1

BEYOND ACCESSIBILITY:

THE USE OF SOCIAL NETWORK SITES BY BLIND

AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS

By Adriana Pulido

A project-in-lieu-of-thesis presented to the College of Journalism and Communications at the

University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in

Mass Communication (MAMC)

2

ABSTRACT

Previous research had already addressed the use of mainstream social network sites such as

Twitter and Facebook. This study sought to find out the motivations behind the creation and use

of SNSs sites targeted to people with disabilities, focusing on blind and visually impaired

individuals. Four SNSs two Spanish-based, one U.S-based, and one U.K.-based were analyzed.

In addition to interviewing the sites‘ creators/administrators, the researcher promoted discussions

with blind and visually impaired users of the sites, in order to understand their motivations for

joining. The researcher also presented her own perspective as a blind user of the SNSs, taking

into account their level of accessibility, as well as their possibilities offered in terms of user

participation and interaction. Finally, the disability-specific SNSs were compared with Facebook

and Twitter, and once again, accessibility and the possibilities offered in terms of user

participation and interaction were considered.

3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank Professor McAdams for helping me choose this topic, and for her guidance and

valuable suggestions during this research. I also want to thank Drs. Cleary and Rodgers for

serving on my committee and for their valuable suggestions, which helped me improve this

project.

I thank the sites‘ creators/administrators and the users of the BlindWorlds site, for it could not

have been possible to carry out this project without their valuable participation and responses.

Special thanks to my parents, Aureliano and Adela, and to my sisters, Olga and Yamile, for their

constant support and for always believing in me. I also thank my relatives and friends for their

nice words and constant encouragement during this research. Last but not least, I thank my

wonderful boyfriend, Nelson, not only for his emotional support, but also for being ―my eyes‖

when needed.

4

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................... 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 3

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Biographical Note ...................................................................................................................................... 8

LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 9

SOCIAL NETWORK SITES: DEFINITIONS AND MOTIVATIONS .................................................................... 9

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, SOCIAL NETWORK SITES, AND DISABILITY-SPECIFIC ONLINE COMMUNITIES

................................................................................................................................................................ 19

WEB ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES FOR BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED PEOPLE ............ 22

RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 34

METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 35

REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE SITES ...................................................................................................... 38

TIMETABLE FOR RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 42

RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 43

Information about the site’s staff ........................................................................................................... 43

The SNS as a support group and a socializer .......................................................................................... 46

The desire to create a truly accessible SNS............................................................................................. 48

Simplicity of the page structure .............................................................................................................. 50

People, values, and sense of community ................................................................................................ 51

Knowledge and learning ......................................................................................................................... 54

Accessibility level of the SNSs ................................................................................................................ 57

Possibilities for participation and interaction in all SNSs........................................................................ 62

Features Offered by Each SNS............................................................................................................. 62

An International vs. a Local Focus ....................................................................................................... 66

Users’ Relationship with the SNS’s Creator/Administrator ................................................................ 66

Users with Disabilities’ Involvement in the Development of the SNS ................................................ 67

Comparing the Four Sites with Facebook and Twitter ....................................................................... 68

5

DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................................. 75

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 78

LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .............................................. 80

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 82

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SNSs’ CREATORS .............................................................................. 93

APPENDIX B: LIST OF DISCUSSION QUESTIONS .......................................................................................... 94

6

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the use of social network sites (SNSs) has become overwhelmingly popular (Lin

and Lu, 2011; Viswanath et al., 2009; Gangadharbatla, 2008; Huberman et al. 2008; Joinson,

2008; Dwyer et al., 2007). Among other purposes, people are increasingly using SNSs to

communicate, express themselves, and share information and content (Viswanath et al. 2009).

Previous studies have investigated the main motivations leading people without disabilities to

use popular SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter. However, little attention has been given to the

use of these popular SNSs by people with disabilities, particularly blind and visually impaired

individuals (Brady et al., 2013). Furthermore, no previous studies have dealt with the reasons

behind the creation and use of SNSs targeted to people with disabilities.

Some scholars have investigated the reasons leading individuals with disabilities to join

disability-specific online communities such as mailing lists, forums and support sites (Obst and

Stafurik, 2010; Guo et al., 2005; Williamson et al., 2001). Participating in those types of sites

enables people to share interests, ask questions, and offer or look for emotional support

(Aysenbach et al., 2004). More recently created SNSs for people with disabilities, however, offer

similar features to those found on Facebook and Twitter, such as the possibility to create an

individual profile and join shared interest groups. It is critical, therefore, to find out if people

with disabilities join those newer sites for the same reasons leading them to participate in more

traditional online disability communities.

7

As a social group, people with disabilities in general, and blind and visually impaired people in

particular, are expected to have the same motivations as those without disabilities regarding the

use of social network sites. In other words, they are expected to use SNSs for communicating

and sharing content. When it goes to blind and visually impaired people, most previous studies

have dealt with accessibility issues encountered on Facebook and Twitter (Buzzi et al., 2011,

2010; Ellis and Kent, 2010; Wentz, 2011). Undoubtedly, accessibility is a key factor determining

whether blind and visually impaired individuals use an SNS a lot or do not use it at all (Ellis and

Kent, 2011; Fuglerud et al., 2012). Nevertheless, other factors need to be considered in order to

better understand users‘ preferences for certain SNSs over others.

The purpose of the present study was to analyze the motivations leading to the creation and use

of social network sites targeted to people with disabilities, focusing on blind and visually

impaired people. Four SNSs—two Spain-based, one U.S.-based, and one U.K.-based—were

included in this analysis. In addition to interviewing the SNS creators or administrators, the

researcher promoted discussions among blind and visually impaired users, in order to find out

their motivations for using those alternative platforms. The researcher also incorporated her own

perspective as a blind user of the sites. Given that both the researcher and many users of the

chosen sites are also registered on Facebook and Twitter, a comparison between these popular

SNSs and the four sites aimed at people with disabilities was carried out.

8

Three main reasons highlight the importance of the present study. First, it will expand the

literature by providing evidence of SNS usage patterns among blind and visually impaired

people. Second, it will represent the first attempt to understand blind and visually impaired users‘

preference for SNSs targeted to people with disabilities over popular SNSs such as Twitter and

Facebook. Finally, this analysis goes beyond Web accessibility aspects widely considered in

previous research.

Biographical Note

The author of this study is completing her master‘s degree in mass communication – journalism

at the University of Florida. She is bilingual, and she was the first person with a disability to win

a Fulbright grant in her country, Colombia. She was a premature baby, and she became blind due

to the excessive amount of oxygen she received inside the incubator. She is a very active social

media user, and she has gained a lot of knowledge and experience in relation to assistive

technology for blind people. Precisely one of her biggest interests as a journalist is to contribute

to improve Web accessibility for blind and visually impaired people.

9

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section will be organized as follows: the first part will provide definitions of key terms such

as Web 2.0, user generated content, social media, and social network sites. It also will include

relevant information from previous studies dealing with people‘s motivations for using SNSs.

The second part will cover previous research on disability-specific online communities, as well

as on the benefits obtained by people with disabilities when using popular SNSs. It will also

include relevant information about a few studies addressing the use of Facebook and Twitter by

blind and visually impaired individuals. Finally, the third part will incorporate definitions of

essential terms such as Web accessibility, accessibility issues and assistive technology, while

providing useful information about previous research on general Web accessibility issues,

accessibility guidelines, and blind and visually impaired users‘ direct experiences with SNSs.

SOCIAL NETWORK SITES: DEFINITIONS AND MOTIVATIONS

In order to better understand how social network sites function, it is critical to define two

interrelated concepts, namely, Web 2.0 and user generated content (UGC). In general terms, Web

2.0 can be defined as ―a collection of open-source, interactive and user-controlled online

applications expanding the experiences, knowledge, and market power of the users as

participants in business and social processes‖ (Constantinides and Fountain, 2008, p. 232). By

using Web 2.0 applications, users create informal networks that facilitate the flow of ideas, as

well as the effective generation, dissemination, sharing and editing of informational content

(Constantinides and Fountain, 2008). Unlike Web 1.0, considered as an HTML-only world, Web

10

2.0 evolved into a medium capable of providing innovative services across stationary and mobile

devices (Romen and Svanæs, 2011; Reid and Snow-Weaver, 2008). In order to provide those

services, the World Wide Web requires enhanced functionalities such as Adobe Flash, RSS, and

AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML). The term UGC, on the other hand, ―… is usually

applied to describe the various forms of media content that are publicly available and created by

users.‖ (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010, p. 61).

