Is visual content in textual search interfaces beneficial to dyslexic users?

Gerd Berget

[0]

Fiona Mulvey

Frode Eika Sandnes

[0]

Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud., Volume 92, Issue C, 2016, Pages 17-29.

Cited by: 30|Bibtex|Views53|DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.04.006

Other Links: dblp.uni-trier.de|dl.acm.org|academic.microsoft.com|www.sciencedirect.com

Keywords:

DyslexiaInformation search behaviorSearch user interfacesVisual searchEye-trackingMore(1+)

Weibo:

This study suggests that presenting icons and words in a list structure will benefit both dyslexics and non-dyslexic users in terms of search performance over any kind of array-like format

Abstract:

Dyslexia is a learning disability characterised by problems with accurate or fluent word recognition, poor decoding, and poor spelling abilities. Although several studies have addressed dyslexia and Web accessibility, less is known about how dyslexia affects information search. This study investigated whether the inclusion of icons in sea...More

Code:

Data:

Insight

Full Text

PPT (Upload PPT)

Similar

Reference

Cited

Introduction

Dyslexia is related to impaired word recognition and decoding skills (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and occurs in various forms and degrees (Snowling, 2000).
Dyslexia is usually discussed in educational contexts and in terms of teaching children how to read and write.
Information search requires spelling skills in order to produce accurate and purposeful queries, and word recognition skills for exploring results and assessing documents for relevance.
Both aspects may present challenges for a dyslexic user

Highlights

Dyslexia is related to impaired word recognition and decoding skills (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and occurs in various forms and degrees (Snowling, 2000)
This paper reports the results from a study where icons and words were used as targets and distractors to investigate whether graphic content could support dyslexics in visual search tasks
When participants with other specific learning disabilities (n 1⁄44) were excluded, significant differences in search times and large effect remained between groups in icon arrays/word arrays-GRID only (t(22.1) = 2.27, p < .03, d = 1.0), with slower search times in
This study suggests that presenting icons and words in a list structure will benefit both dyslexics and non-dyslexic users in terms of search performance over any kind of array-like format
Presenting both modalities in typical array-like search results may have a deleterious effect on search performance, both for dyslexic and non-dyslexic users, and it seems that this is a problem due to the less preferred modality being within central vision concurrently
Robust and consistent differences between dyslexics and controls in eye movement measures indicate that eye movement analysis is sensitive to processing and moment to moment behavioural differences between dyslexics and controls, and can be exploited to further understand and design for accessible interfaces and equal access to search information for this target group

Methods

A total of 42 students volunteered to participate; 21 diagnosed with dyslexia and 21 age and gender-matched controls.
Three dyslexics and one control were diagnosed with ADHD or ADD, and one further dyslexic with dyscalculia
This was expected, since comorbidity with dyslexia is not uncommon.
14.3% of the dyslexics had ADHD/ADD and 4.8% has dylcalculia
This is representative of the general dyslexia population (Germanò et al, 2010; Landerl et al, 2009).
Dyslexia is more prevalent among men (Hawke et al, 2009)

Results

Dyslexics took significantly longer to find search target on all tasks compared to controls, except ICON, the only condition without text.
The effect size was large for differences between groups on these three text-containing conditions, see Table 1.
When participants with other specific learning disabilities (n 1⁄44) were excluded, significant differences in search times and large effect remained between groups in ICON/WORD-GRID only (t(22.1) = 2.27, p < .03, d = 1.0), with slower search times in Condition Dyslexic Control df t p Cohen's d M SD M SD ICON.

Conclusion

There were no differences between groups in number of fixations in either of the singlemodality array conditions.In general, this study suggests that presenting icons and words in a list structure will benefit both dyslexics and non-dyslexic users in terms of search performance over any kind of array-like format.
Robust and consistent differences between dyslexics and controls in eye movement measures indicate that eye movement analysis is sensitive to processing and moment to moment behavioural differences between dyslexics and controls, and can be exploited to further understand and design for accessible interfaces and equal access to search information for this target group

Summary

Introduction:
Dyslexia is related to impaired word recognition and decoding skills (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and occurs in various forms and degrees (Snowling, 2000).
Dyslexia is usually discussed in educational contexts and in terms of teaching children how to read and write.
Information search requires spelling skills in order to produce accurate and purposeful queries, and word recognition skills for exploring results and assessing documents for relevance.
Both aspects may present challenges for a dyslexic user
Methods:
A total of 42 students volunteered to participate; 21 diagnosed with dyslexia and 21 age and gender-matched controls.
Three dyslexics and one control were diagnosed with ADHD or ADD, and one further dyslexic with dyscalculia
This was expected, since comorbidity with dyslexia is not uncommon.
14.3% of the dyslexics had ADHD/ADD and 4.8% has dylcalculia
This is representative of the general dyslexia population (Germanò et al, 2010; Landerl et al, 2009).
Dyslexia is more prevalent among men (Hawke et al, 2009)
Results:
Dyslexics took significantly longer to find search target on all tasks compared to controls, except ICON, the only condition without text.
The effect size was large for differences between groups on these three text-containing conditions, see Table 1.
When participants with other specific learning disabilities (n 1⁄44) were excluded, significant differences in search times and large effect remained between groups in ICON/WORD-GRID only (t(22.1) = 2.27, p < .03, d = 1.0), with slower search times in Condition Dyslexic Control df t p Cohen's d M SD M SD ICON.
Conclusion:
There were no differences between groups in number of fixations in either of the singlemodality array conditions.In general, this study suggests that presenting icons and words in a list structure will benefit both dyslexics and non-dyslexic users in terms of search performance over any kind of array-like format.
Robust and consistent differences between dyslexics and controls in eye movement measures indicate that eye movement analysis is sensitive to processing and moment to moment behavioural differences between dyslexics and controls, and can be exploited to further understand and design for accessible interfaces and equal access to search information for this target group

Tables

Table1: Group differences in mean search times (seconds)
Table2: Within-subjects differences in mean search times (seconds)
Table3: Group differences in fixations
Table4: Within-subjects differences in mean fixation durations (ms)
Table5: Group differences in saccades
Table6: Group differences in AOI dwell times

Download tables as Excel

Funding

This project has been financially supported by the Norwegian ExtraFoundation for Health and Rehabilitation through EXTRA funds grant 2011/12/025
The funding organisation has not been involved in any part of the research process and writing of this paper

Reference

Al-Wabil, A., Zaphiris, P., Wilson, S., 2007. Web navigation for individuals with dyslexia: an exploratory study. In: Stephanidis, C. (Ed.), Universal Access in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity: 4th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, UAHCI 2007, Held as Part of HCI International 2007, Beijing, China, July 22–27, 2007, Proceedings, Part I. Springer, Berlin, pp. 593–602.
American Psychiatric Association, 2013. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC.
Baeza-Yates, R., Rello, L., 2011. Estimating dyslexia in the Web. In: Ferres, L., Vigo, M., Abascal, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility – W4A'11. ACM, New York, NY, USA (Article no. 8).
Beacham, N.A., Alty, J.L., 2006. An investigation into the effects that digital media can have on the learning outcomes of individuals who have dyslexia. Comput. Educ. 47 (1), 74–93.
Becker, S.I., 2011. Determinants of dwell time in visual search: Similarity or perceptual difficulty? PLoS ONE 6 (3), e17740.
Bellocchi, S., Muneaux, M., Bastien-Toniazzo, M., Ducrot, S., 2013. I can read it in your eyes: what eye movements tell us about visuo-attentional processes in developmental dyslexia. Res. Dev. Disabil. 34 (1), 452–460.
Benbasat, I., Todd, P., 1993. An experimental investigation of interface design alternatives: icon vs. text and direct manipulation vs. menus. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 38 (3), 369–402.
Benjamins, J.S., Hooge, I.T.C., van Elst, J.C., Wertheim, A.H., Verstraten, F.A.J., 2009. Search time critically depends on irrelevant subset size in visual search. Vis. Res. 49 (3), 398–406.
Bouma, H., 1970. Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition. Nature 226 (April (5241)), 177–178 (URL 〈http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5437004〉).
Brante, E.W., Olander, M.H., Nystrom, M., 2013. Exploring the impact of contrasting cases in text and picture processing. J. Vis. Lit. 32 (2), 15–39.
British Dyslexia Association, n.d. Dyslexia Style Guide (URL 〈http://www.bda dyslexia.org.uk/common/ckeditor/filemanager/userfiles/About_Us/policies/Dys lexia_Style_Guide.pdf〉).
Dahle, A.E., Knivsberg, A.-M., 2014.
de Boer-Schellekens, L., Vroomen, J., 2012. Sound can improve visual search in developmental dyslexia. Exp. Brain Res. 216 (2), 243–248.
De Santana, V.F., de Oliveira, R., Almeida, L.D.A., Baranauskas, M.C.C., 2012. Web accessibility and people with dyslexia. In: Proceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility – W4A'12. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, p. Article no. 35.
Evett, L., Brown, D., 2005. Text formats and Web design for visually impaired and dyslexic readers: clear text for all. Interact. Comput. 17 (4), 453–472.
Fagan, J.C., 2010. Usability studies of faceted browsing: a literature review. Inf. Technol. Libr. 29 (2), 58–66.
Findlay, J.M., 2004. Eye scanning and visual search. In: Henderson, J., Ferreira, F. (Eds.), The Interface of Language, Vision and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World. Psychology Press, New York.
Friedman, M.G., Bryen, D.N., 2007. Web accessibility design recommendations for people with cognitive disabilities. Technol. Disabil. 19 (4), 205–212.
Fulton, 2000. Processes in Biological Vision, Vision Concepts.
Germanò, E., Gagliano, A., Curatolo, P., 2010. Comorbidity of ADHD and dyslexia.
Gibbs, J., Appleton, J., Appleton, R., 2007. Dyspraxia or developmental coordination disorder?: unravelling the enigma Arch. Dis. Child. 92 (6), 534–539.
Greene, H.H., Rayner, K., 2001. Eye movements and familiarity effects in visual search. Vis. Res. 41 (27), 3763–3773.
Habib, L., Berget, G., Sandnes, F.E., Sanderson, N., Kahn, P., Fagernes, S., Olcay, A., 2012. Dyslexic students in higher education and virtual learning environments: an exploratory study. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 28 (6), 574–584.
Hawke, J.L., Olson, R.K., Willcut, E.G., Wadsworth, S.J., DeFries, J.C., 2009. Gender ratios for reading difficulties. Dyslexia 15 (3), 239–242.
Hearst, M., Elliott, A., English, J., Sinha, R., Swearingen, K., Yee, K.-P., 2002. Finding the flow in web site search. Commun. ACM 45 (9), 42–49.
Hepworth, M., 2007. Knowledge of information behaviour and its relevance to the design of people-centred information products and services. J. Doc. 63 (1), 33–56.
Hiscox, L., Leonavičit, E., Humby, T., 2014. The effects of automatic spelling correction software on understanding and comprehension in compensated dyslexia: improved recall following dictation. Dyslexia 20 (3), 208–224.
Høien, T., Tønnesen, G., 2008. Ordkjedetesten [The Word Chain Test]. Logometrica, Bryne.
Houts, P.S., Doak, C.C., Doak, L.G., Loscalzo, M.J., 2006. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ. Counsel. 61 (2), 173–190.
Huang, S.-C., 2012. Are Icons Pictures or Logographical Words? Statistical, Behavioural and Neuroimaging Measures of Semantic Interpretations of Four Types of Visual Information. University of Texas, Austin.
Huang, S.-C., Bias, R.G., Schnyer, D., 2015. How are icons processed by the brain?: neuroimaging measures of four types of visual stimuli used in information systems J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66 (4), 702–720.
Huang, S.-M., Shieh, K.-K., Chi, C.-F., 2002. Factors affecting the design of computer icons. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 29 (4), 211–218.
Huang, X., Jing, J., Zou, X.B., Wang, M.L., Li, X.H., Lin, A.H., 2008. Eye movements characteristics of Chinese dyslexic children in picture searching. Chin. Med. J. 121 (17), 1617–1621.
Huettig, F., Brouwer, S., 2015. Delayed anticipatory spoken language processing in adults with dyslexia: evidence from eye-tracking. Dyslexia 21 (2), 97–122.
Iles, J., Walsh, V., Richardson, A., 2000. Visual search performance in dyslexia. Dyslexia 6 (3), 163–177. ISO, 2009. ISO 8596 Opthalmic Optics: Visual Acuity Testing – Standard Optotype and its Presentation. ISO, Geneva.
Jeffries, S., Everatt, J., 2004. Working memory: its role in dyslexia and other specific learning difficulties. Dyslexia 10 (3), 196–214.
Jerde, T.A., Ikkai, A., Curtis, C.E., 2011. The search for the neural mechanisms of the set size effect. Eur. J. Neurosci. 33 (11), 2028–2034.
Jones, M.W., Branigan, H.P., Kelly, M.L., 2008. Visual deficits in developmental dyslexia: relationships between non-linguistic visual tasks and their contribution to components of reading. Dyslexia 14 (2), 95–115.
Kacmar, C.J., Carey, J.M., 1991. Assessing the usability of icons in user interfaces. Behav. Inf. Technol. 10 (6), 443–457.
Kim, S., Lombardino, L.J., Cowles, W., Altmann, L.J., 2014. Investigating graph comprehension in students with dyslexia: an eye tracking study. Res. Dev. Disabil. 35 (7), 1609–1622.
Landerl, K., Fussenegger, B., Moll, K., Willburger, E., 2009. Dyslexia and dyscalculia: two learning disorders with different cognitive profiles. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 103 (3), 309–324.
Levin, B.E., 1990. Organizational deficits in dyslexia: possible frontal lobe dysfunction. Dev. Neuropsychol. 6 (2), 95–110.
Lindberg, T., Näsänen, R., 2003. The effect of icon spacing and size on the speed of icon processing in the human visual system. Displays 24 (3), 111–120.
MacFarlane, A., Al-Wabil, A., Marshall, C.R., Albrair, A., Jones, S.A., Zaphiris, P., 2010. The effect of dyslexia on information retrieval: a pilot study. J. Doc. 66 (3), 307–326.
MacFarlane, A., Albrair, A., Marshall, C.R., Buchanan, G., 2012. Phonological working memory impacts on information searching. In: Proceedings of the 4th Information Interaction in Context Symposium on – IIIX '12. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 27–34.
Moores, E., Cassim, R., Talcott, J.B., 2011. Adults with dyslexia exhibit large effects of crowding, increased dependence on cues, and detrimental effects of distractors in visual search tasks. Neuropsychologia 49 (14), 3881–3890.
Mortimore, T., Crozier, W.R., 2006. Dyslexia and difficulties with study skills in higher education. Stud. High. Educ. 31 (2), 235–251.
Mulvey, F., Landwehr, N., Borah, J., Cleveland, D., Joos, M., Latorella, K., Pelz, J., Simpson, S., Wang, D., 2015. How reliable is my eye-movement data? Results of system comparison and participant characteristics-based prediction of data quality from the emra/cogain eye data quality standardisation committee. In: Groner, R. (Ed.), ECEM 2015 Conference Program.
Nicolson, R., Fawcett, A., 1990. Automaticity: a new framework for dyslexia research? Cognition 35 (2), 159–182.
Nielsen, J., Levy, J., 1994. Measuring usability: preference vs. performance. Commun. ACM 37 (4), 66–75.
Niemelä, M., Saarinen, J., 2000. Visual search for grouped versus ungrouped icons in a computer interface. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 42 (4), 630–635.
Nothdurft, H.-C., 1999. Focal attention in visual search. Vis. Res. 39 (14), 2305–2310.
Ojanpää, H., Näsänen, R., Kojo, I., 2002. Eye movements in the visual search of word lists. Vis. Res. 42 (12), 1499–1512.
Phillips, M.H., Edelman, J.A., 2008. The dependence of visual scanning performance on saccade, fixation, and perceptual metrics. Vis. Res. 48 (7), 926–936.
Pollatsek, A., 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Reading. Oxford University Press, Oxford (URL 〈https://books.google.com/books?id 1⁄4 Wc0fCgAAQBAJ&pgis1⁄4 1〉). Prado, C., Dubois, M., Valdois, S., 2007. The eye movements of dyslexic children during reading and visual search:impact of the visual attention span. Vis. Res.47 (19), 2521–2530.
Rayner, K., 2009. Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 62 (8), 1457–1506.
Rello, L., Baeza-Yates, R., 2013. Good fonts for dyslexia. In: Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility – ASSETS'13. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 1–8.
