skip to main content
article

A study of web usability for older adults seeking online health resources

Published:01 December 2004Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The Web offers older adult users immediate access to health resources that might not otherwise be available. Older adult users, however, may encounter Web barriers associated with normal aging and lower education. The National Institute on Aging Web guidelines were used to assess the usability of 125 Web sites offering health resources. Performance, translation, and reading complexity were also assessed. Results showed that many of the sampled sites were not senior-friendly. Only 12% of the sites offered a Spanish version, many containing nontranslated text. Approximately a third of sampled sites required a college education to comprehend extracted health information.

References

  1. Administration on Aging. 2002. A profile of older Americans: 2002. Administration on Aging, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.aoa.gov/prof/Statistics/profile/2002profile.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. American Academy of Family Physicians. 2002. Patient education in your practice: A handbook for the office setting. http://www.aafp.org/publications (Retrieved Dec. 16, 2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. American Foundation for the Blind. 2004. Normal changes in the aging eye. http://www.afb.org/ Section.asp?SectionID=35&TopicID=212&SubTopicID=39 (Retrieved April 26, 2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkman, N. D., Dewalt, D. A., Pignone, M. P., Sheridan, S. L., Lohr, K. N, Lux, L. Sutton, S. F., Swinson, T., and Bonito, A. J. 2004. Literacy and health outcomes, summary, evidence report. Technology Assessment 87. North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center, Publication No. 04-E007-1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Rockville, MD).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernard, M., Liao, C., and Mills, M. 2001. Determining the best online font for older adults. Usability News 3, 1. http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/fontSR.htm (Retrieved Aug. 20, 2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Chadwick-Dias, A., McNulty, M., and Tullis, T. 2003. Web usability and age: How design changes can improve performance. 2003 Conference on Universal Usability, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 30--36. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaparro, A., Bohan, M., Fernandez, J. E., Choi, S. D., and Kattel, B. 1999. The impact of age on computer input device use: Psychophysical and physiological measures. Int. J. Indust. Ergonomics 24, 503--513.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Charness, N. 2001. Aging and communication: Human factors issues. In Communication, Technology, and Aging: Opportunities and Challenges for the Future, N. Charness, D. C. Park, and B. A. Sabel, Eds. Springer Publishing Co., New York, NY. 1--29.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Charness, N. and Holley, P. 2001. Cognitive and perceptual constraints. In Human Factors Interventions for the Health Care of Older Adults, W. A. Rogers and A. D. Fisk, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., Mahwah, NJ. 239--254.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Chisnell, D., Lee, A., and Redish, J. 2004. Designing Web sites for older users: Comparing AARP's studies to earlier findings. Older, Wiser, Wired. http://www.aarp.org/olderwiserwired/oww-features/Articles/a2004-03-03-comparison-studies.html (Retrieved April 30, 2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Craik, F. I. M. and Salthouse, T. A. 2000. The Handbook of Aging and Cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., Mahwah, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, T. C., Michielutte, R. M., Askov, E. N., Williams, M. V., and Weiss, B. D. 1998. Practical assessment of adult literacy in health care. Health Educ. Behav. 25, 613--624.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Doak, C., Doak, L., and Root, J. 1996. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills, 2nd Ed. J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, PA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Echt, K. V. 2002. Designing Web-based health information for older adults: Visual considerations and design directives. In Older Adults, Health Information, and the World Wide Web, R. W. Morrell, Ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., Mahwah, NJ. 61--88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ellis, R. D. and Kurniawan, S. H. 2000. Increasing the usability of online information for older users: A case study in participatory design. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 12, 2, 263--276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Fox, S. 2002. Wired seniors. Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Wired_Seniors_Report.pdf (Retrieved Dec. 16, 2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, S. and Fallows, D. 2003. Internet health resources. Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc.asp?Report=95 (Retrieved December 16, 2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox, S. 2004. Older Americans and the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_Seniors_Online_2004.pdf (Retrieved April 28, 2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Gazmararian, J., Baker, D. W., Williams, M. V., Parker, R. M., Scott, T. L., Green D. C., Fehrenbach, S. N., Ren, J., and Koplan, J. P. 1999. Health literacy among medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. J. Amer. Med. Assoc. 281, 545--551.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Greenspan, R. 2003. Your speed may vary. http://cyberatlas.internet.com/markets/broadband/article/0,,10099_2196961,00.html&table1 (Retrieved Dec. 9, 2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawthorne, D. 2000. Possible implication of aging for interface designers. Interact. With Comput. 12, 5, 507--528.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Healthy People 2001. 2000. Health Communication. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. http://www.healthypeople.gov/document/html/volume1/11healthcom.htm (Retrieved April 28, 2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Holt, B. J. and Morrell, R. W. 2002. Guidelines for Web site design for older adults: The ultimate influence of cognitive factors. In Older Adults, Health Information, and the World Wide Web, R. W. Morrell, Ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 109--132.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., and Chissom, B. S. 1975. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, Fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Rep. 8--75, Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kincaid, J. P. and McDaniel, W. C. 1974. An inexpensive automated way of calculating Flesch Reading Ease scores. Patient Disclosure Document 031350, US Patent Office,Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Kinsella, K. and Velkoff, V. A. 2001. An aging world: 2001. International Population Reports, US Department of Health and Human Services, and US Department of Commerce. http://www. census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p95-01-01.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Kirsch, I., Jungeblut, A., Jenkins, L., and Kolstad, A. 1993. Adult literacy in America: A first look at the National Adult Literacy Survey. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Koyanl, S. J., Balley, R. W., and Nall J. R. 2004. Research-based Web design and usability guidelines. National Cancer Institute. http://usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines_book.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Mead, S. E., Batsakes, P. J., Fisk, A. D., and Mykityshyn, A. 1999. Application of cognitive theory to training and design solutions for age-related computer use. Int. J. Behav. Develop. 23, 553--573.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Mead, S. E., Spaulding, V. A., Sit, R. A., Meyer, B., and Walker, N. 1997. Effects of Age and training on World Wide Web navigation strategies. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA. 152--156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, R. B. 1968. Response time in user-system conversational transactions. In Proceedings of the AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conference 33, 267--277.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Morrell, R. W., Dailey, S. R., Feldman, C., Mayhorn, C. B., Echt, K. V., Holt, B. J., and Podany, K. I. 2004. Older adults and information technology: A compendium of scientific research and Web site accessibility guidelines. National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. National Work Group On Literacy and Health.1998. Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills. J. Family Prac. 46, 168--175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Nia and Nlm. 2002. Making your Web site senior-friendly: A checklist. National Institute on Aging and National Library of Medicine. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/checklist.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Nielsen, J. 1996. Top ten mistakes in Web design. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html (Retrieved December 13, 2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Nielsen, J. 1999. Designing Web Usability: The Art of Simplicity. New Riders Publishing, Indianapolis, IN. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Nielsen, J. and Coyne P. K. 2002. Web usability for senior citizens: 46 Design guidelines based on usability studies with people age 65 and older. Nielsen Normal Group Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Nielsen, J. and Tahir, M. 2002. Homepage usability: 50 Websites deconstructed. New Riders Publishing, Indianapolis, IN. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Nielsen-Bohlman, L. Panzer, A. M., and Kindig, D. A. 2004. Health literacy a prescription to end confusion. Committee on Health Literacy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Science. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. The National Academies Press, Washington DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Qualls, C. D., Harris, J. L., and Rogers, W. A. 2001. Cognitive-linguistic aging: Considerations for home health care environments. In Human Factors Interventions for the Health Care of Older Adults, W. A. Rogers and A. D. Fisk, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., Mahwah, NJ. 47--68.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Rose, G., Khoo, H., and Straub, D. 1999. Current technological impediments to business-to-consumer electronic commerce. Commun. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 2, 1--74. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Salthouse, T. A. 1991. Theoretical Perspectives on Cognitive Aging. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., Mahwah, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Schneiderman, B. 1984. Response time and display rate in human performance with computers. Comput. Surveys 16, 265--285. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Schneiderman, B. 1998. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd Ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Seidler, R. and Stelmach, G. 1996. Motor control. Encyclopedia of Gerontology: Age, Aging, and the Aged. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA. 177--185.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Seniornet, Inc. 1998. Research on senior's computer and Internet usage. Commissioned by Charles Schwab and Co., Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Strong, A. J., Walker, N., and Rogers, W. A. 2001. Searching the World Wide Web: Can older adults get what they need? In Human Factors Interventions for the Health Care of Older Adults, W. A. Rogers and A. D. Fisk, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., Mahwah, NJ. 255--269.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Tullis, T. S., Boynton, J. L., and Hersh, H. 1995. Readability of fonts in the windows environment. In Proceedings of Computer Human Interactions (CHI) '95. Denver, CO. 127--128. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. University of Utah Health Sciences Center. 1997. Patient Education Materials An Author's Guide. Office of Patient Education, University of Utah Health Sciences Center. http://www.med.utah.edu/pated/authors/literacy.html (Retrieved Dec. 15, 2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1999. Americans in the information age---falling through the net. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html (Retrieved Dec. 16, 2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. U. S. Department of Commerce. 2002. A nation online. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/index.html (Retrieved Dec. 16, 2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Walker, N. Millians, J., and Worden, A. 1996. Mouse accelerations and performance of older computer users. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA. 151--154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Westerman, S. J., Davies, D. R., Glendon, A. I., Stammers, R. B., and Matthews, G. 1995. Age and cognitive ability as predictors of computerized information retrieval. Behav. Inform. Technol. 14, 313--326.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Wickens, C. D. and Holland, J. G. 1999. Engineering psychology and human performance, 3rd Ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Worden, A., Walker, N. Bharat, K., and Hudson, S. 1997. Making computers easier for older adults to use: Area cursors and sticky icons. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Atlanta, GA. 266--271. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Xiao, B., Lunsford, R., Coulston, R., Wesson, M., and Oviatt, S. 2003. Modeling multimodal integration patterns and performance in seniors: Toward adaptive processing of individual differences. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces. Vancouver, B.C. 265--272. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A study of web usability for older adults seeking online health resources

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      Full Access

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader