Experience of Visually Impaired Users Interacting with Systems of the Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IranDoc): Challenges and Limitations
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the experiences of visually impaired users when interacting with the Iranian Research Institute for Information Science and Technology (IRANDOC) systems and to identify the challenges they encounter.Methodology: The research employed a qualitative approach using interviews and concurrent think-aloud protocols to observe visually impaired users interacting with IRANDOC systems using assistive technologies. The interactions of 24 visually impaired users were analyzed while performing defined tasks within these systems. The study population consisted of visually impaired individuals with university degrees who could independently interact with the screen using a keyboard or assistive technologies such as screen readers and magnifiers, and had the necessary knowledge to use search engines and websites. MAXQDA software was used to summarize and analyze the qualitative data. The observation notes and participant statements were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, resulting in 394 initial codes categorized into 9 categories and 28 subcategories. Guba and Lincoln's criteria were used to ensure the reliability and validity of the data.Findings: Challenges were identified in information structure and relationships (logical headings, structure of boxes, buttons, radio buttons, checkboxes, and comboboxes, clear and descriptive labels, serial reading of content, and meaningful sequence), text alternatives for graphic and non-text content and security codes/CAPTCHAs, functional principles, design of tables, content in accessible formats, keyboard navigation (shortcuts and cursor cancellation), input assistance (error identification, error suggestion, error prevention, form control labels, and reduced keystrokes), content compatibility with screen reader software (status messages), navigability of pages (page titles and link purpose), predictable performance of page elements (conventional operation and guidance and support), sensory features (accessibility menu, contrast, magnification, use of color, and alignment of options), and time constraints (moving content).Conclusion: This research emphasizes the importance of ongoing efforts to improve the usability of IRANDOC systems for all users, including those with visual impairments. By addressing the identified challenges outlined in this study, IRANDOC can strive to create a more inclusive and equitable information environment for all researchers. This study is one of the first systematic investigations into the interaction of screen reader users with IRANDOC systems. Improving the usability of these systems requires serious efforts to address the identified challenges and implement research recommendations. Much work remains to be done. The issues identified in this study need to be investigated. Design is an iterative process. Redesign and usability testing should continue until we are confident that the new design meets our goals.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle