Usability Evaluation of a Mobile Application Directory for People with Disabilities (OKU): Assessing Factors for Successful Navigation
Keywords:
Usability Evaluation; People with Disabilities; Mobile Application; Successful DirectoryAbstract
People with disabilities (PWDs) continue to face critical underrepresentation and persistent usability barriers across digital platforms, limiting their opportunities for empowerment, inclusion, and meaningful self-expression. Addressing this gap requires digital tools that not only meet accessibility standards but also amplify the voices and achievements of PWDs. This study presents a usability evaluation of OKUd, a mobile storytelling application developed to promote digital inclusion and highlight success stories within the disability community. The primary objective of the project was to assess the application's utility, usability, and user satisfaction to determine its readiness for full-scale deployment. A quantitative research design was employed, using an adapted version of the USE (usefulness, ease of use, satisfaction). Questionnaire to evaluate user experiences with the 80% functional prototype. After completing guided hands-on interactions with the app, 30 valid responses were collected from both PWD and non-PWD participants. The results indicate strong agreement across all three evaluated dimensions, demonstrating that users found OKUd highly useful, easy to use, and satisfying. These findings validate the effectiveness of the app’s core design, including its accessible interface and intuitive storytelling workflow. The positive outcomes confirm that OKUd is well-positioned for final development refinement and underscore its potential significance as an inclusive digital platform that addresses representation gaps, enhances user engagement, and contributes to broader digital accessibility efforts. By centering the lived experiences of PWDs, OKUd demonstrates how purposeful usability-driven design can advance equity and transform the digital participation landscape.
References
Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A quick and dirty usability scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester, & A. L. McClelland (Eds.), Usability evaluation in industry (pp. 189–194). Taylor & Francis.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Henry, S. L., Abou-Zahra, S., & Brewer, J. (2014). The role of accessibility in a universal web. Proceedings of the ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/2661334.2661353
Lazar, J., Goldstein, D. F., & Taylor, A. (2015). Ensuring digital accessibility through process and policy. Elsevier.
Lund, A. M. (2001). Measuring usability with the USE questionnaire. Usability Interface, 8(2), 3–6.
McLeod, S. A. (2018). Questionnaire: Definition, examples, design and types. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/questionnaires.html
Newell, A. F., Gregor, P., Morgan, M., Pullin, G., & Macaulay, C. (2011). User-sensitive inclusive design. Universal Access in the Information Society, 10(3), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-010-0197-6
Nielsen, J. (1994). Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann
Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things (Revised and expanded ed.). Basic Books
Petrie, H., & Bevan, N. (2009). The evaluation of accessibility, usability and user experience. In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), The universal access handbook (pp. 1–16). CRC Press
Story, M. F., Mueller, J. L., & Mace, R. L. (1998). The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. The Center for Universal Design, NC State University. https://projects.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/docs/udffull.pdf
Schmutz, S., Sonderegger, A., & Sauer, J. (2017). Implementing universal design in interface design: The role of user diversity and testing methods. Applied Ergonomics, 59, 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.09.012
W3C. (2018). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
WHO. (2011). World report on disability. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241564182
Yussop, Y. M., S. Annamalai, and S. A. Salam. "Hi-math mobile app: Effectiveness in improving arithmetic skills of primary school students." International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering 7.6 (2019): 67-71.
Zulkifli, A. N., Mohamed, N. F. F., Qasim, M. M., & Abu Bakar, N. A. (2021). Road Safety Education Courseware: A Study of Satisfaction and Learning Performance among Primary School Students in Malaysia. International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM), 15(06), pp. 48–64. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i06.20637
Bila bermanfaat silahkan share artikel ini
Berikan Komentar Anda terhadap artikel Usability Evaluation of a Mobile Application Directory for People with Disabilities (OKU): Assessing Factors for Successful Navigation
