Journal of Computer Science 9 (11): 1443-1450, 2013

ISSN: 1549-3636
© 2013 Science Publications
doi:10.3844/jcssp.2013.1443.1450 Published Online 9 (11) 2013 (http://www.thescipub.com/jcs.toc)

A REVIEW ON USER INTERFACE DESIGN

PRINCIPLES TO INCREASE SOFTWARE USABILITY
FOR USERS WITH LESS COMPUTER LITERACY
Ali Darejeh and Dalbir Singh

Research Center for Software Technology and Management (SOFTAM),

Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

Received 2013-04-03, Revised 2013-09-19; Accepted 2013-09-20

ABSTRACT
This article presents a review on how software usability could be increased for users with less computer
literacy. The literature was reviewed to extract user interface design principles by identifying the similar
problems of this group of users. There are different groups of users with less computer literacy. However,
based on the literature three groups of them need special attention from software designers. The first group
is elderly users, as users with lack of computer background. The second group is children, as novice users
and the third group is users with mental or physical disorders. Therefore, this study intends to focus on the
mentioned groups, followed by a comparison between previous researches in the field, which reveals that
some commonalities exist between the needs of these users. These commonalities were used to extract user
interface design principles such as (a) reducing the number of features available at any given time, (b)
avoiding using computer terms, (c) putting customization ability for font, color, size and (d) using
appropriate graphical objects such as avatar or icon. Taking these principles into account can solve software
usability problems and increase satisfaction of users with less computer literacy.

Keywords: User Interface, Amateur and Novice Users, Elders Software Learnability, Children Software
Learnability, Software Usability

1. INTRODUCTION abilities and tools. In addition, Grabham (2012) and

Paul’s study on Windows 7 with Windows 8 showed
Software development companies need to release a the same results. It can be concluded that designing
new version of their products periodically to ensure user interface is one of the most important aspects in
survivability. However an important issue is whether software development process.
there is any significant differences between the features These days most people need to work with computer
of the newer version in comparison with the previous and a large group of them are users with less computer
version. It can be said that the most significant changes literacy. These kinds of users are users who do not have
are on the interface rather than features as it has an computer background and working experience with
important role in software marketability. One of the best computer. This lack of exposure can be because of users’
examples that could illustrate the influence of user life-style and age especially among children and elders
interface on the product marketability is reflected on or because of disabilities that hinder people from
Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office. Smith working with computer. Lack of computer background
(2010), compared Microsoft Office 2010 with its prior can make many learnability difficulties for them in
versions and found no significant difference in their understanding computer software. Therefore, if we want
Corresponding Author: Dalbir Singh, Research Center for Software Technology and Management (SOFTAM),
Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia

Science Publications 1443 JCS

 Ali Darejeh and Dalbir Singh / Journal of Computer Science 9 (11): 1443-1450, 2013

to expand our computer users to all groups of people we processing and memory” (Wirtz et al., 2009).
need to consider this important group in software design According to Wirtz et al. (2009) elder users need more
process. According to Wagner (2002) if the software text support to identify software components and
interface is designed without paying attention to users’ prevent potential errors. Without appropriate feedback,
ability, it makes users to become confused and creates they cannot complete complex tasks successfully on
many difficulties for them to build up a correct their own. In addition, linguistic messages can help
conceptual model. It means they cannot understand them when they do a complex operational sequence that
software structure and they are not able to work with has some sub-steps.
it completely. Therefore, it can be said the software is According to Demiris et al. (2004) there is no evidence
not usable for them (Wirtz et al., 2009). According to that elder people resist new technologies. However, they
Nielsen (2003) a good user interface designer has to try would be more willing to use them if software designers
to decrease the complexity of software and produce an try to design more appropriate interface (Goodman and
environment which makes it easy, efficient and Lundell, 2005).
enjoyable to work with. This study consists of four parts: Dickinson et al. (2005) carried out a study for
The first part reviews researches on elderly users, as increasing number of elder internet users, above 60 years
users with lack of computer background. The second part old. They conducted the study by developing an email
studies researches on children, as novice users and the system for elder novice computer users. This system has
third part focuses on the user interface design for people some characteristic including “simplified interface,
with mental and physical disorders. Finally a comparison reduced clutter on the screen, reduction of terminology,
between the previous researches is performed to extract clear and simple navigation paths and a particular type of
the user interface design principles for users with less Help”. Their system tries to attract users and encourage
computer literacy. them to explore feature and hide the complexity of the
1.1. Relationship Between Age and Software functions. From this study, they concluded that to
encourage elder people into the computing world, we have
Interface Preferences
to develop an easy user interface while taking into account
There is a strong relationship between age and the above mentioned characteristics.
software preferences. Each age group has specific needs Sayago and Blat (2010) undertook a research on
and specific understanding of software environment. designing a better e-mail systems and interactive
Therefore, we have to discover the needs of each age technologies for elder people (above 65 years old).
group and consider their limitations in understanding and They analyzed needs and cognitive difficulties of elder
working with software. In this part, the characteristics people and grouped the interaction barriers of an email
and needs of elder people and children as users with lack systems for elder people into five categories. (a)
of computer background will be analyzed. inappropriate and excessive functionality, (b) managing
attachments and e-mails, (c) emails organizing
1.2. Designing User Interface for Elder Users problem, (d) perceiving visual input and difficulties
This section reviewed the characteristics and user remembering steps, (e) terms and icons. Based on these
interface design needs of elder people. Table 1 shows barriers, researchers concluded that elder people need
key points of user interface design for elder people. new interface design that is adapted to their learning
According to findings of Xie (2003) about elder adults’ style and can solve their problems. For example
interactions with computer and the internet, elder people creating an easy layout, using large font, proper icons
cannot adapt themselves to every user interface design and easy terms can solve some of their problems.
since they do not have any prior experiences in computer Table 2 shows elder users’ issues and user interface
from their childhood and learning age, so we should not design solutions for solving each respective issue.
expect them to learn software like young people with
1.3. Designing User Interface for Children
computer background. According to Welie et al. (1999)
when people grow older, some cognitive changes occur This section reviewed the characteristics and user
that affect various aspects of their life (Wirtz et al., interface design needs of children. Table 3 shows key
2009). The changes such as “intelligence, information points of user interface design for children.

Science Publications 1444 JCS

 Ali Darejeh and Dalbir Singh / Journal of Computer Science 9 (11): 1443-1450, 2013

Table 1. Key points of user interface design for elder people

Researchers Points
(Sayago and Blat, 2010) Solving elders’ problems by creating an easy layout, using large font, proper icons
and easy terms.
(Wirtz et al., 2009) In older ages some cognitive characteristics such as intelligence, information
processing and memory changes. These changes will be considered
in user interface design.
(Dickinson et al., 2005) Designing an appropriate interface for elders by: “Reducing clutter on the screen,
reducing terminology, clear and simple navigation paths and particular type
of help”.
(Demiris et al., 2004) There is no evidence that elder people resist new technologies and do not like to
use them. An appropriate interface of software can encourage them to use computer.

Table 2. Elder users’ issues and solutions

Elders issues User interface design solutions
Lack of computer background • Putting a basic users’ guide and help in the software
• Reduction of terminology
Cognitive changes • Reduced clutter on the screen
• Clear and simple navigation paths
Memorizing difficulties • Using similar functions for doing different jobs
• Putting descriptive texts and guidelines for tools

Table 3. Key points of user interface design for children

Researchers Points
(Fang et al., 2011) The best methods for increasing children’s concentration is using tangible user
interface such as touch devices or using Microsoft Kinect.
(Nielsen, 2010) (a) Children like animation and sound, (b) Children prefer to see texts with 14 point
font size, (c) Children do not like to read text, (d) Children like to try many options.
(Nam, 2010) (a) Reduce the amount of text, replacing it with a simple picture, icon or voice
(b) Reduce the number of components and increase their size (c) Put brief tutorial
in software or web site.
(Markopoulos and Bekker, 2003) An appropriate user interface design is needed to satisfy computer needs of children
because they, like adults often use the technology to perform their tasks.
(Grammenos et al., 2001) In user interface design for children, designers should: (a) Use highly visual menus
and icons (b) Use animation, sound and message boxes (c) Create an environment
that has many guidelines to prevent errors.

