The goal is to build a hierarchy of menus that feels natural and well-structured to the user, and doesn’t interfere with their use of the web or mislead them.”

There is little research on specific user-interface design techniques to address the issues that come on through the aging process. However, some general guidelines and recommendations are starting to emerge. In some cases, design guidance can be extrapolated from work done for the general disabled population (Browne, 2000). The push for universal access, as well as governmental efforts will bring these design guidelines more into the mainstream.

Three leadership positions have emerged in articulating design guidelines for dealing with the issues of aging. These include the World Wide Web Consortiums Web Accessibility Initiative, research by Microsoft on seniors and technology and research conducted by Hawthorn on interfaces and aging (Browne, 2000).

In a paper titled, Designing for the Elderly, Bob Bailey laid out a series of design heuristics that take into account the issues sight, hearing, cognitive processing, and other sensory limitations. From this study, it was concluded that web site design for the elderly should include the following characteristics:

· use a sans serif font

· use black type on a white background when possible

· use links that are distinct and large and easy to see; at least 180 x 22 pixels

· have plenty of white space around them

· minimize tasks that take 3 or more clicks

· limit the use of a one pixel hot spot, and use area cursors

· offer alternative means of access and allow customization of the interface.

These suggestions have been validated in other studies. Jakob Nielsen proposes that these principles be applied to high traffic pages and that a staged roll out of accessibility guidelines to high traffic pages and sites will have the largest payoff.

Many other organizations continue to provide guidance for accessible web site design. The HTML Writers Guild has published the six principles of accessible web site design. These include:

· creating pages that conform to standards

· use stylesheets when appropriate

· use tools top provide information on functions and features

· make pages that can be navigated by a keyboard

· provide alternative means to access non-textual content.

VIII. Usability and Testing Approaches

There are several tools that have been developed to assist in the design and testing of web sites, to make them more usable for any population that has disabilities. Typically these tools fall into a category of either evaluation tools or repair tools. Examples of evaluation tools include things such as Wave, Booby and A-Prompt. WAVE is an online accessibility assessment tool that flags any items on a Web page that should be examined for potential accessibility problems, and provides a description of what the problem might be. Bobby is an online accessibility checker that provides a semi-automated assessment of accessibility problems on a Web page or group of Web pages. Bobby can identify many problems on sites, and lists problems which it is not able to evaluate automatically and which require manual review. A hybrid of the two types of tools is A-Prompt. A-Prompt, which stands for Accessibility Prompt, is a tool that identifies potential accessibility problems and provides guided editing to correct the problems (Browne, 2000). Many of the accessibility tools have been co-developed by not-for-profit institutions and are available free of charge. Most use the accessibility guidelines promoted by the W3C initiative.

IX. Examples of Good and Poor Design

Based on the guidelines articulated from the W3C initiative and other studies, we are able to find examples of both good design and poor design at various web sites. Two examples of web sites that have embraced design principles for seniors include AARP.com and Seniornet.com. Seniornet has been held up as an example in several studies as a web site that has embraced appropriate design heuristics for seniors.

Note that the AARP site has the following characteristics:

· large and clear icons placed prominently on the page

· large and clear fonts that are appropriately placed

· large spaces between menu choices so as not to cause inadvertent choices

· large amounts of white space to aid in navigation

· short cuts that are placed in places that do not interfere with core navigation

· colors that are used sparingly and are not required to navigate choices.

Note that the SeniorNet site has the following characteristics:

· much like the AARP site, SeniorNet has embraced consistent heuristics for its audience

· limited use of icons, placed prominently on the page

· large and clear fonts that are appropriately placed

· large spaces between menu choices so as not to cause inadvertent choices

· large amounts of white space to aid in navigation

· short cuts that are placed in places that do not interfere with core navigation

· an option for a text only version of the site

· choices to change fonts sizes are also included as an option

· colors that are used sparingly and are not required to navigate choices.

There are numerous sites that place challenges on an aging population of users. While there are numerous examples that can be cited, we have chosen to critique two well-known and prominent sites, which would have a high potential for use by an aging population, Yahoo and WebMD.

