ACCESSIBILITY OF GROUP SUPPORT FOR BLIND USERS
Yuanqiong Wang and John Schoeberline
Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, U.S.A.
Keywords: Group support, Accessibility, Usability, Blind.
Abstract: Group support applications are widely used in workplace. Unfortunately, persons who are blind often find
difficult to access such applications, due to the highly graphical nature of the applications, which hinders
their ability to contribute to the group. As the result, persons who are blind are often face problems gaining
and retaining employment. This paper presents preliminary results of a series of focus group study
conducted in the mid-Atlantic region on accessibility and usability issues of group support applications.
How persons who are blind utilize group support applications to support their group tasks; the tasks/steps
utilized to complete a group project; and, the accessibility and usability issues experienced by blind users
are discussed. Additionally, the focus group study identified the reasons persons who are blind discontinued
utilizing group support applications; the other tools utilized to support group work; the accessibility design
considerations; and, the accessibility documentation and support needed.
1 INTRODUCTION
According to World Health Organization (2010),
about 314 million people are visually impaired
worldwide, among them 45 million are blind. In the
United States, it is estimated that over one million
people are legally blind. In today’s global economy,
collaboration has become an essential activity in
business. Many organizations utilize software
applications that support communication,
coordination and collaboration (such as email,
document sharing, scheduling software,
conferencing systems) for their collaborative work.
Considering the unemployment rate for working age
persons who are blind in the united states of 70% to
75% (ICBV), the accessibility problems associated
with group support applications become crucial. In
order to improve the design of group support
applications, the following questions need to be
answered first:
 RQ1: how do persons who are blind work in
groups (collocated or distributed groups)?
More importantly, is there any difference
comparing to the way of a group containing
all sighted members?
 RQ2: What are the accessibility and usability
challenges persons who are blind experience
with software applications (specifically
groupware or group support application)?
 RQ3: What kind of support do persons who
are blind require so that they can perform
well in groups?
After a pilot study, a series of focus group
studies were conducted in the mid-Atlantic region.
This paper reports the focus group studies we
conducted and some preliminary findings. It is
organized as follows: in the next section, a brief
discussion on the research background is presented.
The research methodology utilized is discussed in
section three. The preliminary findings and future
research directions are discussed at the end.
2 RESEARCH BACKGROUND
2.1 Accessibility and Usability Issues
for Persons Who Are Blind
Accessibility describes the degree to which a
product, device, service, or environment is
accessible by as many people as possible. It is often
used to focus on people with disabilities and their
right of access to entities, often through the use of
assistive technology. In order to understand the
output from computer systems, persons who are
blind are forced to use either tactile displays or
sound. A screen reader (e.g. JAWS, Windows-Eyes)
is a piece of software that runs in the background to
297
Wang Y. and Schoeberline J..
ACCESSIBILITY OF GROUP SUPPORT FOR BLIND USERS.
DOI: 10.5220/0003504602970303
In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS-2011), pages 297-303
ISBN: 978-989-8425-56-0
Copyright
c
 2011 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

read the screen memory and send any text it finds
there to a speech synthesizer (Pitt & Edwards,
1996). However, the screen reader cannot interpret
graphical information on the screen, if the program
is not properly programmed. For example, Java
based technologies such as chat rooms are often
inaccessible to persons who cannot use a mouse;
poorly labeled forms and the use of frames can also
make the program inaccessible to persons who are
blind. Moreover, with technology advancement,
more and more applications are incorporating
dynamically generated content, which presents
accessibility challenge to persons who are blind.
On the other hand, usability refers to the extent a
product (e.g., device or service) can be utilized by
specific users to achieve specific goals with
effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a
specific context of use. When people with
disabilities are aware of accessibility and usability
issues based on their pervious experience, they are
more likely to try to avoid using that type of
applications. Instead, they will try to find a work-
around to complete that specific task. When no such
work-around is found, the frustration can affect their
mood.
2.2 Groupware and Group Support
Applications
Groupware applications refer to software
applications that assist persons to communicate,
coordinate, collaborate and compete (Shneiderman
& Plaisant, 2005). Groupware can be considered a
comprehensive tool that includes Email, group
calendars, as well as tools such as wikis, blogs,
social networking, etc. Time/place matrix (Johansen
et. al. 1991) is the most cited framework to
categorize groupware -- by time (synchronous or
asynchronous) and place (collocated or different
distributed). As the technology evolves, more and
more software applications start to incorporate
features that used to be key features of groupware
applications. For instance, a document editor now
provide features such as shared track changes that
allow collaborators to co-write papers, an email
application that also allow the sharing of calendars
from multiple users. Even though the above
examples are not typical groupware applications,
they do incorporate key features of groupware
applications that support group work. We would
refer these software applications as group support
applications. Most of these applications utilize a
Graphical User Interface (GUI) that involves
multiple forms or frames and may contain graphical
controls and images that screen readers cannot
interpret successfully.
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
AND PROCEDURE
Focus groups are group interviews. Generally, focus
group is used for marketing research purpose while
it has been used in social and design research since
1930s (Courage and Baxter, 2005). It is very useful
for generation of ideas and for discover problems,
challenges, frustrations, likes, and dislikes among
users especially when the researchers do not have
enough information to design a survey. The result of
focus group study can provide information to
prepare for other usability studies. Moreover, focus
groups allow the access of multiple points of view in
a short time period (e.g. a single meeting) (Courage
and Baxter, 2005). The size of the group can vary
from 4 to 6 as mini-group to more than 10 as a full
group (Greenbaum, 1998). Considering the
explorative nature of this particular study, we
believe focus group study is an appropriate approach
to gather data regarding group support applications
from blind users that are from a working group. This
will not only allow us to collect data from multiple
sources at a single meeting, it will so enable us to
observe the dynamic of the group as they interact;
gain agreement among several group members; and
validate the group process and other data with the
entire group.
Considering the limited time that each
participant can contribute, each focus group session
included a mini-group of five participants for this
study in order to get more in-depth information
(Greenbaum, 1998). The focus group sessions were
conducted in a small conference room in a hotel at
the mid-Atlantic region during a state convention.
All participants are blind with no residual vision.
The purposes of this study are to understand how
persons who are blind work in groups, what tools
they use for group collaborations and
communications, what the accessibility and usability
issues they encounter, and what additional support
they need for group interactions.
The focus group session, contained the following
steps:
 Prepare demographic, prior-experience
questionnaire and meeting guideline;
 Recruit the participants;
 Conduct the focus group session, based on
the meeting guideline;
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
298

 Perform content analysis of the audio
transcript and the researcher notes, to
identify content categories;
 Validate agreement of the coded content,
using Cohen’s Kappa (Simon, 2008); and,
 Report findings.
As Goebert and Rosenthal (Goebert &
Rosenthal, 2002) noted, “the primary consideration
is who will provide the most insightful information,”
related to the topic when conducting focus groups.
Considering the objective of this research project,
participants of this project must meet all the
requirements specified below:
 Persons who are blind, with no residue
vision;
 Persons who have experience working in
groups (collocated or distributed);
 Persons who are familiar with screen
readers;
 Persons who utilize computers for their
work; and,
 Persons who have tried to use group support
applications and other tools to support
his/her collaboration with others.
The Researchers solicited help from the NFB
(National Federation of the Blind) in order to recruit
persons who are blind to participate in the focus
group study. Fourteen people participated in three
focus group sessions with four to five members in
each group. The participants of the focus group
study met all of the selection criteria for this study.
Prior to the focus group study, each participant
were asked to fill out a short background
questionnaire, regarding demographic information
and prior-experiences with group support
applications and screen readers. A meeting guideline
was designed, before the start of the meeting,
containing a list of possible questions for discussion.
In order to be easily accessible for the
participants, the focus group session was conducted
in a private conference room in a hotel while they
attended a state convention. The session lasted about
90 minutes. One researcher served as the moderator
while the other served as a note-taker during the
session. The session was also audio-recorded. The
focus group started with a brief introduction from
the moderator on the purpose of the meeting, a
round of brief self-introductions, and followed by a
discussion based on meeting guideline. Follow-up,
probing questions were asked to ensure the
understanding of the discussion.