According to Markopoulos and Bekker (2003) According to Nielsen (2010), because children’s
Children, like adults, often use the technology to perform interaction with technology is different depending on
their tasks. They believe an appropriate user interface their age and cognitive ability, so we must distinguish
design is needed to satisfy computer needs of children. between young (3-5), mid-range (6-8) and older (9-12)
Furthermore, based on the principle of user centered children. His study was carried out by considering
design, there is no proper design for all groups of users. childrens between the age of 3 to 12 years old for
Therefore, designers should develop software based on specific web sites such as Games sites, Media sites,
target user’s cognitive ability and considering children as a Educational sites, Toys sites and gave them certain
special group of users (Bekker and Antle, 2011). specific tasks. The findings of the study showed (a)
According to Hutchinson and Bederson (2005) the biggest children like animation and sound, (b) children prefer
problem of children is that, all children software are to see texts with 14 point font size, (c) children do not
developed by adults and most of them are not familiar like to read text, (d) children like to try many options.
with children’s skills and their preferences. Therefore, the Grammenos et al. (2001) conduced a research on
applications may not be user friendly for children and they designing user interface for children by focusing on
may even make some learning difficulties for them. interaction design process to design dairy software for

Science Publications 1445 JCS

 Ali Darejeh and Dalbir Singh / Journal of Computer Science 9 (11): 1443-1450, 2013

kids between 4-8 years old. Their study approved the for interacting with them. They suggested one of the
following claims by previous researchers: (a) we have to best methods for increasing children’s concentration is
use highly visual menus and icons for children to using tangible user interface like using Microsoft
understand the software since young children cannot read Kinect.
(Wilson, 1989; Grammenos et al., 2001). (b) “Create an Table 4 shows children’s issues and user interface
open learning system which can be adapted to children
design solutions for solving their problems.
preferences and cultural background” (Jonassen et al.,
1993; Grammenos et al., 2001). (c) Create interactive user 1.4. Designing User Interface for Solving
interface by using animation, sound and message boxes. Accessibility Problems for Users with
(Norman, 1990; Grammenos et al., 2001). (d) Create an Physical/Mental Limitations
environment that has many guidelines and can control
their input to prevent errors. (e) Design software in a way This section reviewed the accessibility problems of
that it does not need combination keys of mouse and users with physical/mental limitations and interface
keyboard. design solution to help them. Table 5 shows a key
Nam (2010) conducted a research to find out how points of user interface design for users with
children would interact with a user interface that let physical/mental limitations.
them watch video clips and play interactive games According to Chapman et al. (2009), software or a
online. Based on the results of the study, he categorized web page is accessible if it is usable by everybody,
the barriers of working with web site for children irrespective of any physical or mental limitations. Kavcic
between 3 to 5 years old: (a) it is difficult for children (2005) categorized accessibility problems into four
to use the web site when page needs scrolling (b) groups of Mobility impairments, Visual impairments,
Children do not like to type and prefer to use a mouse, Hearing impairments, Cognitive impairments. Solving
trackball, or track pad rather than the keyboard (c) the usability problems of mobility impairment users
Doing drag-and-drop function is difficult for children. require special hardware where else users with hearing
Based on the children barriers, he gave some impairments can use software normally. Therefore, in the
suggestions: (a) reduce the amount of or eliminate following part only the previous researches on Visual
text, replacing it with a simple picture, icon or voice and Cognitive impairments will be described since they
(b) reduce the number of components and objects like can be solved with interface design solutions.
buttons and other clickable elements and increase
1.5. User Interface for People with Visual
their size to ensure children can easily click on them
Impairments
(c) design navigation such that, it does not need the
arrow keys on the keyboard (d) put some brief tutorial Stephanidis et al. (1998) and Chiang et al. (2005)
for helping them learn how they have to work with the gave a number of solutions for alleviating visual
software or web site. impairments problems. These solutions can be used
In contrast, Donker and Reitsma (2005) believe separately or in combination: (a) creating software in the
children can use a mouse and we can design software for way that could be read easily by screen reader software,
them like elder people. According to the study, they found (b) putting the ability of zoom in our software, (c)
young children between ages 6-7 are clearly capable of putting speech recognition for interacting with software
using a computer mouse. Children can click very and (d) Putting customization abilities in software for
accurately on targets of 7mm wide and 12mm tall. In tailoring font size and color.
addition, children can do drag-and-drop and it is easier for Dijana et al. (2010) conducted a research on people
them to move objects than click-move-click. with disturbance of vision. They focused on color-
According to Fang et al. (2011) because children’s distinguishing problems and after examining educational
understanding is limited to understanding the abstract software; they suggested that for increasing usability of
concepts, we should not design a complex user software for these kinds of users the best solution is
interface for them. We can use some elements like using a combination of colors that is distinguishable for
Avatar and 3D objects to increase their attention; also, these people. Furthermore, designers should not use
it is a better idea to use multi-media than single modal similar colors next to one another.

