Best Practices for Developing Universally Usable Interfaces- Ensuring Accessibility and Compliance

Best Practices for Developing Universally Usable Interfaces- Ensuring Accessibility and Compliance

To ensure that a user interface is universally acceptable, it should be designed to accommodate diverse populations (Dey et al., 2019). The interface should also deliver functionality. Some of the best practices for a universally acceptable user interface include consistency of features, the needs of the users, high functionality, minimum errors, and a robust interface (Dey et al., 2019). The features on an interface should have a similar layout. Meaning, each page on the interface should look the same to the user. This would enable the user to understand the interface more and feel familiar with it. Consequently, the user would accept the interface. A universally acceptable user interface would meet the diverse needs of various populations (Dey et al., 2019). For example, it could allow the use of different languages, have age restrictions, and respect what is acceptable in various cultures.

The interface should have high functionality. Meaning the interface should deliver what it is intended to do (Dey et al., 2019). This would be achieved through having the developers integrate and couple the interface modules to the required degree. The development of the interface should be correctly interlinked to the backend so that the technical part is flawless. For example, the interface should be able to fetch data and have the data committed into the database on the backend without hiccups whenever a user clicks on the save button. In case of any validation issues on the interface, a message should pop up to advise the user. There should be minimal or no errors in the interface (Dey et al., 2019). All errors should be handled during development, such as exception handling, so that users can have an error-free interface. The interface should never crash. Meaning the interface should be robust. Should there be an unexpected error, the interface or application should not just terminate. Instead, a message should pop up to inform the user of what is happening and possibly provide a course of action. The details of the message could include a recovery process. An interface that fulfills all the above factors would be convenient for users, making it universally usable.

Section 508, implemented in 2001, aims at eliminating discrimination against people with any type of disability (Sonnenberg, 2019). This Act includes user interfaces. Therefore, federal agencies are required to cater to the needs of people living with disabilities when developing interfaces. For example, speech and audio options should be added to an interface to accommodate users who are blind or cannot type. Interfaces should have an option in different languages. For example, English is the most used language in the United States of America, but a language like Spanish is also widely used. Foreigners are considered, too. This means that persons who are visiting the United States and are required to use federal agency services online should be able to do so. One of the ways to make the federal agency website or application available to foreigners is to ensure that the interface is available in a language of choice. The Act also requires that interfaces are developed with device compatibility in mind (Sonnenberg, 2019). This means that a federal agency application that provides services to the public should be accessed through the various smart devices available in the market. For those accessing the services on a web portal, they should be able to access them through the available web browsers. The interface is also required to provide all the information a user is allowed to access. Generally, the guidelines provided in section 508 facilitate universally acceptable user interfaces. This makes users comfortable when using the systems.

There are various tools used to check the accessibility of interfaces and web content. Some of the tools include intent-based AChecker and Cynthia Says (Mifsud, 2021). Intent-based checks for legislations that are considered major worldwide. The tool scans websites and returns a report on the faults found as well as how to solve them (Mifsud, 2021). For example, the report would detail the group of the affected persons, describe how they are affected, and suggest how to solve a problem. The AChecker tool requires that a website’s code is uploaded for scanning. This code could be in a scripting language like HTML. AChecker then scans the website for any shortfalls according to the regulations provided. For example, the website code is scanned against the requirements of section 508, and a report is generated. AChecker is open source, hence, free to use (Mifsud, 2021). Cynthia says it is free and mainly used for education. It checks the website against the provided regulations and lists the errors found (Mifsud, 2021). The Cynthia Says tool checks page by page of the website before making a listing of the results found. All the three accessibility tools described above are competent in checking for errors. However, Cynthia Says is mainly for education and not recommended for commercial organizations. AChecker requires that a website’s code is uploaded or submitted as a URL (Mifsud, 2021). This can be tedious, unlike the intent-based tool, which is a web-based tool that does not require uploading code. Also, the intent-based tool provides a more detailed scan report than AChecker and Cynthia Says. Therefore, the process of scanning a website for accessibility would be faster than that of AChecker. The report from intent-based would also be more helpful as compared to those of AChecker and Cynthia Says.

Persons of diverse populations have different preferences for details in a user interface. This makes it difficult to have a single interface that serves them all equally without others feeling left out or disadvantaged (Almakky, Sahandi & Taylor, 2015). Also, trying to have too many details on a single interface could make the interface appear congested and confusing to the users. Developers might also not find it easy to build and debug an interface that is overpopulated. According to research by Almakky et al. (2015), a single Facebook interface for Western and Arabic users did not serve the users satisfactorily. Western users were happy to have different ways of accessing the same interface, while Arabic users preferred a single way of access. However, both Western and Arabic users did not prefer complex interfaces. Based on this information, the two categories of users would have been content with two different interfaces. It would also be easier for developers to develop different interfaces and maintain them instead of one congested interface. Especially where the concept of code reusability is applicable. Code from one interface would be slightly modified to meet the requirements of the second interface.

References

Almakky, H., Sahandi, R., & Taylor, J. (2015). The Effect of Culture on User Interface Design of Social Media – A Case Study on Preferences of Saudi Arabians on the Arabic User Interface of Facebook. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 9(1), 107-111. Retrieved from http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23776/1/The-Effect-of-Culture-on-User-Interface-Design-of-Social-Media—A-Case-Study-on-Preferences-of-Saudi-Arabians-on-the-Arabic-User-Interface-of-Facebook.pdf

Dey, P. P., Sinha, B. R., Amin, M., & Badkoobehi, H. (2019). BEST PRACTICES FOR IMPROVING USER INTERFACE DESIGN. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 10(5), 71-83. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336416772_Best_Practices_for_Improving_User_Interface_Design

Mifsud, J. (2021, July 22). 8 free web-based website accessibility evaluation tools. Retrieved from https://usabilitygeek.com/10-free-web-based-web-site-accessibility-evaluation-tools/

Sonnenberg, C. (2019). E-Government and Social Media: The Impact on Accessibility. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 31(3), 1-28. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337225332_E-Government_and_Social_Media_The_Impact_on_Accessibility

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

Accessibility

Building a user interface that meets the needs of a diverse population can be incredibly difficult. Research the best practices for developing a universally usable interface, as well as some of the federal legislation that applies (such as Section 508).

Write a four- to five-page paper in which you:

Assess at least five best practices for developing a universally usable interface.
Evaluate how Section 508 affects developing user interfaces and assess this compliance standard’s impact on users.
Give three examples of available tools for verifying that your interfaces meet universal design guidelines and the advantages and disadvantages of each.
Examine the practicality of building multiple interface options for diverse populations rather than building one interface that meets the needs of the majority of end users.
Use at least three quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar websites do not qualify as quality resources.

This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards. For assistance and information, please refer to the Strayer Writing Standards link in the left-hand menu of your course. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.

The specific course learning outcomes associated with this assignment are:

Evaluate the design of a user interface, including usability and accessibility considerations.