ABOUT WORK

Accessibility study on alaskaair.com

Sponsored project by Alaska Airlines

Summary of insights from the study

A total of 12 areas of improvement were identified from the analysis out of which 4 accessibility barriers were rated Major or Moderate.

Accessibility barrier 1:
Participants with low vision, often zoom-in on the website to read the information. One of the major accessibility problem we identified was the distribution of critical information far apart from one another which required horizontal scroll to read complete sentences at a zoom of 200%.

Accessibility barrier 2:
Information overload on certain pages was a recurring pain point from the participants from the study.

Accessibility barrier 3:
Certain icons and UI elements on the website barely passed the color contrast requirement from WCAG 2.0.

Accessibility barrier 4:
Interactions such as hover to read help text on icons did not scale to allow clear readability for participants with low-vision.

Project overview

Alaska Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in the Seattle metropolitan area. Their website (alaskaair.com) is a major touchpoint between Alaska Airlines and its customers. Our goal for this study is to assess the accessibility of Alaskaair.com for the low-vision user group who typically navigate through the website at 200%. We planned and carried out our usability study to understand low-vision participants' experience navigating the website and made design recommendations based on the study result to help make Alaskaair.com more accessible.

Team

Nisha, Vincent, Yile, Peggy

time line

10 weeks

project sponsor

Alaska Airlines

Methodology

Problem Discovery

Alaska Airlines is dedicated to making Alaskaair.com accessible to all people, regardless of their technology or ability. Their aim is to maximize the accessibility and usability of our website by meeting the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 with a focus on meeting compliance level AA.

example of how our participants experience website navigation

WCAG 2.0 requirements for users with low-vision

a. requires a contrast ratio of 4.5:1 for standard text and 3:1 for large text.
b. provide text alternative for non-text content such as images and videos.
c. include audio descriptions for all audio elements.
d. ensure text can be resized up to 200% without requiring horizontal scrolling.

There are additional WCAG 2.0 requirements, our project focused on the four areas mentioned above due limited time availability.

Heuristics evaluation

We started by conducting accessibility checks on Alaska Airlines website to identify accessibility failures for the 4 main WCAG 2.0 requirements. Each team member zoomed in to 200% on the website and identified various pain points. These pain posits were categorized based on Jakob Nielson's 10 Heuristics. This preliminary study helped us to familiarize ourselves with the the experience of low-vision users and identify accessibility barriers.

heuristics analysis report

Target user group

To conduct a focused study our target group of users comprised of:
a. user must be over 18 years old
b. user must have experience navigating the Alaska airlines website
c. user must be equipped to meet remotely (due to COVID regulations)
d. users with low-vision conditions such as blurred vision, double vision and peripheral blocked vision

Blurred vision

Double vision

Peripheral blocked vision

Key research questions

a. What is the user experience like when searching for and booking a flight?
b. What are the various user interactions users go through during the flight search process?
c. How are users understanding and engaging with different UI elements on the website?
d. How easy or difficult it is for users to search and book a flight?
e. How can we improve their experience of navigating through alaskaair.com?

How might we assist users with low vision in easily navigating the Alaska Airlines website (as they typically navigate on the site at 200%) ensuring a seamless experience when searching for and booking a flight?

test Plan and pilot study

In order to run this test, we prepared an accessibility test kit and conducted 2 pilot interview session. Our participants followed the think-aloud protocol and completed the study tasks. The pilot study was an amazing experience and I learned:
a. language sensitivity around for our participants
b. areas of improvement for our accessibility kit
c. different assistive tools used by our participants

Accessibility study kit

a. Participant Screener:
The screener helped us recruit participants. It also helped us to learn about any prior accommodation that our participants might need for the study.

b. Moderated Remote Testing Script:
Due to COVID-19, the testing was done in a remote setting. We prepared the test script and identified two major tasks that participants walked us through during the interview process:

Task 1: Booking a flight
‍You are planning to meet your friend who is currently in New York. You visit the Alaska Airlines website as a guest to book your flight from Seattle to New York on [DateD1] and return on [DateD2]

Task 2: Checking the flight status
Your friend is returning to New York from Seattle tomorrow, which is [test date + 1] with the earliest flight, and you want to check the status of his flight. His flight number is [Alaska ###].

c. Note-Taking sheet for data collection:
We used spreadsheets to capture the observations from this study and note down the quotes that resonated participant experiences and pain points.

d. Post-Test Questionnaire:
We used the likert scale to capture overall participant experience of the test and to gather subjective feedback and impression on the accessibility study.

accessibility study

‍We conducted a total of 6 interviews and each session had a primary and a secondary moderator. Rest of the teammates were involved in taking down notes and writing observations. I led 2 sessions as a primary moderator and observed the remaining 4 sessions. br>

Severity rating scale

Following severity rating scale was used to rate the observations and prioritize the findings:

Usability Catastrophe (Rating = 5)
User will not be able to or will not want to use a particular part of a product.
Major Problems (Rating = 4)
User will probably use or attempt to use the product, but will beseverely limited in his or her ability to do so.
Moderate Problems (Rating = 3)
User will be able to use the product in most cases, but will have uundertake some moderate effort in getting around the problem.
Minor Problems (Rating = 2)
The problem occurs only intermittently, can be circumvented easily, or is dependent on a standard that is outside the product's boundaries
Cosmetic Problems (Rating = 1)
Need not be fixed unless extra time is available on the project.

Affinity diagramming

Once all the testing sessions were completed, the team gathered together to group the observations. A total of 12 areas of improvement were identified from the analysis.

actionable insights from the study

A total of 12 areas of improvement were identified from the analysis out of which 4 accessibility barriers were rated Major or Moderate.

summary of accessibility issues

examples of a11y barriers

Reflections & Learnings

a) Participant Recruitment
‍Being specific on the recruitment screener (e.g., what tool does the participant use) and narrow down the participant group to reduce variables.

‍b)Technology-related
‍Conducting tech checks before testing sessions and be ready to troubleshoot technical problems. Try to familiarize yourself with all the potential tools that participants might be using.

‍c) Interaction with Participants with Special Needs
‍Be patient and supportive and allocate longer time for each task. Be mindful of the wordings during communication.