Regarding the definitions above, social media can be conceptualized as ―… a group of Internet-

based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and

that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content.‖ (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010,

p. 61). By combining the dimensions of self-presentation and self-disclosure, Kaplan and

Haenlein (2010) classified social media applications into the following categories:

Collaborative projects and blogs, which enable the simplest level of interaction;

Content communities and social networking sites, which allow users to share content in

addition to text-based communication; and

Virtual game worlds and social worlds, which attempt to replicate all the stages of face-

to-face interaction.

In other words, social media is an embracing term that encompasses the group of applications

just mentioned.

11

The definition of social network sites provided by boyd and Ellison (2007) was found to be the

most suitable for the purpose of the present study, since it encompasses most of the essential

features of the sites to be analyzed. They defined SNSs as ―Web-based services that allow

individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2)

articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their

list of connections and those made by others within the system‖ (p. 311). Boyd and Ellison

(2007) clarify that the terms network and networking are used interchangeably in public

discourse, and that the term networking often implies the formation of relationships between

strangers. In addition to users‘ own unique ―space,‖ the services provided by SNSs include the

possibility to share photos and videos, maintain blogs, and interact through chat rooms, instant

messaging (IM), and email (Gangadharbatla, 2008). SNSs have also incorporated other features

such as testimonials and the ability to join groups of shared interests (Lampe et al., 2006).

Now that a broad definition of SNSs has been provided and their main features mentioned, let us

turn to review previous research focusing on people‘s motivations for using those sites. By

conducting a qualitative and quantitative content analysis among 1,200 Norwegian users,

Brandtzæg and Heim (2009) found that the three main reasons leading adults to use SNSs are

meeting new people, keeping in touch with friends, and general socializing. In a similar vein, the

comparative analysis of SNSs usage among Korean and U.S. students conducted by Kim et al.

(2011) revealed that their main motivations are seeking friends, social support, entertainment,

information, and convenience. In addition, the survey conducted by Lin and Lu (2011) show that

perceived motivations such as usefulness and enjoyment, as well as network externalities such as

12

the number of members and the number of peers using the site, significantly influence people‘s

motivations for joining SNSs.

Some studies have specifically addressed people‘s motivations for using Facebook and similar

SNSs (Joinson, 2008; Raacke and Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Lampe et al. 2006). According to Lampe

et al. (2006), one of the most remarkable Facebook features is the so-called ―surveillance‖

function, which enables users to ―track the actions, beliefs and interests of the larger groups to

which they belong‖ (p. 68). Taking into account users‘ goals in searching for others, Lampe et al.

(2006) classify this type of surveillance into two categories called ―social searching‖ and ―social

browsing.‖ The former takes place when users search for information about people they already

meet offline to learn more about them, whereas the latter lets users find people or groups with

whom they would like to connect offline (Lampe et al., 2006).

Based on those concepts, Lampe et al. (2006) conducted two surveys in order to determine how

college students use Facebook. Their results indicate that students are more likely to search for

information about people they have already met offline (social searching) than to find out

information about new people in their online community (social browsing). Joinson (2008) also

took the concepts of social searching and social browsing to examine the uses and gratifications

adults seek to satisfy when using Facebook. After conducting two surveys, he identified seven

major uses and gratifications, namely:

1. Social connection (connecting with current and old friends);

2. Shared identity (joining groups, organizing events, and finding like-minded people);

13

3. Posting or viewing photographs;

4. Content (involves the use of Facebook applications and quizzes to satisfy a content

gratification);

5. Social investigation (involves social searching or social browsing);

6. Social network surfing (comprises users‘ ability to view other people‘s networks and

friends); and

7. Status updating.

Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008) also applied the uses and gratifications theory to explore and

compare Facebook and MySpace‘s usage among U.S. college students. After conducting a

survey with 116 participants, the authors concluded that the most popular uses and gratifications

for having either account were keeping in touch with current and old friends, posting/looking at

pictures, and meeting new friends,. Other less popular uses and gratifications included learning

about events, posting social functions, feeling connected, sharing information about oneself, for

academic purposes, and for dating purposes.

In addition to the motivations for using SNSs, people‘s attitudes towards and perceptions of the

sites should be regarded in order to better understand their usage patterns. By conducting a

survey with more than 200 U.S. undergraduate students, Gangadharbatla (2008) found that

factors such as Internet self-efficacy, need to belong, and collective self-esteem positively

influence students‘ attitudes towards SNSs and willingness to join them. The author suggests that

14

these factors should be considered by SNS owners and designers in order to create friendly sites

and increase users‘ participation.

Undoubtedly, a key factor influencing people‘s usage of SNSs has to do with privacy concerns.

Joinson (2008) found that users who might want to meet new people tend to leave their privacy

settings relatively open. Similarly, Brandtzæg et al. (2010) referred to the so-called ―privacy

dilemma,‖ which originates in the complex relationship between the need for privacy and the

need for socializing and sharing content. Based on this dilemma, Brandtzæg et al. (2010)

analyzed people‘s Facebook usage across different age groups, in order to determine the

relationship between privacy experiences, sociability and content sharing. By using an interview

protocol and an explorative usability test, the authors found that younger people are more skillful

Facebook users than older adults. The results also indicate that younger adults‘ Facebook usage

is more purpose-driven, since Facebook has led them to reduce the use of other services such as

email and instant messaging. Finally, both younger and older adults are concerned about their

social privacy on Facebook.

In a similar vein, Dwyer et al. (2007) conducted a survey in order to determine how trust and

privacy concerns mediate people‘s usage of Facebook and MySpace. Their results indicate that

Facebook users were likely to reveal more private information than MySpace ones, but MySpace

users were more likely to extend online relationships beyond the SNS boundaries. Paradoxically,

although Facebook users showed higher levels of trust in the site than MySpace users, MySpace

seemed to foster a greater development of new relationships.

15

Social media usage in general, and SNS usage in particular, is also influenced by people‘s

personality traits. Correa et al. (2009) conducted an online survey among U.S. adults, in order to

determine how personality dimensions such as extroversion, emotional stability, and openness to

new experiences influence people‘s willingness to use instant messaging and SNSs. The results

indicate that extraversion and openness to new experiences are positively associated with social

media use and, therefore, both extroverted individuals and people who are open to new

experiences use social media more frequently. It was also found that people who are more

emotionally stable will use social media less frequently than those exhibiting greater neurotic

tendencies.

All studies previously mentioned have focused on Facebook and similar SNSs. Twitter, however,

should be addressed differently. It can be conceptualized as a microblogging service that allows

people to share information about their activities, opinions and status within a 140-character limit

(boyd et al., 2010; Kwak et al., 2010; Huberman et al., 2008; Java et al., 2007). Topics range

from daily life to current events, news stories, and other interests (Java et al., 2007). Thus,

regarding its potential to connect people globally, Twitter enables users to transform personal

events into greater social and political issues (Ellis and Kent, 2010).

Twitter combines SNS and blogs features (boyd et al., 2010). Like other SNSs, Twitter connects

profiles through an articulated direct network, enabling people who follow others to receive their

messages (better known as tweets). However, reciprocity is not required (Boyd et al., 2010;

16

Kwak et al., 2010; Huberman et al., 2008). In other words, a user can follow any other users, but

they do not necessarily have to follow him back (Kwak et al., 2010; Huberman et al., 2008). As

to its blogging features, a users‘ profile page shows his tweets in a reverse chronological order

(boyd et al., 2010). Although it is not possible for users to comment on individual posts (boyd et

al., 2010; Honeycutt and Herring, 2009), they can reply to tweets by using the @ sign followed

by a username.

Having provided a wide definition of Twitter, let us review previous studies focusing on the

reasons leading people to use the site. By proposing a two-level framework of user intention

detection, Java et al. (2007), elaborated a taxonomy of users‘ intentions for using this platform.

According to their findings, Twitter users and their intentions can be categorized as follows:

Daily chatter: People talk about their daily life and activities. It was found to be the most

popular intention for using Twitter.

Conversations: People use the @ sign to reply to other users.

Sharing information: It refers to posts containing a URL.

Reporting news or current events.

Information source: This type of user may post tweets either regularly or infrequently.

Friends: Many users have their families, co-workers or friends among their followers.

Information seeker: This type of user may not post very often, but follows others

regularly.

The authors concluded that users can have multiple intentions or serve different purposes in

different communities within the site.

17

In order to analyze Twitter‘s essential characteristics, as well as its power as a medium of

information sharing, Kwak et al. (2010) conducted a quantitative study of the entire site. They

collected 41.7 million users‘ profiles, 147 billion social relations, 4,262 trending topics, and 106

million tweets. Confirming the features differentiating Twitter from other SNSs pointed out by

other scholars, their findings revealed low reciprocity on Twitter, which is shown by the small

percentage of users who are followed back by the people they follow (only 1%). This is further

explained by the fact that Twitter accounts having the greatest number of followers belong either

to mass media or celebrities, and in most cases they do not follow back the people who follow

them. Another important finding shows that the overwhelming majority of tweeted and retweeted

trending topics (about 85%) are headlines or persistent news in nature, which may in turn

indicate that some users see Twitter as a news source rather than as a social network.

Previous studies have addressed the notions of friendship and reciprocity on Twitter (Huberman

et al., 2008; Java et al., 2007). By analyzing Twitter‘s geographical characteristics across

continents, Java et al. (2007) found that Asian and European users exhibit higher degrees of

reciprocity than their North American counterparts. The authors also found that like in other

social networks, Twitter users often start using the site on friends‘ invitations, and that more

friends and acquaintances are added by browsing through user profiles.

In a similar vein, Huberman et al. (2008) collected a large data set from Twitter in order to assess

the relevance of users‘ lists of ―friends.‖ By looking at users‘ followers and the people they

18

followed, the authors concluded that most Twitter users have a very small number of ―friends,‖

as compared to the number of followers they have and the number of people they follow. A

―friend‖ is defined as ―anyone who a user has directed a post to at least twice‖ (p. 6). Despite the

small number of ―friends,‖ the network of ―friends‖ is viewed by users as more dense and

significant, due to the higher level of interaction taking place there in terms of replies, retweets

and mentions. Regarding the great significance of friendship and reciprocity, it can be argued

that many users utilize Twitter in exactly the same way they use other SNSs.

Honeycutt and Herring (2009) analyzed the use of Twitter as a tool for conversation. By

examining a large dataset collected from Twitter‘s timeline, the authors found English to be the

dominant language, although Spanish and Japanese are well represented. It indicates that Twitter

is being globally used as a tool for interaction. It was also found that tweets with the @ sign

express a higher degree of exhortation and content related to an addressee, and that the @ sign is

used to expand conversations previously started. Finally, by looking at responses given to tweets

with the @ sign, the authors concluded that coherent and successful conversational exchanges

can in fact take place on the site. This is consistent with what Java et al. (2007) had previously

found, regarding the use of Twitter as a tool for conversation.

19

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, SOCIAL NETWORK SITES, AND DISABILITY-

SPECIFIC ONLINE COMMUNITIES

Many scholars have recognized the benefits of the Internet for people with disabilities in terms of

information-seeking, education, employment, entertainment, and social interaction (Ellis and

Kent, 2011; Obst and Stafurik, 2010; Thoreau, 2006; Guo et al., 2005; Williamson et al., 2001).

Thus, Internet access contributes to remove social barriers, while expanding the social networks

of individuals with disabilities (Guo et al., 2005). Confirming this, Jerber (2003) found that the

major benefits of Internet access for blind and visually impaired individuals include

employment, financial independence, development of their own identity, expansion of their

social networks, learning outcomes and literacy, and information access. The Internet can,

therefore, be considered as an instrument for improving the quality of life of people with

disabilities, while promoting their social inclusion (Huang and Guo, 2005).

With regards to disability-specific online communities, researchers have found that participating

in these platforms develops a sense of community among their members, while increasing the

availability of social support through information sharing and friendships (Obst and Stafurik,

2010; Williamson et al., 2001). Jaeger and Xie (2009) mention three main benefits of disability-

specific online communities. These are:

1) They enable the formation of new relationships, regardless of geographical distance or

physical disabilities;

2) They give people the possibility to build support networks with those who have the same

disability; and

20

3) They facilitate the discussion of social issues pertaining to individuals with disabilities.

A quantitative study conducted by Obst and Stafurik (2010) confirms the existence of the

benefits mentioned above. After conducting a survey with adults having a physical disability,

they concluded that belonging to disability-specific forums, newsgroups and mailing lists has a

positive influence on people with disabilities‘ well-being. In a similar vein, Huang and Guo

(2005) used the concept of social capital to explore the dynamics of online disability

communities in China. Based on the results of a survey with 122 individuals with disabilities, the

authors concluded that participating in online communities positively influences the formation of

social capital, including aspects such as trust, reciprocal support (whether tangible or emotional),

social participation and friendship.

The advantages of using popular SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter for people with disabilities

have been recognized, although very few studies have been published. Hollier (2012) affirms

that interacting through Facebook is extremely beneficial for individuals with physical

disabilities or visual impairment, since they can easily share information and communicate with

friends without traveling. The author also highlights the opportunities for community support

this platform can provide to people with disabilities in general. Similarly, Ellis and Kent (2011)

state that Facebook promotes political mobilization within the disability community, which may

in turn contribute to raise awareness about accessibility issues. Twitter, on the other hand,

enables people to quickly seek disability-related information, in order to solve potential issues or

21

share experiences (Hollier, 2012). The platform also can be used by people with disabilities to

unify either to protest or to receive quick answers to particular issues (Hollier, 2012).

Despite the recognized benefits of using popular SNSs, little attention has been given to the use

of those sites by blind and visually impaired people. Tollefsen et al. (2011) conducted a survey

with 101 people with disabilities in Norway, including blind and visually impaired individuals.

Their findings indicate that people with disabilities use SNSs such as Facebook to find old

friends, meet people, keep updated, exchange information and opinions, and find peers‘ support.

Moreover, participants expressed that using social media enables them to overcome mobility and

communication challenges, which in turn lets them ―feel like everyone else.‖ Thus, an added

value is attributed to social media use within the disability community. In a similar vein,

Fuglerud et al. (2012) conducted two surveys with blind and visually impaired users of popular

SNSs. Their findings show a high use of social media among blind and visually impaired people.

It was also found that the two main factors influencing the use of SNSs for blind and visually

impaired individuals are the relative simplicity or difficulty to use them, as well as the possibility

to have contact with their sighted peers and with other visually impaired individuals.

Brady et al. (2013) analyzed how blind individuals use SNSs to ask visual questions that they

would be unable to answer without sighted help (a bill‘s denomination, the name of a letter‘s

sender, etc.). Those questions are accompanied by a picture blind people can take by using a

smartphone application called BizWiz social. After conducting a survey with 191 blind users of

Twitter and Facebook, the authors found that blind people limit SNS Q&A due to three main

22

concerns: social cost, usability and accessibility issues, and discomfort with public question-

asking. They also concluded that in general terms, blind people seem to ask fewer questions in

SNSs than do their sighted counterparts. It can be argued, therefore, that Q&A is not one of the

main reasons leading blind people to use Twitter and Facebook.

WEB ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES FOR BLIND AND VISUALLY

IMPAIRED PEOPLE

Before reviewing previous research on Web accessibility, it is critical to provide a definition and

classifications of visual impairment. The World Health Organization (WHO), in its International

Classification of Diseases (2006), distinguishes four levels of visual function (Pascolini and

Mariotti, 2012). These are:

Normal vision

Moderate visual impairment

Severe visual impairment

Blindness

Moderate and severe visual impairment are grouped under the term ―low vision‖ (Pascolini and

Mariotti, 2012). Low vision, therefore, is defined as ―visual acuity of 6/18, but equal to or better

than 3/60, or a correspondent visual field loss to less than 20 degrees in the better eye with best

possible correction‖ (Resnikoff et al., 2004, p. 845). Blindness, on the other hand, is defined as

―visual acuity of less than 3/60, or a correspondent visual field loss to less than 10 degrees in the

better eye with best possible correction‖ (Resnikoff et al., 2004, p. 845). Another type of visual

23

impairment to be considered is color blindness, which can be defined as the inability to

distinguish between certain colors (Bedinghaus, 2007). Color-blind individuals find it difficult to

distinguish between the colors red and green, or blue and yellow (Bedinghaus, 2007).

In order to better understand how blind and visually impaired people use the Internet in general

and SNSs in particular, three interrelated concepts need to be defined, namely: Web accessibility,

assistive technologies, and accessibility issues.

In general terms, accessibility can be conceptualized as the equal access to information and

communication technologies for everyone, regardless of the type of disability they present

(Jaeger and Xie, 2009). In order for a website to be considered as accessible, therefore, all

technical barriers should be removed, so that people with disabilities can access it and use it as

effectively as those without disabilities (Harper and Yesilada, 2008; Leporini and Paternò, 2008;

Hackett et al., 2004; Slatin and Rush, 2003).

Assistive technologies can be defined as ―hardware and software designed to facilitate the use of

computers by people with disabilities‖ (Harper and Yesilada, 2008, p. 61). Screen readers

constitute the most popular assistive technology among blind users (Lazar et al., 2007). A screen

reader provides the content on the screen as output using computer-synthesized speech (Buzzi et

al., 2010; Lazar et al., 2007). Job Access with Speech (JAWS), developed by Freedom Scientific,

and Window-Eyes, by GW-Micro, are the two best known screen readers in the market (Lazar et

24

al., 2007). There is also a free screen reader called NVDA, which can be used with all currently

supported Windows versions (Holier, 2012). Visually impaired people, on the other hand, use

different strategies according to their visual impairment. Some people use large monitors or

increase the size of fonts and images, while some others rely on magnification software

(Leporini and Paternò, 2008).

Despite the evolution of assistive technologies, some scholars argue that blind and visually

impaired people continue to find accessibility issues preventing them from effectively using

social media (Fuglerud et al., 2012) and the Web (Fulton, 2011; Craven, 2008; Harper and

Yesilada, 2008; Asakawa, 2005; Lazar et al., 2004; Takagi et al. 2004). Moreover, the Web has

become increasingly visual and, therefore, exclusionary (Ellis and Kent, 2010; Leporini and

Paternò, 2008; Carter and Merkel, 2001). This is especially true for those sites based on user

generated content, which present serious accessibility and usability challenges for blind and

visually impaired individuals (Ellis and Kent, 2011). It occurs not only because of the high

presence of photos, videos, and Flash animations, but also because most content is created by

users who are not accessibility experts.

Carter and Merkel (2001) mentioned seven common accessibility barriers listed by the World

Wide Web Consortium (W3C). These are:

1. Images without alternative text;

2. Imagemap hot spots without alternative text;

25

3. Misleading use of structural elements on a page; as pointed out by Lazar et al. (2007),

many blind users access a list of links instead of reading through the entire page. If link

labels are confusing or unclear (―click here‖ or ―this link‖), blind users may not be able to

find the link they are looking for (Lazar et al., 2007);

4. Uncaptioned audio or undescribed video;

5. Lack of alternative information for users who cannot access frames or scripts;

6. Tables that are difficult to decipher when linearized; and

7. Sites with poor color contrast.

For blind people, one of the major challenges appears when components such as toolbars or other

interactive elements, commonly activated with a mouse click, cannot be activated by using the

keyboard (Leporini and Paternò, 2008). Instead of the mouse functionalities such as pointing,

selecting or scrolling, blind people prefer to use the tab key, arrow keys or other shortcuts for

moving around a Web page (Leporini and Paternò, 2008). Thus, an accessible website should

give blind people the possibility to use those keyboard functionalities. Other accessibility issues

listed by Buzzi et al. (2010) include:

Difficulty processing page content: If structure and content mix, screen reader users

receive confusing or misleading information. It occurs because tables‘ content is

sometimes organized in columns, and the screen reader reads the Web content by rows.

Lack of context: Since screen readers allow users to access small portions of text, the

overall context of the page may be lost, and the user may need to repeat the reading

process to recover lost information.

26

Lack of interface overview: Since blind users do not perceive the overall structure of the

interface, it can be difficult for them to quickly find the relevant content on a page.

Difficulty understanding user interface elements: Links, content, and buttons should be

properly labeled and self-explanatory. For example, the purpose of a blank button without

text may not be clear to someone who cannot see the button in its visual context.

As an attempt to tackle the Web accessibility issues mentioned above, the Web Accessibility

Initiative (WAI), a working group within the W3C, developed the Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines (WCAG) (Romen and Svanæs, 2011; Jaeger and Xie, 2009; Harper and Yesilada,

2008; Kelly et al., 2007; Brewer, 2004). The first version of the guidelines, known as WCAG

1.0, was presented in 1999, and became W3C‘s first attempt to create an international standard

defining Web content accessibility (Reid and Snow-Weaver, 2008; Brewer, 2004). Essentially,

these guidelines described how to make websites and Web content fully accessible for people

with disabilities (Harper and Yesilada, 2008; Reid and Snow-Weaver, 2008). This version was

constituted by 14 general principles, some of which are mentioned by Brewer (2004). These are:

Providing equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content;

Providing context and orientation information to help users understand complex pages or

elements;

Using features that enable activation of page elements via a variety of input devices; and

Providing clear and consistent navigation mechanisms to increase the likelihood that

people will find what they are looking for in the site.

27

Because of the Web‘s transition from 1.0 to 2.0, the guidelines had to be updated as well (Harper

and Yesilada, 2008; Reid and Snow-Weaver, 2008). Released in 2008, WCAG 2.0 had two main

goals. The first was to make the guidelines applicable to any W3C or non-W3C technology,

including CSS, XML, PDF and Flash, in addition to HTML and XHTML. The second goal was

to ensure that requirements could be objectively testable, in order for governments to be able to

implement them (Romen and Svanæs, 2011). WCAG 2.0 was created around four accessibility

principles and 12 guidelines. According to those principles, Web content must be operable,

perceivable, understandable and robust, in order for people with disabilities to be able to use the

Web (Romen and Svanæs, 2011).

In order to make the Web even more accessible and usable for people with disabilities, W3C is

currently working on improving accessibility features in HTML5. As Schwerdtfeger (2011)

pointed out, this is critical because not all features of HTML5 have been implemented in all

browsers, which poses challenges for people using assistive technologies such as screen readers.

HTML5 now includes WAI-ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications), which enables the

development of applications that are accessible in all platforms (Schwerdtfeger, 2011). WAI-

ARIA addresses the following accessibility issues:

The lack of information required by assistive technologies in order to interact with

complex user interface controls, which are currently used in many websites.

Drag-and-drop functionality is not always available to people who use the keyboard to

navigate a website.

28

Additional challenges are posed by the use of applications developed with AJAX and

DHTML.

WAI-ARIA addresses those issues by providing a framework for attributes to identify features

enabling user interaction, while describing new navigation techniques to identify and mark

regions such as menus, primary content, secondary content, banner information, and so on. The

identification of regions would let developers, for instance, enable keyboard commands to be

used by screen-reader users when moving from one region to another.

Some scholars have attempted to demonstrate the validity of WCAG. By conducting an

experiment with a group of users with disabilities and a control group, Romen and Svanæs

(2011) sought to determine the extent to which conformance to WCAG contributes to solving the

most common accessibility issues encountered by individuals with disabilities on the Web. The

results show that individuals with disabilities experienced accessibility issues almost as twice as

often as the controls. In addition, from 47 website accessibility problems identified by users with

disabilities, only 13 were caused by WCAG violations, whereas the other ones would not have

been identified by applying the guidelines alone. It implies that the application of the guidelines

does not necessarily ensure that websites are fully accessible for people with disabilities. In fact,

despite the existence of the guidelines and the correspondent regulations demanding their

application, Web accessibility issues continue to be found (Katsanos et al., 2012; Pribeanu et al.,

2012). Furthermore, as pointed out by Slatin and Rush (2003), full accessibility goes beyond

compliance with the guidelines, since users‘ individual experiences on a website should also be

29

considered. These experiences will be determined by people‘s knowledge of the browser‘s user

interface, as well as of the assistive technology being used (Tollefsen et al., 2010).

Some other scholars have not necessarily considered WCAG in their studies, but they have

certainly incorporated users with disabilities‘ direct experiences when assessing Web

accessibility. Based on blind users‘ testing, Wentz and Lazar (2011) evaluated the level of

accessibility and usability of three desktop email applications (Microsoft Outlook 2007, Outlook

Express, and Mozilla Thunderbird-Sunbird), and four Web-based email applications (Outlook

Web Access 2007 Light, Gmail, Yahoo Mail Classic, and Hotmail). From their analysis, the

authors concluded that both desktop and Web-based email applications present some usability

issues for screen-reader users, and that these issues are significantly higher in Web-based email

applications. It was also found that most of the encountered issues could be solved through

relatively minor modifications.

According to Tollefsen et al. (2011), social media in general and SNSs in particular do not

follow WCAG or WAI-ARIA. The accessibility level of SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter has

been addressed in previous studies. Meiselwitz and Lazar (2009) evaluated the accessibility level

of 22 SNSs‘ registration mechanisms. The sites were classified into three categories: strictly

social (Facebook or MySpace), social with a special focus (YouTube or Flickr), and social with a

professional focus (LinkedIn or Xing). Among the 22 sites, 40% were found to be marginally

inaccessible, and 59% were seen as moderately inaccessible. The registration process for people

30

with disabilities, and particularly for blind individuals using screen readers, is further

complicated by the use of CAPTCHA (Hollier, 2012; Fuglerud et al., 2012).

CAPTCHA is defined as ―distorted language used to verify that a user is human and not an

automated security threat‖ (Wentz and Lazar, 2011, p. 76). Jeng et al. (2010) distinguish four

types of CAPTCHA, namely: text-based scheme, image-based scheme, audio-based scheme, and

video-based scheme. Among those types, the audio-based scheme CAPTCHA is presented as an

alternative for blind and visually impaired users‘ authentication. However, using this type of

CAPTCHA may cause error of identification for non-native speakers of the language (Buzzi et

al., 2010; Jeng et al., 2010). Moreover, many users have reported that it does not work properly

in all devices and browsers (Hollier, 2012). The use of CAPTCHA, therefore, can be considered

as a strong obstacle preventing blind and visually impaired individuals from accessing certain

sites (Ellis and Kent, 2011).

Buzzi et al. (2010) tested the accessibility and usability of the Facebook interface. By using

JAWS, the authors performed the most common tasks, including registering, adding friends,

accepting friend requests, inviting friends to join, and answering messages. The authors‘ findings

indicate that the page is not logically organized, which obliges blind users to read it sequentially.

This can be particularly tedious for expert screen-reader users. Another serious issue is related to

events and notifications, since the screen reader does not notify the users automatically when

they receive an invitation or a friend request. Yet another issue has to do with the absence of

JAWS feedback after an action is carried out. Since JAWS does not announce the result of the

31

task, users have to sequentially explore the page to find out. Moreover, as expressed by the

participants in the survey conducted by Tollefsen et al. (2011), constant changes to the Facebook

page‘s structure brings new accessibility challenges for blind and visually impaired users, which

leads them to spend a considerable amount of time and effort trying to find new ways to navigate

the page.

Wentz (2011) took blind users‘ direct experiences in order to compare the usability levels of

Facebook mobile and Facebook desktop. The results show that Facebook desktop presents

significantly greater accessibility and usability issues than Facebook mobile, since many screen-

reader users were unable to perform tasks such as updating their status, posting comments or

uploading pictures. Although Facebook mobile was found to be more accessible and navigable, it

does not include all of the features encountered in Facebook desktop (Hollier, 2012; Tollefsen et

al., 2011).

In addition to CAPTCHA, Ellis and Kent (2011) mention other six areas of concern discussed by

―The Official Petition for a more Accessible Facebook.‖ These are:

Gifts

Newsfeed preferences

Drop-down menus

Drop-down boxes

Adjusting text size

32

Web page layout

A number of strategies to overcome accessibility issues on Facebook have been proposed.

Hollier (2012) provides detailed instructions on how screen-reader users can perform the most

common tasks on the site. These include signing up, setting one‘s profile, finding and adding

friends, posting status updates, captioning photographs, sending messages, chatting, and

adjusting privacy settings. Also, a list of links to additional accessibility resources, as well as a

list of shortcuts, is provided. Similarly, Buzzi et al. (2010) provide some suggestions to improve

accessibility for screen-reader users. These include adding semantics to UI elements and

organizing the page in a more logical way, so that blind users can easily move from one area to

another.

Regarding Twitter, Ellis and Kent (2010) mentioned some accessibility issues listed by Web

developer Denis Lembree. Some of them are lack of headings, fieldset used without legends

(which makes it difficult or even impossible for a blind user to fill in a Web form), and the

requirement of JavaScript for favoriting and viewing details about the latest tweet (time, in reply

to). JavaScript is defined as ―a programing language which is used to make webpages more

dynamic and interactive‖ (Ellis and Kent, 2011, p. 52). Since it is an add-on to HTML, it has

traditionally posed challenges for blind users, although more recent screen reader versions are

better equipped to handle it (Ellis and Kent, 2011). Similarly, by testing the Twitter interface via

a screen reader, Buzzi et al. (2011) found the platform to be much more usable and accessible

33

than Facebook. However, blind users still have difficulties in relation to moving quickly among

tweets and getting new tweets.

In order to make Twitter fully accessible for people with disabilities, Denis Lembree created a

tool called ―Accessible Twitter,‖ whose name was later changed to Easy Chirp. Some of its

accessibility features include:

All links are keyboard-accessible.

Headings and page titles are implemented.

The tool works with or without JavaScript.

AJAX action concludes with an alert to notify the user of the result of the action.

Large text size and high color contrast.

Keyboard shortcuts to main menu items.

Hollier (2012) provides detailed instructions on how screen-reader users can carry out the most

common tasks on the site. These include setting up a Twitter user‘s profile, sending tweets,

adjusting visibility and privacy settings, following other people, tweeting another person directly,

replying to a tweet, and using hashtags to join conversations. Similarly, Buzzi et al. (2011)

suggest a simplification of the page, so that blind users can navigate it faster.

34

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

As shown by the literature review, previous research has focused on the main motivations

leading people to use popular social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Nevertheless,

little attention has been given to the motivations behind the creation and use of SNSs targeted to

people with disabilities. Researchers have found that participating in disability-specific websites,

including forums, mailing lists and news groups, fosters a sense of community and well-being

among their members (Obst and Stafurik, 2010; Williamson et al., 2001). It is critical, therefore,

to make online communities fully accessible for people with disabilities (Jaeger and Xie, 2009).

Concerning more recent disability-specific SNSs, however, no previous studies have addressed

the motivations leading to the creation and use of those alternative platforms.

Regarding the above, the following questions were addressed:

RQ1: What are the main motivations behind the creation of social network sites aimed at people

with disabilities?

RQ2: What are the main motivations leading blind and visually impaired individuals to use SNSs

targeted to people with disabilities?

RQ3: How different or similar are the chosen SNSs from Facebook and Twitter in terms of: a)

accessibility and b) possibilities offered in terms of users‘ interaction and participation?

35

METHODOLOGY

In order to address these questions, the researcher carried out the following tasks:

Interviewing the sites’ creators. The researcher attempted to conduct semistructured interviews

with the creators of four SNSs aimed at people with disabilities (see Appendix A for the

interview guide). According to Leech (2002), a semistructured interview with open-ended

questions, as compared with a structured one, provides the researcher with more detail and an

insider‘s perspective. In all cases, the researcher directly contacted the sites‘ creators via email.

In Disabilinet‘s case, however, the email was replied not by the site‘s creator, but by the person

who is currently driving the site.

Due to geographical distances, the researcher suggested to conduct the interviews either on the

telephone or by using a Voice Internet Protocol application such as Skype (Hay-Gibson, 2009).

In two cases, however, the interviews were conducted via email upon interviewees‘ request. In

explaining his preferences, one of the sites‘ creators argued that there might be some scheduling

conflicts due to the time zones differences (Kazmer and Xie, 2008).

The Skype interviews were 60 to 90 minutes long, and the researcher was open to the

emergence of new themes during the interview process. Moreover, taking into account the

characteristics of each site, more specific questions were asked in each case. As for the email

36

interviews, the researcher sent the interviewees the whole questionnaire, and some follow-up

questions were sent when needed (Kazmer and Xie, 2008).

The two Skype interviews were entirely recorded and transcribed by the researcher, while the

email interviews were translated from Spanish to English. Since the purpose of the study was to

deeply understand each site‘s case, the interviews were carried out in four different weeks. Once

the interview transcripts were ready, the researcher proceeded to analyze them in order to find

the overarching theme and a list of subthemes emerging from the data. Some passages reflecting

those themes were then selected for further analysis.

Promoting discussions among blind and visually impaired users of the sites. Some weeks before

beginning the project, the researcher registered on the four SNSs, in order to promote

discussions among visually impaired users of those sites within groups or forums. The purpose

of these discussions was to determine the main factors influencing blind and visually impaired

individuals‘ decision to use alternative social network sites, as opposed to Facebook or Twitter

(see Appendix B for a list of discussion questions). The researcher invited blind and visually

impaired users of the four sites to participate in the discussions, and informed them about how

the results would be used in the present study (Anderberg and Jönsson, 2005). Nevertheless,

only users of the BlindWorlds site replied to the researcher‗s invitation and to the DQs posted.

Because users‘ feedback was received only in one site, the researcher decided to ask three out of

the four questions she had initially considered. She realized that it was not necessary to ask

users about their preferred activity on the site, since it was something she could infer from her

own analysis.

37

A total of 17 BlindWorlds users, whose ages range from 14 to 62 years old, participated in the

discussions. One DQ was posted each week, which gave the researcher some time to obtain

participants‘ feedback. Users‘ comments published one or two weeks after the question had

been posted were also considered in the analysis. In addition to users‘ responses, the site‘s

creator provided the researcher with old publications and comments about BlindWorlds posted

by users. All responses in Spanish, as well as some old publications and comments, were stored

and analyzed by the researcher. Since the users, as compared with the SNSs‘ creators, tend to

use a more informal language, all greetings, idiomatic expressions/interjections, repeated

phrases and laudatory comments about the proposed discussions were disregarded during the

translation process. The translated publications and comments were then analyzed in order to

find the overarching theme and subthemes emerging from the data. These analyses were carried

out over a four-week period. As for the other SNSs, there was very little or no user

participation, even though the researcher had posted the invitation and questions both on her

wall and in all groups that could potentially involve blind and visually impaired users. It

occurred because the participation of blind and visually impaired people in those sites is very

low or even nonexistent.