Note that the Yahoo site has the following characteristics:

· small font sizes

· text that is placed close together

· colors that impair the readability for a challenged user

· limited white space

· shortcuts that are embedded in core navigation.

WebMD has a site that is easier than Yahoo for seniors to navigate, yet still retains some challenges, based on standard design heuristics.

· font sizes selected are too small

· links are placed very close together

· scrolling text is used in advertising products and services

· there are many positives present in the form of limited icon use and plenty of white space for core services.

X. Recommendations for Future Improvements

As the Internet evolves and matures, design for the senior population will need to accommodate additional aspects. As broadband matures and grows, multimedia applications will become more prevalent. This will require additional accommodation for the senior user. Mobile commerce will provide alternative mechanisms to access the web, yet at the same time provide even higher barriers for the elderly. Here again. alternative access points and approaches will need to be accommodated.

To accommodate these trends, a focus on usability testing must become one of usability engineering. In that concept, consideration is made for the user at the front end and at every point in the development cycle. Usability engineering means that at requirements gathering, at development, at prototyping, at testing and at implementing the user is ell defined and central to the process (Sheehy, 1998)

The future of design for the senior population cannot be in design that ends in issues that are found in the testing process. It means that accommodation must be made on the design an engineering process.

XI. Conclusions

The world wide web provides tremendous opportunities for people to gather information and interact with each other. Despite the growing proportion of seniors in the population, the percentage of seniors using the Internet is dismally small. From research, we know that one of the primary barriers to use is poor design. Much like the analogy, if a building is not accessible, people will not enter it. If the web is not usable, seniors will not use it.

Aging results in a decrease in functional ability. Much of that functional lapse is similar to disabilities experienced in the general population. The number and severity of limitations increases as we age. Changes in vision, hearing, memory and motor function will occur. The good news is that aging related conditions can be accommodated by the same and similar functionality accommodations as those created for people with disabilities. Accommodating for disabilities takes special design considerations. The elderly need simpler interfaces, more readable displays, bigger buttons, larger fonts, higher display contrasts, and easier to use pointing devices (Zhao, 1998).

Many of the solutions proposed for dealing with this issue also further the concept of design for all, which benefit disabled and non-disabled users. Sites that are easier to use and less complex have higher traffic, according to studies by Nielsen. Making the web accessible for disabled users really means using HTML the way it was meant to be used. That is, encoding meaning rather than appearance (Nielsen, 1996).

Perhaps what the issue comes down is returning to the fundamentals of good interface design. As in any user interface design process, doesn’t the process begin by asking who are the users and what are their tasks? When considering the senior population, this question should yield an answer that results in specifying users and setting goals that accommodate a broad range of skills ands competencies in look, feel, navigation and content.

While voluntary compliance has helped, it is clear that will not be enough. ADA requirements and other laws will mandate accessible design so that everyone, regardless of age or disability, or limitations of their equipment, can participate in the benefits that the Internet brings to reality (Waddell, 1998).

Legal compliance need not be the stick that must be used . There is a carrot as well. According to Forrester Research, there are financial costs to poor web design. 50% of potential sales are lost at a web site from people not being to find what they need. 40% of users will not return to a site when their first visit resulted in a poor experience. And with the senior population growing each year, these sales cannot be ignored.

XII. Sources

Bailey, Bob (2001). Designing for the Elderly. Insights from Human

Factors International. http://www.humanfactors.com/library/aug01.asp

(10/23/01).

Benner, Jeffrey (2001). Disabled Web Access Made Easier. Wired News. 1-3.

Brouwer-Janse, Maddy (1995). From our past to our future: User

Interfaces over the lifespan. CHI 1995 Proceedings.

http://www.acm.org/sighi/chi95/proceedings/panels/mb_bdy.htm (10/23/01).

Browne, Hilary (2000). Accessibility and usability of information

technology by the elderly. http://www.otal.umd.edu/UUguide/hbrowne/

(10/23/01).

Cahill, H. & McCarthy J. (1994). Ensuring usability in interface

design: A workstation to provide usable access to mathematics for visually

disabled users. MATHS Project. Commission of the European Communities,

Technology Initiative for Disabled and Elderly People (TIDE), 1-12.