Science Publications 1446 JCS

 Ali Darejeh and Dalbir Singh / Journal of Computer Science 9 (11): 1443-1450, 2013

Table 4. Children software issues and solutions

Children Issues User interface design solutions
Limitation for understanding the Avoid design a complex user interface and try to introduce software tools
abstract concepts clearly to children
Reading problem Reduce the amount of or eliminate text and replace it with a simple picture
Cognitive limitation • Put tutorial, especially visual tutorial
• Clear and simple navigation paths
Mouse controlling problem Designing software component a little bigger than normal

Table 5. Key points of user interface design for users with physical/mental limitations
Researchers Points
(Giraud et al., 2011) For blind people each link, button and element on website must have an audio function
(Dijana et al., 2010) Using combination of colors that is distinguishable for color blind people
(Madiah and Hisham, 2010) Customizable user interface is required for users with partially sight and general design
guidelines are not suitable for these people
(Turunen et al., 2010) Combination of speech input and multimodal gestures provides a more efficient and
accessible input method than traditional methods for visually impaired users
(Fryia et al., 2009) The best solution for helping people with cognitive disabilities is reducing the number
of features available at any given time
(Grynszpan et al., 2008) Patients with autism can learn from a multimedia system if the interface does not need
investigation for finding software elements
(Stephanidis et al., 1998; Solving the problems of visually impaired users by adding a) screen reader and speech
Chiang et al., 2005) recognition for interacting with software, b) Putting customization abilities for font size
and color

Madiah and Hisham (2010) carried out a research on methods for visually impaired users. The method was
people with partially sighted vision, they conducted the justified by the aid of a research carried out by Rice and
study by a prototype of reading application; they Fels (2004) who claimed that because it is not possible to
examined four types of fonts at various sizes and colors define common solutions suitable for all users with
on different background colors. The results of the study vision problems, the interface must be highly
indicated that partially sighted children have their own Customizable (Turunen et al., 2010).
preferences for font type, font size and foreground and Giraud et al. (2011) conducted a research on solving
background color depend on their vision problem and web site usability problems for blind people. Since blind
visual acuity. A good user interface has to consider their people cannot see web pages elements, they suggested
preferences and give them some options for selecting that putting an audio site map could solve their problem.
font and color. From the findings of this study, they Furthermore, they suggested that each link, button and
concluded that specific interface design guidelines or a element on website must have an audio function and
customizable user interface is required and general must introduce itself to these kinds of users.
design guidelines are not suitable for these people. Baguma and Lubega (2008) presented a Web Design
Turunen et al. (2010) carried out a research on Framework for improving web site accessibility for blind
multimodal media center interface for people with People. Their framework was based on the three
different levels of visual impairment. For making system components of Web applications: content, navigation
accessible, they used a combination of features such as and user interface. In their suggested framework, they
speech input and output, gestures, haptic feedback and a suggested that developers have to consider some points
zoom-able graphical interface. To help the blind users, for designing a web site for blind people. The most
they used both speech output and haptic feedback. They important points are: “(a) Designing web site as text only
also created zoom-able focus-plus-context interface and version (b) text alternative for visual elements (c)
combined it with speech output for solving the problem synchronized text alternatives for videos (d) descriptive
of low vision users. They found that combination of titles/names for web pages, links and headings in relation
speech input and multimodal gestures provides a more with their purpose (e) divide long pieces of content into
efficient and accessible input method than traditional sections with section headings”. Furthermore,