The researcher’s view of the sites. In addition to the proposed discussions, the researcher

presents her own perspective as a blind user of the four sites. In this analysis, not only

accessibility-related issues were considered, but also the differences and similarities between the

sites in terms of users‘ participation and interaction.

38

Comparing the sites with Facebook and Twitter. Since the researcher has Facebook and Twitter

accounts, she also compared and contrasted the use of those popular SNSs with the use of the

ones targeted to people with disabilities. As in the previous case, accessibility issues, as well as

the possibilities for interaction and participation offered by each site, were analyzed. The

researcher‘s view, along with the results of the group and forum discussions, provide evidence

of SNS usage among blind and visually impaired individuals.

REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE SITES For the present study, the following social network sites were chosen:

1. Anundis.com

http://www.anundis.com/

2. ILiveWithADisability.com

http://ilivewithadisability.com/

3. BlindWorlds

http://www.blindworlds.com/

4. Disabilinet.com

http://www.disabilinet.com/

These social network sites were chosen according to three main criteria:

1. They offer features commonly found in widely used SNSs. The sites allow users to create

individual profiles and connect with one another (boyd and Ellison, 2007;

Gangadharbatla, 2008); share photos and videos, create and maintain blogs, and interact

39

through chat rooms and instant messaging (Gangadharbatla, 2008); and create or join

groups (Joinson, 2008).

2. The SNSs are open to all users with any disabilities. Among the chosen sites,

BlindWorlds focuses on blind and visually impaired people, which does not necessarily

prevent individuals without disabilities from registering. Since the present study focuses

on blindness and visual impairment, those SNSs targeted to people with learning or

developmental disabilities were excluded.

3. The chosen sites certainly have content related to services and resources specifically

aimed at people with disabilities, but they are primarily SNSs. Some sites that had been

initially considered for the present study were later excluded, since they were found to be

disability-related information providers rather than social network sites. Other platforms

were found to be either charity or advocacy-based (Thoreau, 2006). In platforms like

these, users may have the possibility to comment on articles written by people with or

without disabilities, but they are not given any options to join groups, or add user

generated content such as videos or photos. Other sites that seem not to be working

properly, or whose links seem to be broken, were also excluded from the present study.

The main features of the chosen sites are summarized in Table 1. These include hosting server

location, year in which the sites were launched, their disability focus, a general description, and

accessibility-related information, as well as some information about their terms of use and

financial support. In all cases, it is possible for users to have direct contact with the sites‘

creators, which doesn‘t occur in Facebook and Twitter.

40

Table 1. Site features.

Name of the

Site Anundis.com I Live With A

Disability (ILWAD) BlindWorlds Disabilinet.com

Hosting

Server

Location

Spain United States Spain United Kingdom

Launching

Year 2004 2010 2011 2012

Disability

focus

People with or without

disabilities from any

country

People with

disabilities, their

families, friends and

supporters

People with any

disabilities, focusing

on blind and visually

impaired individuals.

People without

disabilities are also

welcome, regardless

of their nationality or

age.

People with

disabilities

General

Description

Registered users can:

1) Create their own

profile;

2) Promote discussions

and participate in

forums;

3) Chat with other

users; and

4) Join shared interests‘

groups.

Unregister users, on the

other hand, have access to

the current number of

members registered on the

site, as well as to the

discussions and groups‘

members.

The site is presented as

a dynamic online

support community,

where people with

disabilities and their

loved ones can discuss

sensitive issues within

a safe and friendly

atmosphere. Registered

users can create blogs

and comment on other

users‘ posts, as well as

meet friends and join

shared interests‘

groups. Moreover,

users have the

possibility to directly

interact with the site‘s

creators (one of them

has a physical

disability). The site

also includes a section

dedicated to disability-

related news.

Registered users can:

1) Meet new friends;

2) Write private

posts or share them

in their Twitter

account;

3) Publish 140-

character messages

in their walls;

4) Publish voice

messages (maximum

10 minutes long);

and

5) Share all types of

files with a

maximum size of 32

megabytes). Users

also have a direct

contact with the

site‘s creator.

Registered users

can:

1) Add photos,

videos or

stories;

2) Join shared

interests‘

groups;

3) Publish and

comment on

users‘ blog

posts;

4) Interact

through chat;

and

5) Create events.

Unregistered

users have

access to a list

of recently

registered

individuals, as

well as to a

list of

members‘

birthdays.

Terms of

Service’s

Essential

Information

In section ―Normas y

Funcionamiento‖ (Norms

and Functioning), it is

clearly stated that only

Users are totally

responsible for the

information they make

available on the site.

In section

―Condiciones de Uso

(Terms of Use)‖, it is

stated that children

The site cannot be

used by

individuals

younger than 13.

41

adults can register on the

site. Also, discussions

about topics such as

politics and religion are

not welcome, unless they

are disability-related

younger than 14 can

register on the site,

but their parents or

caregivers must fill

out and sign some

documents in order

to authorize the

registration

Also, users‘ age is

not available to

other people.

Accessibility-

related

Information

In addition to an

explanation on how to

adjust settings, section

―Normas y

Funcionamiento‖

provides some links that

can be used to report

issues and complains, as

well as to send comments

and suggestions. The

section also provides

some functioning

guidelines, both in

English and in Spanish.

The English version is

more complete and

extensive.

Although there is not a

section entirely

dedicated to

accessibility, the

website is easy to

navigate and use.

The ―Accesibilidad‖

(Accessibility)

section offers five

different ways in

which visually

impaired users can

adjust the color and

size of the screen.

Also, a list of

shortcuts to be used

by blind individuals

is provided

There is not a

section exclusively

dedicated to

accessibility, but

the site is easy to

use and navigate

Financial

support

The money is provided by

the site‘s creator

The site is financially

supported by disability-

related organizations

and private donors.

They are also open to

receive people‘s

donation‘s.

The site is financially

supported by its

creator, as well as by

disability-related

organizations.

The site is

financially

supported by

charities and

disability-related

organizations.

42

TIMETABLE FOR RESEARCH

Week Plan of Research

1 First interview, transcription and analysis.

Researcher‘s interaction with blind and visually impaired users of all sites.

First DQ posted on the four sites and initial analyses of participants‘ responses.

Researcher‘s complete analysis of the first site.

2 Second interview, transcription and analysis.

Researcher‘s interaction with users of all sites.

Second DQ posted and follow-up to the responses given to the previous question.

Researcher‘s complete analysis of the second site.

3 Third interview, transcription and analysis.

Researcher‘s interaction with users of all sites.

Third DQ posted and follow-up to the responses given to previous questions.

Researcher‘s complete analysis of the third site.

4 Last interview, transcription and analysis.

Researcher‘s interaction with users of all sites.

Researcher‘s complete analysis of the forth site.

5 Reached conclusions and final analyses.

43

RESULTS

Information gathered in the interviews provides an overview of the four sites. Data such as the

sites‘ creator(s) and staff, their goals, the approximate number of users, and the level of blind and

visually impaired users‘ participation on the sites are provided.

Information about the site’s staff

Anundis.com: Francisco Martin, creator/manager. He has a disability caused by the

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, also known as hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy or

peroneal muscular atrophy. It comprises a set of disorders affecting the peripheral nerves,

both motor and sensory (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2011).

Martin is also in charge of IT for the site.

ILiveWithADisability: Scott Susman, one of the site‘s co-founders. He has cerebral

palsy, and he is in charge of answering nontechnical questions.

Ronald Bercume, a graphic designer who is in charge of IT for the site. He answers users‘

technical questions.

BlindWorlds: Jose Ignacio Corral, site‘s creator/administrator. For almost 20 years, he

has worked with ONCE, a Spanish foundation for blind and visually impaired people.

While working there, he has had the opportunity to make blind close friends, as well as to

learn a good deal about the assistive technologies to be used by this population.

Manuel Adan, in charge of IT for the site.

44

Disabilinet: Mike Simmons, leads the team involved in the creation of the site. He is a

global entrepreneur who has worked, for many years, in the field of mobility products

for people with disabilities.

Tracey Proudlock, a wheelchair user who currently manages the site. She is in charge of

welcoming users and giving them tips, so that they can get what they want from the SNS.

Two people are in charge of IT for the site.

Goals to be reached by the SNSs’ creators

Anundis.com: ―A social network site for people with and without disabilities. A place

where we can meet, discuss, chat, help, make friends, share information, experiences,

feelings, likes and opinions, make plans, support, reclaim, and so on. … Participate,

network, create community, and in that way the site will make sense and will be useful

for all.‖ (Description translated by the researcher from Spanish to English).

ILiveWithADisability: ―A place for those of us who refuse to allow a disability to

become a defect, a disadvantage or a defeat. … ILWAD.com is the first social

networking platform of its kind, empowering the people with disabilities and their loved

ones with the tools and resources they need to live a happy and fulfilling life.‖

BlindWorlds: ―BlindWorlds: the accessible social network site truly for all. …

BlindWorlds will become an accessibility model, both nationally and internationally. …

Through its various features, it facilitates the formation of interpersonal relationships,

information exchange, communication, and the sake of people whom users share feelings,

opinions, publications, and so on.‖ (Description translated from Spanish to English by the

researcher).

45

Disabilinet: ―Disabilinet.com is more than just a social network, we are creating with

you a place where the worlds of disabled individuals come together!‖

Approximate number of users as of May 2013

• Anundis.com: Almost 4,400 users, of which about 120 are visually impaired.

• ILiveWithADisability: More than 500 registered members.

• BlindWorlds: More than 1,200 users from 32 countries.

• Disabilinet: More than 700 users, and there are not statistical data about the number of

blind and visually impaired registered members.

Level of blind and visually impaired users’ participation

Anundis.: Low participation. Most blind or visually impaired users have not even

updated their profile or added content in a year or more.

ILiveWithADisability: Low participation of blind and visually impaired users.

BlindWorlds: Most of the site‘s users are blind and visually impaired people, and user

participation and involvement are pretty high.

Disabilinet: Low participation of blind and visually impaired individuals.

46

RQ1: What are the main motivations behind the creation of social network sites aimed at

people with disabilities?

Taking into account the interviewees‘ responses, two main motivations could be identified.

These are: (1) the SNS as a support group and a socializer; and (2) the desire to create a truly

accessible SNS.

The SNS as a support group and a socializer

One of the main motivations leading to the creation of SNSs for people with disabilities is

consistent with some of the benefits of disability online communities discussed by Jaeger and

Xie (2009). These are:

a) The formation of social relationships regardless of geographical distance and type of

impairment;

b) The possibility for people with disabilities to build up support networks with those who

have the same disability; and

c) The discussion of sensitive or disability-related issues.

As the following excerpt will show, the creation of Anundis.com highlights the role of SNSs

aimed at people with disabilities as facilitators of the formation of new relationships. These

responses were translated by the researcher from Spanish to English.

47

Francisco Martin, Anundis‘ creator:

―In 2004, when the site was launched, there were not big online communities targeted to people

with disabilities where they could exchange information, meet people, help others, or establish

interpersonal relationships. Anundis is intended to be a place where people with and without

disabilities can meet people, socialize, make friends, chat, share information, experiences, likes,

feelings and opinions, as well as make plans to go out, find their significant others, and help each

other… The site contributes to people with disabilities‘ social integration, focusing on those who

feel lonely and do not have friends or a life project due to their physical impairment.‖

The following passage shows that the creation of Disabilinet was based on similar motivations.

Tracey Proudlock, Disabilinet‘s general manager:

―Disabilinet is about social media, is about disabled people being less isolated, and it‘s giving

people opportunities to get together.‖

As the previous quote shows, the Disabilinet staff is not only interested in promoting online

communication among people with disabilities, but they also want to provide opportunities for

people to meet offline. Thus, they constantly give people ideas on things to do and places to go.

In addition to providing a space for socializing, the creation of Disabilinet was motivated by the

future provision of employment and training for people with disabilities. This can be seen in the

following excerpt taken from Proudlock‘s responses:

―The ideal is that the site will be run and managed by disabled people getting work, you know,

there are quite a lot of jobs in social media or online work. So my role is to get the site in better

48

shape, in a stronger position, so it can bring in more money and provide employment and

training for people.‖

The four SNSs included in this study offer people the possibility to give and receive support,

whether tangible or emotional (Huang and Guo, 2005). In the specific case of

ILiveWithADisability, however, the provision of online support for people with disabilities and

their loved ones was clearly one of the main motivations leading to its creation. This is the

explanation given by Scott Susman, one of the site‘s co-founders:

―When I grew up, I didn‘t know anybody with a disability, and therefore I didn‘t have anybody

to ask a question to. I never felt or acted differently, it was just that there were some times I had

liked to find support on someone who had gone through it or done that… So I decided that I

would put myself out there and create a pretty open form where people were, you know, happy

and were dealing with things in positive ways. So I was able to create this website where

siblings, parents, and friends of people with disabilities could have the ability to ask a question

and really find the right person to ask the question to, as opposed to put it on a message board.‖

The desire to create a truly accessible SNS

Accessibility and usability concerns, ALONG with a good knowledge of assistive technology,

clearly motivated the creation of the Spanish site BlindWorlds. This is what Jose Ignacio Corral,

the site‘s creator and administrator said (responses were translated by the researcher from

Spanish to English):

49

―While learning about assistive technologies, I became aware of the obstacles blind people have

to face in order to access information in general and the Internet in particular. This is caused by

the lack of accessibility in Web pages and, more specifically, in the most popular social network

sites which everybody wants to join in order to find their friends. So the knowledge of the

software needed by blind people in order to access ICT (particularly screen readers such as

JAWS, NVDA and Orca), as well as the lack of accessibility guidelines in well-known SNSs, led

me to think of creating an SNS in which everybody could have equal access.‖

As we will see later, the lack of accessibility in popular social network sites mentioned by the

BlindWorlds creator was confirmed by blind users of this platform.

In summary, covering Web accessibility needs encountered by blind and visually impaired users,

as well as providing a space where people could socialize and find peer support, were found to

be the main motivations behind the creation of SNSs targeted to individuals with disabilities.

Undoubtedly, the SNS creators‘ personal experiences also played an important role. In the case

of ILiveWithADisability, for instance, Susman‘s experiences as a person with a disability led

him to create the SNS, in order to provide a space where individuals with disabilities and their

loved ones could get support. Mike Simmons, on the other hand, created Disabilinet as a way to

give something back to the customers with disabilities he had worked with. Finally, Corral

decided to create BlindWorlds after having identified common online accessibility and usability

issues faced by blind and visually impaired people. It was possible not only because of his work

with ONCE, but also, and even most important, because of his contact with blind and visually

impaired close friends.

50

RQ2: What are the main motivations leading blind and visually impaired individuals to use

SNSs targeted to people with disabilities?

Although the researcher‘s intention was to promote discussions on the four sites, the low

participation of blind and visually impaired users on Disabilinet, ILiveWithADisability and

Anundis prevented her from getting replies to the posted questions. Thus, she was able to

promote discussions only with BlindWorlds users, whose opinions highlight the main reasons

leading blind and visually impaired individuals to use, and in some cases prefer, SNSs targeted

to people with disabilities. From the analysis of the discussions, three main motivations could be

identified: (1) simplicity of the page structure; (2) people, values, and sense of community; and

(3) knowledge and learning.

Simplicity of the page structure

For many BlindWorlds users, accessibility played an important role in leading them to join the

site. The following quotes exemplify this:

Male, 45-year-old user (1): ―The page is very simple and it‘s very easy to find links. It doesn‘t

have lots of links to lots of sites for chatting, listening to the radio, searching for people or topics,

translators, and so on.‖

Male, 25-year-old user: ―I found it very easy to use. After registering, I immediately started

exploring the social network site, and in a little more than a day I already knew it all.‖

51

Male, 45-year-old user (2): ―I think this is an excellent website, since it is mainly targeted to

people with visual impairments. Its simple structure led me to choose it.‖

Another topic mentioned by participants was the use of different screen readers to navigate the

site. The following quote illustrates this point:

Male, 45-year-old user (1): ―It is easy to access BlindWorlds with any screen reader, either

JAWS or NVDA. For instance, I‘m using JAWS 10.0 (a relatively old version), and I haven‘t

had any difficulties so far.‖

This was confirmed by the researcher. She mostly uses JAWS 12.0 (released two years ago), but

she has also used the latest version of NVDA and she has not experienced any accessibility

issues on the BlindWorlds site.

People, values, and sense of community

In explaining the reasons leading them to join BlindWorlds, users highlight the presence of

values such as respect, solidarity, friendship, peer support, and freedom of expression. The

following excerpts illustrate this:

Female, 55-year-old user: ―In addition to accessibility, there is absolute freedom and a lot of

respect among BW members, mixed with a bit of solidarity and affection.‖

52

Female, 41-year-old user: ―I should say that this site hooked me from the beginning! Not only

because it is accessible, but rather because of all the warm, nice people I have found here, and

because I feel free to express what I feel or think.‖

Female, 21-year-old user: ―What I like the most about this site is that all its members are very

special people. I would even say that this site is a very special world, full of wonderful angels.