Rello, L., Ballesteros, M., 2015. Detecting readers with dyslexia using machine learning with eye tracking measures. In: Proceedings of the 12th Web for All Conference – W4A'15. ACM, New York, NY, USA (Article no. 16).
Rello, L., Bautista, S., Baeza-Yates, R., Gervás, P., Hervás, R., Saggion, H., 2013a. One half or 50%? An eye-tracking study of number representation readability. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 8120, pp. 229– 245.
Rello, L., Pielot, M., Marcos, M.-C., Carlini, R., 2013b. Size matters (spacing not). In: Proceedings of the 10th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility – W4A '13. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, p. 1.
Richards, J.T., Hanson, V.L., 2004. Web accessibility: a broader view. In: Feldman, S., Uretsky, M., Najork, M., Wills, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on World Wide Web – WWW '04. ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 72–79.
Rømen, D., Svanæs, D., 2012. Validating WCAG versions 1.0 and 2.0 through usability testing with disabled users. Univers. Access Inf. Soci. 11 (4), 375–385.
Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., 2005. Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Biol. Psychiat. 57 (11), 1301–1309.
Sireteanu, R., Goebel, C., Goertz, R., Werner, I., Nalewajko, M., Thiel, A., 2008. Impaired serial visual search in children with developmental dyslexia. Ann. N.Y.
Smith-Spark, J.H., Fisk, J.E., 2007. Working memory functioning in developmental dyslexia. Memory 15 (1), 34–56.
Snowling, M.J., 2000.
Snowling, M.J., 2001. From language to reading and dyslexia. Dyslexia 7 (1), 37–46.
Solheim, O.J., Uppstad, P.H., 2011. Eye-tracking as a tool in process-oriented reading test validation. Int. Electron. J. Elem. Educ. 4 (1), 153–168.
Sontag, D., Collins-Thompson, K., Bennett, P.N., White, R.W., Dumais, S., Billerbeck, B., 2012. Probabilistic models for personalizing web search. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining – WSDM'12. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 433–442.
Teevan, J., Ramage, D., Morris, M.R., 2011. #TwitterSearch: a comparison of microblog search and web search. In: Proceedings of the Fourth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining – WSDM'11. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, pp. 35–44. The Noun Project, n.d. The Noun Project (URL 21.05.2013https://thenounproject. com). van der Schoot, M., Licht, R., Horsley, T.M., Sergeant, J.A., 2000. Inhibitory deficits in reading disability depend on subtype: guessers but not spellers. Child Neuropsychol.: J. Normal Abnormal Dev. Child. Adolesc. 6 (4), 297–312.
Vidyasagar, T.R., Pammer, K., 1999. Impaired visual search in dyslexia relates to the role of the magnocellular pathway in attention. Neuroreport 10 (6), 1283–1287. W3C, 2008. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 (URL 〈http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/〉). Williams, P., Hennig, C., 2015a. Effect of web page menu orientation on retrieving information by people with learning disabilities. J. Assc. Inf. Sci. Technol.66 (4), 674–683.
Williams, P., Hennig, C., 2015b. Optimising web site designs for people with learning disabilities. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs: JORSEN 15 (January (1)), 25–36.
Wright, R.D., Ward, L.M., 2008. Orienting of Attention. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Zarach, V., 2002. Ten Guidelines for Improving Accessibility for People With Dyslexia (URL 〈http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/Ten_Guidelines_for_Improving_Accessibility_for_People_with_Dyslexia〉). Zhang, P., Bobier, W., Thompson, B., Hess, R.F., 2011. Binocular balance in normal vision and its modulation by mean luminance. Optom. Vis. Sci.: Off. Publ. Am. Acad. Optom.88 (9), 1072–1079.
Zorzi, M., Barbiero, C., Facoetti, A., Lonciari, I., Carrozzi, M., Montico, M., Bravar, L., George, F., Pech-Georgel, C., Ziegler, J.C., 2012. Extra-large letter spacing improves reading in dyslexia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109 (28), 11455–11459.
Fiona Mulvey received Ph.D. in cognitive neuropsychology at the IT University of Copenhagen, and is currently a researcher in the Humanities Laboratory & Department of Psychology, Lund University, Sweden. Her research interests include investigating neurological processes in typically developing and clinical groups via eye movement analysis, and developing eye tracking methodology. She leads two standardisation committees on eye tracking methods, and Chairs two international research associations – the Eye Movement Researchers Association, and COGAIN – a former EU-funded Network of Excellence on Communication through Gaze-based Interaction, focusing on users with disabilities.

Full Text

Your rating :

Is visual content in textual search interfaces beneficial to dyslexic users?

Introduction:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion: