東華大學圖書館 |

Access Ratings for Buildings: An Investigation of the Display Page of Accessibility Information for People with Mobility and Vision Impairments /

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Access Ratings for Buildings: An Investigation of the Display Page of Accessibility Information for People with Mobility and Vision Impairments // Mason Drake.
作者:	Drake, Mason,
面頁冊數:	1 electronic resource (771 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-07, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International86-07B.
標題:	Health sciences. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31766195
ISBN:	9798346890140

Access Ratings for Buildings: An Investigation of the Display Page of Accessibility Information for People with Mobility and Vision Impairments /
Drake, Mason,

Access Ratings for Buildings: An Investigation of the Display Page of Accessibility Information for People with Mobility and Vision Impairments /Mason Drake. - 1 electronic resource (771 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-07, Section: B.

Introduction: The current visual displays of accessibility information typically are general and may not provide individuals with disabilities with information that is critical for their decision-making. Information displays provided by websites such as Yelp, tend to be general without specifying the particular building features that are or are not accessible. Furthermore, general accessibility information in a visual display may state a building is accessible, but due to different populations requiring a diverse array of needs, some populations may still find it inaccessible. This study compared the present accessibility information display from Yelp, a new display from myAccessTools and investigated various outcomes of the displays including preference, understandability of the display, and importance of specific building features. Methods: 91 participants with mobility, vision, or mobility and vision impairments were recruited from Prolific, an online participant database, to complete an online survey. Three groups completed the online module that consisted of five sections demographic questions, accessibility information rating items, and a posttest. All groups completed the same module and procedure with the only difference being the display of accessibility information. The Control Group completed the module using the Yelp display, Experimental Group 1 used the myAccessTools display, and Experimental Group 2 was assigned both displays. Results: A Chi-Square analysis resulted in a significant difference [X2 = 3.84, α = .05] between myAccessTools and Yelp. A t-test was conducted to compare the accessibility level ratings of restaurants using Yelp and myAccessTools between experts and participants and determined the ratings were not statistically significant [F=2.185, p=.142]. A one-way ANOVA was administered to discriminate between restaurant ratings and found that myAccessTools was statistically significantly better in distinguishing between the accessibility between restaurants [F=40.714, p=<.001]. A two-way ANOVA was used to determine the most important building elements to each impairment group and investigate significant differences between importance ratings in impairment groups in three building elements. The mobility impairment group determined Bathroom(s) were most important, the vision impairment group stated Health Safety Measures were most important, and the comorbid group responded that Main Entrance/Exterior Doorway(s) were most crucial. The ANOVA determined there was no statistically significant difference between the importance ratings and building elements and impairment type [F=1.104, p=.342]. Conclusion: myAccessTools was the preferred accessibility information display page for participants that experienced both interventions. There were no significant differences found between accessibility experts and participants rating restaurant accessibility providing some validation of the scale used. Overall, myAccessTools demonstrated to be an effective tool to distinguish between accessibility levels in restaurants. The most important building elements were discovered for each impairment group with bathroom(s) found to be the most important for individuals with mobility impairments, Health Safety Measures most important for participants with visual impairments, and Main Entrance(s) were scored as the most important building element for individuals with both mobility and vision impairments. In addition, no statistically significant difference was identified in importance ratings between impairment types and building elements. The findings provide user interface design suggestions to accessibility ratings systems that are intended to evaluate and compare restaurants regarding their accessibility for people with disabilities.

