Provide the citation and attach a pdf of the article (10 pts)

Bai, A., Stray, V., & Mork, H. (2019, June 10). What Methods Software Teams Prefer When Testing Web Accessibility. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahci/2019/3271475/

pdf – What Methods Software Teams Prefer When Testing Web Accessibility

‌What is the abstract of the article?

Accessibility has become an important focus in software development; the goal is to allow as many people as possible, regardless of their capabilities, to use software. We have investigated the methods that software teams prefer when testing the accessibility of their software. We conducted a large-scale study to evaluate six methods, using a sample of 53 people who work on various software teams. We present a detailed breakdown of the results for each testing method and analyze the differences between the methods. Our findings show that there are statistically significant differences in team members’ preferences, particularly for those with different roles. This implies that a software team should not choose a single method for all team members.” (Bai et al., 2019, Abstract).

Was the study experimental or non-experimental? Explain, tell us what made that clear.  Was the research qualitative or quantitative? Again, explain. (10 pts)

The study was a nonexperimental quantitative study. The researchers used numbers to report what the subjects of the testing reported when the subjects reported their thoughts on ease of use, ease of learning, satisfaction with the accessibility tool, and how useful the subject thought the tool would be in their role.

What was the population studied?

The population studied was people that would be involved in the building, maintaining, and deployment of websites including management, testers, designers, and front-end, back-end, and full-stack web developers.

What sample was used for this study? Explain. (5 pts)

This study used a sample of 53 people which was made up of 12 designers, 27 developers, 4 managers, and 10 testers. The researchers felt that the “population of participants is typical of agile teams” (Bai et al., 2019, p. 4).

What was the method of measurement? (10 pts)

The research data used a mix of scales. The researchers used a nominal scale when asking which accessibility tools the subjects had used recently. The researchers then used an interval measurement scale twice, the first when asking the subjects to self-evaluate what they know about universal design and then again when they asked subjects to give their feedback about each accessibility tool’s usefulness, ease of use, ease of learning, and satisfaction.

What was the method of analysis? (10 pts)

Data was collected using self-reporting through Google Forms and used mean, standard deviation, and standard error to analyze their data.

What was the conclusion of the study? (10 pts)

Overall, the researchers found that the subjects felt they had a positive experience testing the accessibility tools saying “that they acquired more empathy for users and more awareness of the various challenges” but that the tools did not always provide a quality way to get into the mind of someone that has to use these tools to access the internet (Bai et al., 2019, p. 13). Additionally, the researchers were satisfied with the feedback that the subjects gave high overall scores to all accessibility tools tested.

Why is this study useful to you? Explain in detail. (10 pts)

I learned of new ways to test website accessibility as a move into becoming a web developer. I learned a little about accessibility in my Front-End Web Development class, but it was only with the most used tools such as Lighthouse, which is built in to Google Chrome, and on-screen text readers. I also found this useful as it seems that this study shows that web accessibility is still not taken seriously enough when it comes to web development and design. To see more than half of the subjects self-rated their skills at a 4 or lower on the 1-7 scale was a bit sad, but it also gives me a niche to think about as I transition from college to career.

What would be the next logical step in extending this study? (10 pts)

I agree with the researchers’ thoughts about what should happen in a future study. I think an extension of this study would include more accessibility tools but spread out when they used to limit comparing one tool to another particularly when it comes to ease of use and ease of learning. I would also look to see if they can find developers that either need to use some of these tools already because of a disability they might have or fit one of the personas mentioned, such as people with ADHD, and have them test some of the tools that they may be less familiar with. However, two problems that would have to be thought through with the latter extension suggestion would be a person already having a strong bias toward their preferred accessibility tool and finding a quality sample size. For the former, for example, someone that always uses one type of screen reader will always be comparing other screen readers to one with which they already have familiarity.