Science Publications 1447 JCS

 Ali Darejeh and Dalbir Singh / Journal of Computer Science 9 (11): 1443-1450, 2013

Leuthold et al. (2008) concluded that for blind users the similarities between the user interface needs of all users
Enhanced Text user Interface (ETI) is more usable than with less computer literacy. From these similarities
the Graphical User Interface (GUI). seven principles can be extracted for designing user
interface for these users:
1.6. User Interface for Solving Cognitive and
Learning Disability Problems
• Eliminating features that could cause unnecessary
Cognitive and Learning Disability (CLD) includes stress and frustration and reducing software
mental retardation, autism, traumatic brain injury, aphasia, complexity by reducing the number of features
dyslexia, alzheimer’s disease and attention deficit available at any given time
disorder. According to Friedman and Bryen (2007),
• Designing interface such that it does not need
“people with CLDs often exhibit deficiencies in attention,
investigation for finding tools
memory, perception and problem-solving, which affect the
• Using larger components such as large buttons,
manner in which they interact with computers”.
combo boxes. Furthermore, using bigger icons and
Fryia et al. (2009) worked on designing an e-learning
system for people with cognitive disabilities, they fonts for showing key fucntions of the software
suggested that for increasing accessibility of these kinds • Avoiding using computer terms and the names that
of software the best approach is eliminating features that are not familiar to all of users for naming tools
could cause unnecessary stress and frustration that can • Putting customization ability for font, color and size,
create a negative effect on system usability. They especially for elders, children and people with visual
reduced software complexity by reducing the number of impairments
features available at any given time and by rearranging • Using enough descriptive texts, especially for
them to accommodate full functionality. According to helping elder and blind people
Grynszpan et al. (2008), a rich interface should try to • Using appropriate graphical objects like avatar or
reduce the complexity of software and increasing users’ icons for increasing software attraction, especially
attention to software abilities. He conducted a research for children and also for attracting the attention of
on designing multimedia interface for patients with people with cognitive problems
autism. Results showed that patients with autism can
learn from a multimedia system if the interface of a
Although the problems of users with less computer
system is simple and do not need investigation for
finding elements. Table 6 shows issues of people with literacy are different but the main similarities between
disorders and user interface design solutions for solving elder, children and people with mental disorders are
their problems. based on cognitive issues. Therefore, applying these
principles could help all the three groups. Putting these
1.7. Critical Analysis principles into action, we can solve software learnability
Comparing previous researches in the area of user problems and increase satisfaction of users with less
interface design reveals that there exists some computer literacy.

Table 6. Disorder people issues and solutions

Disorders User interface design solutions
Visual impairments • Creating software in a way that could be read easily by screen reader software
• Putting the ability of zoom in software
• Putting speech recognition for interacting with software
• Putting an audio map
• Text alternative for visual elements
Color blinds • Using a combination of colors that is distinguishable for color blind people
• Not to use similar colors
• Putting customization abilities in software for color
Cognitive disability • Eliminating features that could cause unnecessary stress
• Reduce software complexity by reducing the number of features available at any given time

Science Publications 1448 JCS

 Ali Darejeh and Dalbir Singh / Journal of Computer Science 9 (11): 1443-1450, 2013