After all the focus group sessions were finished,
the audio recordings of the group discussions were
transcribed with the permission from the participants
and then compared with the researchers notes. Both
transcripts and detailed notes on the group
discussion were coded based on the themes that
emerged from the participants’ comments.
4 PRELIMINARY RESULTS
4.1 Demographics and Experience
Of the fourteen participants, nine participants
completed the background questionnaire. Computer
using experience was discussed during the focus
group. Therefore, the data regarding computer
experience were collected from all 14 participants.
Among all the participants that responded to the
survey, five (5) are between 40 to 49 years old; two
(2) are between 50 to 59 years old; and, two (2)
participants are 60 and over. In regard to experience
utilizing a desktop or laptop computer, five (5)
participants had 11 to 20 years of experience; while
nine (9) participants had 21 to 30 years of
experience. All of the participants utilized the
computer daily and were middle to elder aged adults
with computer experience of at least 11 years. It is
anticipated that the participants’ high-level of
experience may play a role in providing several
examples of accessibility and usability issues and
increasing the diversity of applications discussed.
The participants responded that they utilized
screen reader software to access their computer
applications. Among 9 participants who responded,
the level of experience on using screen reader ranges
from 1 year to 30 years with majority (five
participants) having 21 to 30 years of experience.
Based on these responses, it appears that the
participants have considerable experience utilizing
screen readers. The specific screen reader software
reported most frequently was the JAWS (five
responses) screen reader, followed by the Windows
Eyes (three responses) screen reader.
Novell GroupWise, Microsoft Outlook,
Microsoft Office (including Access, Word, Excel,
and PowerPoint), Microsoft SharePoint; Microsoft
Internet Explorer; and, various versions of
BlackBoards were identified as tools that the
participants use while working in groups. Microsoft
Outlook and Microsoft Word were the top two
mentioned applications, with five (5) and six (6)
responses respectively. These applications were
utilized by the participants to communicate with
each other, access data; prepare for classes,
participate in class discussions, share documents,
and make group schedules. It is clear that most
ACCESSIBILITY OF GROUP SUPPORT FOR BLIND USERS
299

participants utilized some groupware or utilities in
various software packages. However, none of the
participants utilized traditional full-fledged
groupware application for group work they
participated.
4.2 Data Analysis of the Focus Group
Study Recording
Content analysis was performed on the audio
transcriptions and notes collected during the field
studies. Two research assistants performed as coders
for this analysis. Key points were grouped into
categories. After a training session and exercise on
how to code the transcript using a random selected
transcript segment, the two coders worked
individually to code all the data. Cohen’s Kappa
(Simon, 2008) was calculated to verify the inter-
coder reliability (Kurasaki, 2000). The coders agreed
on 97% of the 94 cases. Cohen’s Kappa with value
of 0.7 or above is normally regarded as having
consistent coding between coders. Therefore, the
codes from two coders are accepted as reliable.
Six categories were identified as the result of this
analysis:
 the tasks/steps necessary to complete a group
project;
 groupware or group support software utilized;
 accessibility and usability issues encountered;
 group interaction techniques utilized;
 accessibility documentation and support; and,
 accessibility design considerations.
The following sections will present each of the
six categories identified with discussions.
4.2.1 Tasks/Steps Necessary to Complete a
Group Project
In order to investigate the support needed for blind
users in group setting, it is essential to study how
blind members work in groups (collocated or
distributed), check out whether there is any
difference in terms of the needs from sighted
members. Therefore, the focus group started
discussion by identifying the tasks or steps utilized
when completing a group project involving blind
members.
All focus group participants worked with groups
involving both blind and sighted members. Not
surprisingly, general work flow with groups
containing all blind members as well as partially
blind groups are very similar to the process that is
normally followed by sighted groups. The project
normally start by identifying the purpose of the
project, assigning a project leader, exchanging
documents via email, followed by a combination of
face-to-face meetings, conference calls and
additional emails.
When groups were collocated, more face-to-face
meetings were scheduled during the process. While
for distributed groups, conferences calls were
conducted when an immediate attention/feedback
was required. One participant commented, “A lot of
group stuff, there are a lot of face-to-face. It is a
combination of face-to-face, email and conference
calls. It is dependent on the makeup of the group.”
4.2.2 Groupware or Group Support
Software Utilized
Outlook, Outlook Express, GroupWise, Google
Calendar, chat tools such as Instant Messenger,
Office (Excel, Word, and PowerPoint), SharePoint,
and Word Perfect were identified as the tools
utilized during group work. Tools such as Outlook,
Outlook Express, GroupWise, Instant Messenger
and Google Calendar were used for emailing,
chatting, task tracking, and group scheduling.
Office, SharePoint and Word Perfect were mostly
used for document sharing and exchanging.
In order to be able to access the above mentioned
applications, the focus group participants utilize
screen readers. The predominant screen readers
utilized were the JAWS and the Window Eyes.
Scripting languages are available to customize the
screen reader to improve accessibility of
applications the screen reader interfaces. Utilizing
the screen reader’s scripting language to assist with
making the interface to group support applications
accessible can enhance the screen reader’s
functionality. Once it is determined that a specific
application is not accessible, the screen reader’s
scripting language can be modified to incorporate
features for accessibility. Utilizing the scripting
language to improve an application’s accessibility
may be a possible area for further research.
Note takers, a hardware-typing device, are
normally used to document discussion content
during face-to-face group meetings. The notes are
transferred to their computers after the each group
meeting. PAC Mate and Braille Sense note takers
were identified as the ones that used most
frequently.
It is interesting to notice that none of the focus
group participants actually used traditional full-
fledged groupware applications (such as Think Tank
from Group Systems). Instead, features from
different software applications were utilized for
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
300

different purposes during group collaboration. With
the development of the web technology, more and
more group features (such as email, co-editing, and
group calendar) are integrated as components in
software applications that are normally not regarded
as groupware. Groups especially the ones involving
sighted members tend to use web-based applications.
4.2.3 Accessibility and Usability Issues
Experienced
With the intense utilization of the software
applications, participations discussed various
accessibility and usability issues they encountered.
A lot of the issues were common among various
software applications even though it was mentioned
in regards to a specific application when the
discussion started.
One recurring theme, in the area of accessibility,
is the inability to access and use the track changes
feature supported by Microsoft Word. The track
changes are garbled with so many inserts and deletes
that it is difficult to comprehend the changes to a
document. A participant commented, “My track
changes goes from the next comment to the next
comment. It is hard to keep up with all of the
information presented, and to determine the original
and the change. I can turn on Window Eyes, to hear
the changes, but I hardly ever turn that feature on,
because it is too much to keep track of. Deleted two
words and added a couple of words – it becomes
impossible! Frequently, I just accept all of the
changes. There is too much clutter with track
changes.”
Can there be a new approach to present all the
changes that has been made by members? We may
need to look into alternative ways to allow co-
editing within the group. Possibly have the original
paragraph, followed by the changed paragraph in
their entirety, with the ability to switch back-and–
forth between views. Somehow, a complete
representation of the changes may be easier to
understand. Considering that the focus group
participants simply accept the changes and then
review, presenting the changes in their entirety
before they accept the changes may be an improved
alternative approach.
While working in distributed groups
synchronously, it is critical that members are aware
their current stage and have the control of what they
need to do. Unfortunately, this may not be easy for
blind members. Echoed with previous research on
supporting synchronous communication for the blind
(Hample, 1999), the inability to follow a
conversation in a chat session was raised as another
issue that prevent blind members to contribute to the
group as much as they would like to. A participant
commented, “In a Chat Session – figuring out who
said what, is an issue. You are no longer
synchronous, when you have to look around the
screen to figure out who said what. You are going to
get behind the chat pretty fast. Even if you have
access, chat is too difficult to keep up with the
conversation.”
Identifying the participants of a conversation is
an important feature of a chat application. Future
research can be utilized to focus on the issues
associated with synchronous communications and
solving the issues of identifying participants and
keeping pace with the conversation.
Periodic software updates that fix bugs or
improve performance are expected by most software
users. Unfortunately, this poses a new problem for
blind users. The focus group participants noted that
when new software upgrades were made to existing
applications, functionality and interface changes
they made to prior versions were always lost which
normally lead to extra time and effort to reset all the
accessibility features that work with the screen
readers they normally use. A participant
commented, “I try to customize my interface but you
loose your changes to the interface when upgrades
occur. When you get a new version of Office, for
example. The new software comes out for sighted
people, then the access technology people scramble
to make the software function for persons who are
blind.” Another participant concurred with the work
around he utilize, “My office is using Google
Calendar, which is not accessible. I now have a new
assistant, who enters my schedule into Google
Calendar. That type of stuff happens all the time.
Some big global change takes place, and then
someone thinks how will this impact a blind person,
then you are playing catch-up.”
In the same vein as upgrades to group support
applications are cosmetic changes of new versions of
group support applications which leads to
inaccessibility of the application. For instance, the
ribbon menus added to new versions of Microsoft
applications made the previously accessible
application inaccessible. A participant commented,
“I use to be able to go to the menu bar. The ribbons
are not accessible – you have the up-and-down
ribbons, and you are supposed to memorize the
ribbons. It is not very usable. I cannot get to the
other ribbons, like the spell checker for example.
The prior design with the menus and the alt keys was
a better approach for accessibility and usability.”
ACCESSIBILITY OF GROUP SUPPORT FOR BLIND USERS
301

It is important that prior to upgrades or changes
to existing group support applications are applied,
changes are tested with persons with disabilities to
prevent loss of service of these applications due to
accessibility and usability issues. The application
developers should be awareness of this issue so they
can take it into consideration when they provide
upgrades to software applications.
Another area of accessibility that was mentioned
by the focus group participants was the inability of
the screen reader to keep pace with the cursor
position while reading messages in Microsoft
Outlook. A participant commented, ”Microsoft
Outlook, when I am arrow down through the
messages, the arrow is moving down the messages,
but the JAWS Screen Reader has stopped talking.”
When the locus of control is important to the user,
how to provide the right information regarding the
cursor position and current focus to the screen reader
or other adaptive technology is essential. Therefore,
it is imperative that the developers of the application
as well as adaptive technologies (e.g. screen reader)
work together to solve the issue.
4.2.4 Group Interaction Techniques
The focus group studies’ participants reported that
they communicate as a group by utilizing face-to-
face meetings, conference calls, email, and instant
messages depending on whether they are collocated
or distributed, and whether the issue needs
immediate attention. This is consistent with the
time/place matrix discussed in the literature. It also
parallels the approaches to group communications of
sighted persons. The real difference is that persons
who are blind have to use additional adaptive tools
such as screen readers and note takers. The screen
reader provides access to applications via
synthesized speech, and the note taker provides a
method for documenting notes during face-to-face
meetings and conference call. The area of future
research in regard to the group process is to
determine an approach to creating a comprehensive
solution for email, chat, and note taking for persons
who are blind.
4.2.5 Accessibility Design Considerations
Being able to customize the interface is an approach
to enhancing the accessibility and usability of an
interface. The ability to modify and possibly
simplify the group support application’s interface
was seen as a requirement of the focus group
participants. Often times, a group support
application interface component was removed from
the interface to allow the screen reader interpret the
interface better. For example, participants often
“remove the preview pane from the interface in
outlook”. When the group support application’s
interface is less cluttered, persons who are blind can
focus their screen reader on more precisely
presented content.
4.2.6 Suggestions on Accessibility
Documentation and Support
Due to the difficulties interacting with software
applications, the support provided with the
application becomes critical on whether a blind
member can perform in the group to the extent they
intended to. The participants noticed the importance
of having access to a support staff “I have IT
Support. They use remote access, to login to my
computer.” Another participant commented, “I
contact Plum Choice to remote access my computer
who can look at my interface and we try to find a
way a blind person can adjust the interface.”
However, not all support staff in their own
organizations are aware of the accessibility features
provided with the application. Therefore, in order to
allow people who are blind (as well as with other
disabilities) best utilize the application, it is crucial
to provide documentation that discusses any
accessibility aspect of the application.
5 DISCUSSIONS AND FUTURE
DIRECTIONS
The participants of the focus group studies are adults
with extensive experience utilizing adaptive
technologies while working in groups. Even though
the participants have extensive experience, they do
encounter accessibility and usability issues while
interacting with group support applications.
Although the size of our study is relatively small,
considering the potential user population and cases
identified from the study, the preliminary results do
illustrate the need of further investigation in the
design of accessible group support software
applications. Studying the group process enabled the
researcher to determine the significant group support
applications and adaptive technologies necessary for
persons who are blind to be able to collaborate and
communicate in groups. Screen readers and note
taking devices are utilized to interact with group
support applications.
Further research is needed in several areas in
ICEIS 2011 - 13th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems
302

regard to accessibility and usability of group support
applications. Some of the areas discussed include:
integrating email, chat and document sharing into a
comprehensive group support application; utilizing
screen reader scripting languages to correct
accessibility and usability issues; creating new
approaches for track changes of shared documents;
providing awareness of who is talking and on which
subject matter during chat session to determine the
conversation stream; identifying the cursor position
or controlling the cursor position while reading
messages; and, providing approaches to support of
upgrades and enhancements to make sure the
requirements of persons who are blind are
considered.
The future directions suggested by this series of
studies support several paths:
 Developing and evaluating accessible group
support prototypes capable of integrating email,
instant messaging and document sharing;
 Developing and evaluating new approaches to
presenting email messages that prevent loss of
place;
 Developing and evaluating new approaches to
help control pace and the orientation of
participants utilizing chat sessions;
 Developing and evaluating new approaches to
track document changes that are accessible and
usable;
 Developing and evaluating screen reader scripts
to improve accessibility to group support
applications;
 Developing and evaluating new approaches to
improve the accessibility and usability of the
ribbon menu structure of Microsoft
Applications; and,
 Developing and evaluating interface designs that
are less cluttered or have the ability to be
modified for accessibility and usability.
6 CONCLUSIONS
The results from focus group studies present the
need to focus attention on the accessibility and
usability needs of persons who are blind. Several
accessibility and usability issues were identified by
the field studies’ participants that need to be
addressed in order for the participants to interact
with group support applications.
The next step in this research is to select one or
several of the accessibility and usability projects
identified and conduct research on the accessibility
and usability of the proposed solutions.
REFERENCES
Courage, C. Baxter, K., 2005. Understanding Your Users.
A Practical guide to user requirements. Methods,
Tools, and Techniques. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers,
San Francisco.
Goebert, B., Rosenthal, G., 2002. Beyond Listening:
Learning the Secret Language of Focus Groups. New
York. John Wiley.
Greenbaum, T. L., 1998. The handbook for focus group
research. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks, 2nd
Edition.
Hampel, T., Keil-Slawik, R., Claassen B. G., Plohmann,
F., Reimann, C., 1999. Pragmatic Solutions for Better
Integration of the Visually Impaired in Virtual
Communities. In Proc. GROUP ’99, Phoenix, AR,
USA 1999, pages 258-266.
ICBV., n.d. Assuring opportunities: A 21
st
century
strategy to increase employment of blind Americans.
Retrieved from http://www.icbv.net/National%20
Issues/Opportunities.htm.
Johansen, R. Martin, A. Mittman, R. Saffo, P. Sibbet, D.
and Benson, 1991. S. Leading Business Teams: How
Teams Can Use Technology and Group Processs
Tools to Enhance Performance, Reading MA:
Addison Wesley.
Kurasaki, K. S., 2000. Intercoder Reliability for Validating
Conclusions Drawn from Open-Ended Interview Data.
Field Methods, volume 12, No. 3, August 2000, pp
179-184.
Pitt, I. J., Edwards, A. D. N., 1996. Improving the
usability of speech-based interfaces for blind users. In
Proceedings of ASSETS 1996, 124-130. Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada.
Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., 2005. Designing the User
Interface: Strategies for an Effective Human-
Computer Interaction. Addison Wesley, Boston, 4th
edition, 411-450.
Simon, S., 2008. What is a Kappa coefficient? Retrieved
from http://www.childrens-mercy.org/stats/definitions/
kappa.htm.
World Health Organization, 2010. Visual impairment and
blindness. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/
mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en/
ACCESSIBILITY OF GROUP SUPPORT FOR BLIND USERS
303