Dr. Brad Fain Georgia Tech Research Institute


Distance Learning or Computer Based Training Software



Download 0.74 Mb.
Page5/8
Date05.05.2018
Size0.74 Mb.
#48141
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

Distance Learning or Computer Based Training Software


Respondents were much less experienced with distance learning and computer based training software. Nonetheless, most participants indicated they have little difficulty in accomplishing tasks related to this category. The exception again is people who are blind, who indicated high levels of difficulty in accomplishing relevant tasks such as using chat software, viewing PowerPoint presentations, and reading documents in PDF format.

Level of Experience


Respondents were asked to indicate their level of experience using distance learning or computer based training software on a four-point scale. Results are presented in Table 18. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = no experience, 2 = little experience, 3 = some experience, and 4 = very experienced. Users of all disability types were not very experienced with distance learning software.

Table 18: Level of Experience with Distance Learning Software by Disability Type.



Disability Type

Mean (SD)

Blind

2.0 (1.2)

Low vision

2.0 (1.0)

Deaf

1.7 (0.9)

Hard of hearing

2.0 (1.0)

Upper mobility

2.1 (1.0)

Lower mobility

2.1 (1.0)


Difficulty Completing Device Related Activities


Respondents estimated the difficulty they had in personally accomplishing activities in the previous year due to physical or cognitive limitations caused by a disability. Results are presented in Table 19. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = little or no difficulty, 2 = some difficulty, 3 = great difficulty. Blind users reported great difficulty in using instant messaging software, reading documents in Adobe PDF format, viewing presentations in Microsoft PowerPoint format, and using on-line chat software.

Table 19: Reported difficulty in Completing Distance Learning Software Activities by User Type.
Blind

Low Vision

Deaf

Hard of Hearing

Upper Mobility

Lower Mobility

Reading E-mail messages

1.3 (0.6)

1.2 (0.5)

1.0 (0.0)

1.2

(0.4)


1.2

(0.5)


1.2

(0.5)


Using instant messaging software

2.2 (0.8)

1.8 (0.9)

1.1 (0.3)

1.8

(1.0)


1.6

(0.9)


1.6

(0.9)


Reading documents in Microsoft Word format

1.3 (0.6)

1.3 (0.5)

1.0 (0.0)

1.3

(0.6)


1.2

(0.6)


1.2

(0.5)


Reading documents in Adobe PDF format

2.5 (0.7)

1.7 (0.9)

1.1 (0.5)

1.5

(0.8)


1.4

(0.7)


1.3

(0.7)


Viewing presentations in Microsoft PowerPoint format

2.7 (0.6)

1.6 (0.8)

1.1 (0.3)

1.6

(0.8)


1.4

(0.8)


1.3

(0.7)


Using chat software

2.6 (0.7)

1.8 (1.0)

1.4 (0.8)

2.0

(1.1)


1.6

(0.9)


1.6

(0.9)


Taking a course on-line

2.1 (0.7)

1.6 (0.8)

1.4 (0.7)

1.9

(0.9)


1.6

(0.8)


1.5

(0.8)


Receiving computer based training

2.2 (0.5)

1.6 (0.8)

1.6 (0.8)

1.8

(0.8)


1.5

(0.8)


1.4

(0.7)



Usefulness of Features


Participants were asked to estimate the usefulness of accessibility features associated with the device on a four-point scale. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = not useful, 2 = slightly useful, 3 = moderately useful, 4 = extremely useful. Features differed by disability type and therefore are presented as such.

Table 20 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness of distance learning software accessibility features for users without vision. Users ranked screen reader compatibility and text description of visual items as extremely useful.

Table 20: Usefulness of Distance Learning Software Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants without Vision.


Feature

Mean (SD)

Screen reader compatibility

4.0 (0.3)

Graphics that are described in detail

3.8 (0.7)

Video that is described in detail

3.8 (0.7)

Table 21 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness of distance learning software accessibility features for users with low vision. In contrast to users without vision, users with low vision rated items associated with increased utility of the visual displays higher than screen reader compatibility or described visual items. Users with low vision would prefer to increase the font size of the visual display over using a screen magnifier.

Table 21: Usefulness of Distance Learning Software Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Low Vision.



Feature

Mean (SD)

Adjustable contrast

3.5 (1.0)

Adjustable font sizes

3.5 (1.0)

Screen magnifier compatibility

3.2 (1.2)

Screen reader compatibility

3.1 (1.3)

Video that is described in detail

3.1 (1.3)

Graphics that are described in detail

3.0 (1.3)

Participants without hearing rated closed captioned video as extremely useful (average score = 4.0; SD = 0.00). Participants who are hard of hearing rated closed captioned video (average score = 3.4; SD = 1.2) and adjustable volume (average score = 3.5; SD = 1.0) as being very useful.

Table 22 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness of distance learning software accessibility features for users with upper mobility impairments. Users with upper mobility impairments may require additional time while interacting with classroom materials or taking an on-line test. The ability to request additional time was ranked as the most useful accessibility feature.

Table 22: Usefulness of Distance Learning Software Accessibility Features as Reported by Participants with Upper Mobility Impairments.


Feature

Mean (SD)

Ability to request additional time

3.4 (1.1)

Voice recognition

3.2 (1.2)

Touchscreen displays

3.1 (1.2)

Participants with lower mobility impairments rated touch screen displays as moderately useful (average score = 2.8; SD = 1.3).

Personal Digital Assistants (PDA)


Most respondents seemed to have very little experience with using PDAs. Related tasks presented only a small degree of difficulty to most user groups, though respondents with visual impairments noted great difficulty in several areas including adjusting controls and installing software.

Level of Experience


Respondents were asked to indicate their level of experience using a personal digital assistant (PDA) on a four-point scale. Results are presented in Table 23. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = no experience, 2 = little experience, 3 = some experience, and 4 = very experienced. All user types reported similar levels of experience with PDAs.

Table 23: Level of Experience with PDAs by Disability Type.



Disability Type

Mean (SD)

Blind

1.7 (1.1)

Low vision

1.8 (1.0)

Deaf

2.0 (1.1)

Hard of hearing

1.7 (0.9)

Upper mobility

1.9 (1.1)

Lower mobility

1.9 (1.1)

Difficulty Completing Device Related Activities


Respondents estimated the difficulty they had in personally accomplishing activities in the previous year due to physical or cognitive limitations caused by a disability. Results are presented in Table 24. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = little or no difficulty, 2 = some difficulty, 3 = great difficulty. Blind users reported extreme difficulty in using mainstream PDA consumer products. Mainstream PDAs rely on the use of a stylus operated display that is completely inaccessible to users without vision. However, users without vision may rely on Braille note takers or other alternative input devices that allow them to perform some of the same functions of mainstream PDAs. In general, when blind users reported experience with using PDAs, they were reporting their experiences with alternative interface devices.

Table 24: Reported difficulty in Completing PDA Activities by User Type.
Blind

Low Vision

Deaf

Hard of Hearing

Upper Mobility

Lower Mobility

Locating the PDA

1.3 (0.6)

1.4 (0.7)

1.3 (0.7)

1.8

(1.0)


1.5

(0.8)


1.4

(0.7)


Turning the PDA on and off

1.2 (0.6)

1.5 (0.8)

1.3 (0.6)

1.8

(1.0)


1.7

(0.9)


1.5

(0.8)


Adjusting screen contrast

3.1 (0.7)

2.0 (0.9)

1.5 (0.8)

2.1

(1.1)


2.0

(1.0)


1.7

(0.9)


Adjusting font sizes

3.1 (0.7)

2.1 (0.9)

1.6 (0.8)

2.3

(1.1)


2.1

(1.0)


1.8

(0.9)


Storing an appointment

1.7 (0.8)

1.9 (0.9)

1.4 (0.7)

2.0

(1.2)


1.9

(1.0)


1.7

(1.0)


Recalling an appointment

1.6 (0.8)

1.9 (1.0)

1.3 (0.7)

2.0

(1.1)


1.9

(1.0)


1.7

(0.9)


Receiving an alert (i.e. appointment notification)

1.5 (0.8)

1.8 (1.1)

1.6 (0.8)

2.2

(1.1)


1.9

(1.0)


1.7

(0.9)


Viewing the calendar

1.7 (0.8)

1.9 (1.0)

1.4 (0.7)

2.0

(1.2)


1.9

(1.0)


1.7

(0.9)


Storing contact information

1.6 (0.9)

1.9 (0.9)

1.3 (0.6)

2.0

(1.1)


1.9

(1.0)


1.7

(0.9)


Recalling contact information

1.6 (0.9)

1.9 (1.0)

1.3 (0.6)

2.0

(1.1)


1.9

(1.0)


1.7

(0.9)


Installing software

2.4 (1.0)

2.3 (0.9)

1.4 (0.7)

2.4

(1.1)


2.1

(1.0)


2.0

(0.9)





Download 0.74 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
data presented