Dickinson, A., A.F. Newell, M.J. Smith and R.L. Hill,

2. CONCLUSION 2005. Introducing the internet to the over-60s:
Literature helped to extract principles for users Developing an email system for older novice
computer users. Interact. Comput., 17: 621-642.
with less computer literacy in the field of user
DOI: 10.1016/j.intcom.2005.09.003
interface design through identifying their similar
Donker, A. and P. Reitsma, 2005. Young children’s
problems and finding solutions to their usability
ability to use a computer mouse. Comput. Educ., 48:
problems. These principles are: (a) reducing the 602-617. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.001
number of features available at any given time, (b) Dijana, K., R. Dragica and E. Erika, 2010. Educational
designing interface such that it does not need software adapted to children with disturbance of
investigation for finding tools, (c) using larger vision. Proceedings of the 8th International
components and bigger icons for showing key Symposium Intelligent Systems and Informatics,
fucntions of the software, (d) avoiding using computer Sept. 10-11, IEEE Xplore Press, Subotica, pp: 169-
terms, (e) putting customization ability for font, color 172. DOI: 10.1109/SISY.2010.5647274
and size (f) using enough descriptive texts and (g) Demiris, G., M. Rantz, M. Aud, K Marek and H. Tyrer et
using appropriate graphical objects like avatars or al., 2004. Older adults’ attitudes towards and
icons. Taking these principles into account in software perceptions of ‘smart home’ technologies: A pilot
design process can help users with less computer study. Med Inform. Internet Med., 29: 87-94. PMID:
literacy to understand software and web site structure 15370989
and increase their interest in working with computers. Friedman, M. and D. Bryen, 2007. Web accessibility
It can be concluded that with considering user design recommendations for people with cognitive
interface design principles based on the target users’ disabilities. Technol. Disab., 19: 205-2l2.
needs and cognitive abilities, we can solve learnability Fryia, G.D., R. Wachowiak-Smolikova and M.P.
related problems for different groups of users. Wachowiak, 2009. Human-computer interface
design in an e-Learning system for individuals with
3. REFERENCES cognitive and learning disabilities. Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on Digital
Bekker, T. and A.N. Antle, 2011. Developmentally Information Management, Nov. 1-4, IEEE Xplore
Situated Design (DSD): Making theoretical Press, Ann Arbor, MI., pp: 1-6. DOI:
knowledge accessible to designers of children’s 10.1109/ICDIM.2009.5356784
technology. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference Fang, Z., W. Luo and J. Xu, 2011. A structure for
children-oriented human computer interaction.
on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 07-
Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on
12, ACM Press, New York, USA., pp: 2531-2540.
Advanced Computational Intelligence, Oct. 19-21,
DOI: 10.1145/1978942.1979312
IEEE Xplore Press, Wuhan, pp: 205-208. DOI:
Baguma, R. and J.T. Lubega, 2008. A Web Design
10.1109/IWACI.2011.6160003
Framework for improved Accessibility for people
Goodman, J. and J. Lundell, 2005. HCI and the older
with Disabilities (WDFAD). Proceedings of the population. Interact. Comput., 17: 613-620. DOI:
International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on 10.1016/j.intcom.2005.09.001
Web Accessibility, Apr. 21-22, ACM Press, New Grabham, D., 2012. Windows 8 Vs Windows 7: 8 ways
York, USA., pp: 134-140. DOI: it’s different. Tecsupport.
10.1145/1368044.1368077 Grammenos, D., A. Paramythis and C. Stephanidis,
Chapman, N., N.P. Chapman and J. Chapman, 2009. 2001. Designing the user interface of an interactive
Digital Multimedia. 3rd Edn., Wiley, Chichester, software environment for children. Institute of
ISBN: 0470512164, pp: 732. Computer Science, Greece.
Chiang, M.F., R.G. Cole, S. Gupta, G.E. Kaiser and J.B. Grynszpan, O., J.C. Martin and J. Nadel, 2008.
Starren, 2005. Computer and world wide web Multimedia interfaces for users with high
accessibility by visually disabled patients: Problems functioning autism: An empirical investigation. Int.
and solutions. Survey Ophthalmol., 50: 394-405. J. Human-Comput. Stud., 66: 628-639. DOI:
DOI: 10.1016/j.survophthal.2005.04.004 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.04.001

Science Publications 1449 JCS

 Ali Darejeh and Dalbir Singh / Journal of Computer Science 9 (11): 1443-1450, 2013

Giraud, S., T. Colombi, A. Russo and P. Therouanne, Nam, H., 2010. Designing user experiences for children.
2011. Accessibility of rich internet applications for UXmatters.
blind people: A study to identify the main problems Norman, D.A., 1990. Cognitive Artifacts. 1st Edn.,
and solutions. Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCHI University of California, La Jolla, pp: 17.
Italian Chapter International Conference on Rice, M. and D. Fels, 2004. Low vision and the visual
Computer-Human Interaction: Facing Complexity, interface for interactivec television. University of
Sept. 13-16, ACM Press, New York, USA., pp: 163- Brighton.
166. DOI: 10.1145/2037296.2037335 Sayago, S. and J. Blat, 2010. Telling the story of older
Hutchinson, H.B. and B.B. Bederson, 2005. Interface for people-mailing: An ethnographical study. Int. J.
children’s searching and browsing. PhD Thesis. Hum. Comput. Stud., 68: 105-120. DOI:
University of Maryland at College Park College 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.10.004
Park, MD, USA. Stephanidis, C., D. Akoumianakis, M. Sfyrakis and A.
Jonassen, D.H., K. Beissner, and M.A. Yacci, 1993. Paramythis, 1998. Universal accessibility in HCI:
Structural Knowledge: Techniques for Conveying, Process-oriented design guidelines and tool
Assessing, and Acquiring Structural Knowledge. 1st requirements. Institute of Computer Science,
Edn., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, ISBN-10: Greece.
0805810099, pp: 265. Smith, M., 2010. Office 2010-Is it any better than office
Kavcic, A., 2005. Software accessibility: 2007. MakeUseOf.
Recommendations and guidelines. Proceedings of Turunen, M., H. Soronen, S. Pakarinen, J. Hella and T.
the International Conference on Computer as a Tool, Laivo et al., 2010. Accessible multimodal media
Nov. 21-24, IEEE Xplore Press, Belgrade, pp: 1024- center application for blind and partially sighted
1027. DOI: 10.1109/EURCON.2005.1630123 people. Comput. Entertain. DOI:
Leuthold, S., J.A. Bargas-Avila and K. Opwis, 2008. 10.1145/1902593.1902595
Beyond web content accessibility guidelines: Design
Welie, M.V., G.C.V.D. Veer and A. Eliens, 1999.
of enhanced text user interfaces for blind internet
Breaking down Usability. Vrije Universiteit,
users. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., 66: 257-270.
Amsterdam Netherlands.
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.10.006
Wirtz, S., E.M. Jakobs and M. Ziefle, 2009. Age-specific
Markopoulos, P. and M. Bekker, 2003. On the
usability issues of software interfaces. Aachen
assessment of usability testing methods for children.
University, Germany.
Interact. Comput., 15: 227-243. DOI:
Wagner, A., 2002. Estimating coarse gene network
10.1016/S0953-5438(03)00009-2
Madiah, M. and S. Hisham, 2010. User-interface design: structure from large-scale gene perturbation data.
a case study of partially sighted children in Genome Res., 12: 309-315. PMID: 11827950
Malaysia. Prcoeedings of the International Wilson, K.C., 1989. Friction of wave-induced sheet
Conference on User Science and Engineering, Dec. flow. Coastal Eng., 12: 371-379. DOI:
13-15, IEEE Xplore Press, Shah Alam, pp: 168-173. 10.1016/0378-3839(89)90013-6
DOI: 10.1109/IUSER.2010.5716745 Xie, B., 2003. Older adults, computers and the Internet:
Nielsen, J., 2003. Usability 101: Introduction to Future directions. Gerontechnology, 2: 289-305.
Usability. Nielsen Norman Group. DOI: 10.4017/gt.2003.02.04.002.00
Nielsen, J., 2010. Children’s Websites: Usability Issues
in Designing for Kids. Nielsen Norman Group.

Science Publications 1450 JCS