MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293738976 · doi:10.2196/36949

Web-Based System Navigation Database to Support Equitable Access to Assistive Technology: Usability Testing Study

2022· article· en· W4293738976 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tamika Jarvis, Allison M L Mah, Rosalie H. Wang, Michael G. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersAGE-WELLUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
KeywordsUsabilityWeb usabilityComputer scienceThink aloud protocolThematic analysisWorld Wide WebSystem usability scaleUser interfacePluralistic walkthroughService providerHuman–computer interactionService (business)Qualitative researchBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Assistive technology (AT) can contribute to how individuals participate and engage in everyday activities, such as communication and mobility, and facilitates access to the services they require. Navigating Canada's AT system has been described as fragmented and complex, presenting barriers for individuals who require AT, caregivers, and health service providers. AccessATCanada was developed as a centralized web-based resource to help support access to AT by providing information about the existing jurisdictional funding programs and services. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the usability of AccessATCanada by gathering feedback about its features, functionality, and areas of strength and opportunity from potential end users. METHODS: A usability testing study using a think-aloud approach and semistructured interviews was conducted to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of and user satisfaction with AccessATCanada and to identify issues with the interface during end-user interaction. A qualitative thematic analysis was used to generate insights into and core themes about user experiences. User feedback was used to inform subsequent updates of the database with the goal of enhancing website friendliness and functionality before its official launch. RESULTS: A total of 10 participants (6 consumers, 1 caregiver, and 3 providers) participated in the usability testing study. The usability performance and scores tended to improve between the 2 testing cycles. Most participants were able to successfully complete all the tasks independently. The efficiency scores tended to improve as the users continued to engage with the interface. The website received an overall System Usability Score of 62.22, which was ranked as "OK/fair to good." The users provided an overall positive evaluation of the beta version of the web-based resource tested over 2 cycles and helped to identify areas for improvement. They commented on the functionality and added value of the website, discovery of new programs and resources, and design aesthetics. Most usability issues were reported as minor challenges related to presentation, functionality, and language, and feedback was adopted into later iterations of the website. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides reflections on the value of usability testing and elements that are key to the creation of user-centered resources, such as the inclusion of participants with various abilities and considerations regarding website design and accessibility in an increasingly web-based world. AccessATCanada is now part of a growing global response to expand the reach of AT programs and services, improve the equity of access to AT, and reduce the complexity of navigating AT systems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.298
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityFrench-language works237,207