Clarke, Christine (2000). Older Adult Computer Interaction. A Report for Nova Southeastern University, 1-16.

Clarkson, J. & Keates, S. (1998). Design for all: Designing for the

motion-impaired user. http://rehab-www.eng.cam.ac.uk/papers/lsk12/dj/

(10/23/01).

Czaja, S. J., & Sharit, J. (1998). Age differences in attitudes toward

computers. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological sciences, 53B(5),

329-340.

Ellis, R. D., & Kurniawan, S. H. (2000). Increasing the usability of

Online information for older users: A case study in participatory design.

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12(2), 263 - 276.

Hanson, V, & Fairweather P, (2000). Making the Web Accessible to Seniors. A Paper for IBM Research. 1-7.

Kaye, H., (2000). Disability and the Digital Divide. Report for the Disability Statistics Center, University of California. 1-4.

Keates, S., Clarkson P. & Robinson, P. (1997). Developing a methodology

For the design of accessible interfaces. Research at University of

Cambridge, Department of Engineering.

McKnight, C. & Shum, S., (1997). World wide web usability.

International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 1-4.

Minetta, N., (2000). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. A report on American’s access to technology tools: U.S. Department of Commerce. 1-139.

Mouton, Ian (1999). Guidelines for designing effective GUIs.

http://www.indweller.com/research/ui/guidelines.html (10/23/01).

Neerincx, M. & Lindenberg, J. (2001). Support concepts for web

navigation: A cognitive engineering approach. TNO Human factors Research Institute,

1-14. http://www.www10.org/cdrom/papers/599/index.html (10/23/01).

Nielsen, Jakob (1999). Disabled Accessibility: The Pragmatic Approach. Alertbox for Useit.com. 1-3.

Nielsen, Jakob (1996). Accessible Design for Users with Disabilities. Alertbox for Useit.com. 1-4.

Paciello, Mike (1997). The web accessibility initiative. Web Techniques.

http://www.webtechniques.com/archives/1997/10/enab/ (10/23/01).

Petersen, Constance (2000). Accessible Web Sites Matter. Enterprise Development: The Front End. 1-5.

Rypma B., & Prabhakaran V., (2001). Age differences in prefrontal

Cortical activity in working memory. Psychology and Aging, 16(3), 371-384.

Salvendy, G. & Stephanidis, S. (1999). Toward an information society for

all: HCI challenges and R&D recommendation. International Journal of

Human-Computer Interaction, 11(1), 1-28.

Shneiderman, Ben (1997). Designing information-abundant web sites:

Issues and recommendations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,

47, 5-29.

Sheehy, Noel (1998). User interface requirements for elderly people.

Reearch at School of Psychology, Queens University of Belfast. 1-4.

Shum, S. & McKnight, C. (1997). World Wide Web Accessibility: Introduction to this Special Issue. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 47, 1-4.

Smith, A. (1997). Human Computer Factors: A Study of Users and Information Systems. London: McGraw Hill.

Spiezle, C. (2001). Interface Design Guidelines for all Ages. Agelight Technology and Generational Marketing Strategy Paper.

Stephanidis, Constantine (1999). User interfaces for all. ERCIM News,

39, 1-3.

Stephanidis, Constantine (1999). Toward an Information Society for All: HCI challenges and R&D recommendations. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 11(1), 1-28.

Stephanidis, Constantine (1999). Designing for all in the information

society, Challenges towards universal access in the information age.

ERCIM ICST Research Report. 1-38.

Stephanidis, S. & Sfyrakis M. (1995). Current trends in man-machine

interfaces: Potential impact on people with special needs. In Patric

R.W. Roe, Telecommunications for All (1995). Belgium.

Waddell, Cynthia (1998). Applying the ADA to the Internet: A Web Accessibility Standard. American Bar Association Conference on Equal Access to Software and the Internet. 1-5.

Zhao, Y. & Tyugu, E. (1998). Towards a personalized browser for elderly users. Paper for the Royal Institute of Technology.