Wendy Chisholm

Bio: Wendy Chisholm is an academic researcher from University of Wisconsin-Madison. The author has contributed to research in topics: Web accessibility & Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The author has an hindex of 7, co-authored 8 publications receiving 1672 citations.

Core Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

Abstract: This document describes techniques for authoring accessible content that apply across technologies. It is intended to help authors of Web content who wish to claim conformance to "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" ([WCAG10] [p. 18] ). While the techniques in this document should help people author Web content that conforms to "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", these techniques are neither guarantees of conformance nor the only way an author might produce conforming content. This document is part of a series of documents about techniques for authoring accessible Web content. For information about the other documents in the series, please refer to "Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10-TECHS] [p. 18] .

Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

Abstract: This document provides techniques for implementing the checkpoints defined in "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0". This document is part of a series of accessibility documents published by the Web Accessibility Initiative.

Checklist of Checkpoints for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0

Abstract: This document is an appendix to the W3C "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0". It provides a list of all checkpoints from the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, organized by concept, as a checklist for Web content developers. Please refer to the Guidelines document for introductory information, information about related documents, a glossary of terms, and more. This list may be used to review a page or site for accessibility. For each checkpoint, indicate whether the checkpoint has been satisfied, has not been satisfied, or is not applicable. A tabular version of the list of checkpoints is also available (e.g., for printing). This document has been produced as part of the Web Accessibility Initiative. The goal of the WAI Web Content Guidelines Working Group is discussed in the Working Group charter.

Consumer health information seeking on the Internet: the state of the art

Abstract: Increasingly, consumers engage in health information seeking via the Internet. Taking a communication perspective, this review argues why public health professionals should be concerned about the topic, considers potential benefits, synthesizes quality concerns, identifies criteria for evaluating online health information and critiques the literature. More than 70 000 websites disseminate health information; in excess of 50 million people seek health information online, with likely consequences for the health care system. The Internet offers widespread access to health information, and the advantages of interactivity, information tailoring and anonymity. However, access is inequitable and use is hindered further by navigational challenges due to numerous design features (e.g. disorganization, technical language and lack of permanence). Increasingly, critics question the quality of online health information; limited research indicates that much is inaccurate. Meager information-evaluation skills add to consumers' vulnerability, and reinforce the need for quality standards and widespread criteria for evaluating health information. Extant literature can be characterized as speculative, comprised of basic 'how to' presentations, with little empirical research. Future research needs to address the Internet as part of the larger health communication system and take advantage of incorporating extant communication concepts. Not only should research focus on the 'net-gap' and information quality, it also should address the inherently communicative and transactional quality of Internet use. Both interpersonal and mass communication concepts open avenues for investigation and understanding the influence of the Internet on health beliefs and behaviors, health care, medical outcomes, and the health care system.

The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces

Abstract: Usability evaluation is an increasingly important part of the user interface design process. However, usability evaluation can be expensive in terms of time and human resources, and automation is therefore a promising way to augment existing approaches. This article presents an extensive survey of usability evaluation methods, organized according to a new taxonomy that emphasizes the role of automation. The survey analyzes existing techniques, identifies which aspects of usability evaluation automation are likely to be of use in future research, and suggests new ways to expand existing approaches to better support usability evaluation.

Usability measurement and metrics: A consolidated model

Abstract: Usability is increasingly recognized as an important quality factor for interactive software systems, including traditional GUIs-style applications, Web sites, and the large variety of mobile and PDA interactive services. Unusable user interfaces are probably the single largest reasons why encompassing interactive systems --- computers plus people, fail in actual use. The design of this diversity of applications so that they actually achieve their intended purposes in term of ease of use is not an easy task. Although there are many individual methods for evaluating usability; they are not well integrated into a single conceptual framework that facilitate their usage by developers who are not trained in the filed of HCI. This is true in part because there are now several different standards (e.g., ISO 9241, ISO/IEC 9126, IEEE Std.610.12) or conceptual models (e.g., Metrics for Usability Standards in Computing [MUSiC]) for usability, and not all of these standards or models describe the same operational definitions and measures. This paper first reviews existing usability standards and models while highlighted the limitations and complementarities of the various standards. It then explains how these various models can be unified into a single consolidated, hierarchical model of usability measurement. This consolidated model is called Quality in Use Integrated Measurement (QUIM). Included in the QUIM model are 10 factors each of which corresponds to a specific facet of usability that is identified in an existing standard or model. These 10 factors are decomposed into a total of 26 sub-factors or measurable criteria that are furtherdecomposed into 127 specific metrics. The paper explains also how a consolidated model, such as QUIM, can help in developing a usability measurement theory.