English

ISBN: 9798346890140Subjects--Topical Terms:

3168359
Health sciences.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Accessibility

Access Ratings for Buildings: An Investigation of the Display Page of Accessibility Information for People with Mobility and Vision Impairments /
LDR:05342nmm a22004573i 4500 001 2434192
005 20250912100613.5
006 m o d
007 cr|nu||||||||
008 261011s2024 miu||||||m |||||||eng d
020 $a 9798346890140
035 $a (MiAaPQD)AAI31766195
035 $a AAI31766195
040 $a MiAaPQD $b eng $c MiAaPQD $e rda
100 1 $a Drake, Mason, $e author. $3 3824091
245 1 0 $a Access Ratings for Buildings: An Investigation of the Display Page of Accessibility Information for People with Mobility and Vision Impairments / $c Mason Drake.
264 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2024
300 $a 1 electronic resource (771 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 86-07, Section: B.
500 $a Advisors: Smith, Roger O. Committee members: Wang, Inga; Schermer, Brian; Ahamed, Iqbal.
502 $b Ph.D. $c The University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee $d 2024.
520 $a Introduction: The current visual displays of accessibility information typically are general and may not provide individuals with disabilities with information that is critical for their decision-making. Information displays provided by websites such as Yelp, tend to be general without specifying the particular building features that are or are not accessible. Furthermore, general accessibility information in a visual display may state a building is accessible, but due to different populations requiring a diverse array of needs, some populations may still find it inaccessible. This study compared the present accessibility information display from Yelp, a new display from myAccessTools and investigated various outcomes of the displays including preference, understandability of the display, and importance of specific building features. Methods: 91 participants with mobility, vision, or mobility and vision impairments were recruited from Prolific, an online participant database, to complete an online survey. Three groups completed the online module that consisted of five sections demographic questions, accessibility information rating items, and a posttest. All groups completed the same module and procedure with the only difference being the display of accessibility information. The Control Group completed the module using the Yelp display, Experimental Group 1 used the myAccessTools display, and Experimental Group 2 was assigned both displays. Results: A Chi-Square analysis resulted in a significant difference [X2 = 3.84, α = .05] between myAccessTools and Yelp. A t-test was conducted to compare the accessibility level ratings of restaurants using Yelp and myAccessTools between experts and participants and determined the ratings were not statistically significant [F=2.185, p=.142]. A one-way ANOVA was administered to discriminate between restaurant ratings and found that myAccessTools was statistically significantly better in distinguishing between the accessibility between restaurants [F=40.714, p=<.001]. A two-way ANOVA was used to determine the most important building elements to each impairment group and investigate significant differences between importance ratings in impairment groups in three building elements. The mobility impairment group determined Bathroom(s) were most important, the vision impairment group stated Health Safety Measures were most important, and the comorbid group responded that Main Entrance/Exterior Doorway(s) were most crucial. The ANOVA determined there was no statistically significant difference between the importance ratings and building elements and impairment type [F=1.104, p=.342]. Conclusion: myAccessTools was the preferred accessibility information display page for participants that experienced both interventions. There were no significant differences found between accessibility experts and participants rating restaurant accessibility providing some validation of the scale used. Overall, myAccessTools demonstrated to be an effective tool to distinguish between accessibility levels in restaurants. The most important building elements were discovered for each impairment group with bathroom(s) found to be the most important for individuals with mobility impairments, Health Safety Measures most important for participants with visual impairments, and Main Entrance(s) were scored as the most important building element for individuals with both mobility and vision impairments. In addition, no statistically significant difference was identified in importance ratings between impairment types and building elements. The findings provide user interface design suggestions to accessibility ratings systems that are intended to evaluate and compare restaurants regarding their accessibility for people with disabilities.
546 $a English
590 $a School code: 0263
650 4 $a Health sciences. $3 3168359
650 4 $a Disability studies. $3 543687
650 4 $a Bioinformatics. $3 553671
650 4 $a Information science. $3 554358
653 $a Accessibility
653 $a Display
653 $a Impairment
653 $a Information
653 $a Mobility
653 $a Vision
690 $a 0566
690 $a 0201
690 $a 0723
690 $a 0715
710 2 $a The University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee. $b Health Sciences. $e degree granting institution. $3 3824092
720 1 $a Smith, Roger O. $e degree supervisor.
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 86-07B.
790 $a 0263
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2024
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=31766195