It‘s such a great privilege for me to be here. I just hope to please and meet everyone. I‘m really

happy to belong to this virtual ideal world!‖

Male, 52-year-old user: ―This site is a paradise within that ‗Internet jungle.‘‖

Male, 33-year-old user: ―A social network site where respect, free expression and friendship are

the rules in order for people to get along, and where very interesting people know and do things

that enrich me every time I log in.‖

Male, 37-year-old user: ―In a few words, this site has given me a reason for living. I haven‘t been

here so long and I‘m meeting you all through your comments and articles. I‘m sure I‘ll make

good friends here.‖

As the following quotes will show, some users refer to the site as ―their own family,‖ and some

others have even found their significant other.

Female, 18-year-old user: ―Thanks to this wonderful site, I‘ve met a lot of nice people whom I

now consider as my family members.‖

53

Female, 37-year-old user: ―BlindWorlds has given me a new family that is able to know the

limitations and difficulties caused by my visual impairment. A family in which we support each

other when we are down.‖

Female, 28-year-old user: ―Now I have a virtual little sister, a great brother-in-law, and a

boyfriend that I met thanks to this social network site!‖

Male, 18-year-old user: ―BlindWorlds is my second home, the place where I have been able to

freely express myself.‖

The following passages show the importance of peer support among BW users:

Male, 42-year-old user: ―I‘m not exaggerating when I tell you that BlindWorlds has given me

life, it has helped me feel stronger, it has opened my eyes and it has shown me that I‘m not

alone.‖

Male, 23-year-old user: ―Those users who meet me offline know how much I love this little

‗corner of the world‘ where visually impaired people feel comfortable with their peers. And

although we use Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Messenger, and other tools to communicate, nothing

is better than logging to BlindWorlds to write and publish a text, share songs played by ourselves

or by our favorite artists, share books and other texts, and help those who need a piece of advice

or a nice word, or simply being heard or have fun. Helping others makes you feel important.‖

Female, 21-year-old user: ―Here we have a sensation of freedom to express what we want (of

course, respectfully). And we feel even freer when we realize that most people here are blind,

which makes us be more open in the relationships we establish.‖

54

Female, 17-year-old user: ―I found out about BlindWorlds by chance and I registered. I pretty

much like it because, as others have said, you have to be in a good mood to log in to Facebook,

and nobody lives the same things you live being blind. Here, by contrast, I feel I identify with

people, particularly with blind users.‖

Male, 22-year-old user: ―I identify with you guys not only because we have a disability in

common, but rather because of our shared likes and interests.‖

As the following two passages will show, some users reported that joining BlindWorlds helped

them to break isolation.

Male, 34-year-old user: ―I joined because I began to feel lonely when I lost my sight. Here I met

a lot of friends and now I feel better because the site is pretty accessible. I have also found here a

sense of equality that I haven‘t seen in other social network sites.‖

Male, 22-year-old user: ―To be honest, I joined BlindWorlds due to a lack of social life, and I

haven‘t regretted so far.‖

Knowledge and learning

For some users, the possibility to discuss and learn about different topics is one of the main

motivations leading them to join and remain on the site. This is shown in the following excerpts:

Male, 62-year-old user: ―At first I was attracted by the site‘s name and its emphasis on

accessibility. I now recommend it for the variety of topics that are discussed, as well as for the

great support one can find in order to solve different problems.‖

55

Female, 18-year-old user: ―Every day I learn something new with the reflections, articles, stories,

documentaries, and songs you guys publish.‖

Male, 44-year-old user: ―I won‘t leave BlindWorlds by now. There is a lot of education here,

even when controversial issues are discussed, and we protect each other in order to avoid

problems.‖

Female, 27-year-old user: ―This family has given me what I hadn‘t received in 27 years. I get so

excited when thinking about all I‘ve learned, from jokes to sciences to law! I‘m happy to meet

people who have taught me a lot, I‘m very happy to belong to such a welcoming virtual family.‖

Male, 27-year-old user: ―BlindWorlds has given me the opportunity to join an accessible social

network site where I can exchange information and knowledge about different topics. It has also

let me make a lot of friends. Moreover, I‘ve been able to compare experiences and situations

blind people live, and to learn through other users‘ comments.‖

Overall, BW users‘ comments and responses show that the main motivations in order for them to

have joined and remain on the site were the page‘s simple structure, the possibility to contact

other blind users in order to get peer support, and the opportunity to get knowledge about

different topics. This is consistent with what Fuglerud et al. (2012) and Tollefsen et al. (2011)

found in their analyses of social media usage among people with disabilities in general and blind

and visually impaired people in particular. It can be argued, therefore, that blind and visually

impaired individuals use disability-specific SNSs in the same way they use popular platforms

such as Facebook. Nevertheless, as shown by most users‘ comments and responses, belonging to

56

BlindWorlds has given them the possibility to establish very strong emotional ties with other

users with disabilities, which might not occur on popular SNSs.

The analysis of BW users‘ comments and responses also revealed the following: First, there were

overlapping motivations leading blind and visually impaired individuals to join the site. In other

words, the same user could have more than one motivation for joining and remaining on the

SNS. Second, despite the differences in terms of age and gender, users are able to interact with

each other, and their opinions about what they have found on the site are pretty similar. The two

comments below highlight this interaction pattern:

Male, 42-year-old user: ―Something I love about this site is that age is not important. It doesn‘t

matter if you are 14 or 70 years old. We are all friends here regardless of our generational

differences. We can learn from young people full of qualities, and also from people who have an

extraordinary vitality in spite of being a little older.‖

Female, 55-year-old user: ―It gives me an everyday contact with very young people who have

new and worthy ideas, current news about research that otherwise I wouldn‘t be able to access,

and some moments of laughter and puzzlement that are difficult to forget.‖

57

RQ3: How different or similar are the chosen SNSs from Facebook and Twitter in terms

of: a) accessibility and b) possibilities offered in terms of users’ interaction and

participation?

In order to compare the four sites with Facebook and Twitter, it is critical to look at each SNS‘s

level of accessibility for people with disabilities, as well as to discuss the features offered by

each site in terms of user participation and interaction.

Accessibility level of the SNSs

According to the researcher‘s view, Anundis was found to be the site with the most complex

structure. Its main page contains more than 80 headings and more than 500 links. Since a huge

amount of information is displayed, the researcher had to familiarize herself with the initial

letters of the most important links, in order to quickly and efficiently navigate the page

(Tollefsen et al., 2010). When using a screen reader, either JAWS or NVDA, users can press

Insert+F7 in order to activate a links list, which enables them to find links faster. For instance,

they may type the letter G to go to the groups, H to go to the homepage, and so on. By contrast,

those users who are not familiar with screen-reader features may navigate webpages by using the

Tab key to go to the next link, or Shift+Tab to go to the previous link, which of course is time-

consuming (Tollefsen et al., 2010).

58

Let us now look at some accessibility issues found by the researcher on Anundis.com:

Use of CAPTCHA during the registration process. When registering on the site, users are offered

an audio CAPTCHA in addition to the visual one. However, as pointed out by Buzzi et al.,

(2010) and Jeng et al. (2010), the use of the audio CAPTCHA is sometimes problematic for blind

people. Even though the researcher can speak English, it was not possible for her to understand

the words to be typed, and she ended up asking for sighted help to overcome this accessibility

issue. Although users are offered the possibility to register by using their Facebook, Twitter,

Google, Yahoo, or WindowsLive account, the researcher decided not to use any of them, due to

privacy concerns. The registration process was further complicated by a page malfunctioning.

The researcher was able to type the required information in the right fields, but the page seemed

not to load correctly, making it difficult for her to complete the process. As a result, she had to

try three times until she could finally register.

Responding during chat. Although the researcher is able to go to the chat room and find

online users, it is sometimes difficult for her to quickly find the edit field to type text, and

she has experienced this problem both in Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox. Thus, it

has not always been possible for her to keep the pace of the conversation (Jaeger and Xie,

2009). In some cases, she has not even been able to answer, which probably has led some

users to think of her as an impolite person. When using Facebook, for instance, she

accesses the chat by using AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) as an external application,

which lets her maintain simultaneous conversations. However, this feature is not offered

on Anundis.

59

Application mode. The so-called ―application‖ is one of the WAI-ARIA landmark roles. It is

used to designate a region within a web application that is to be treated as a desktop application

instead of as a regular webpage (Marco, 2011). In other words, the regions are not treated as

Web page regions, but as desktop icons. When the user launches the page, JAWS announces

―application mode on,‖ and the user is not able to navigate by headings or form fields because

the screen reader does not respond (Thompson, 2009). Moreover, when users try to bring up a

links list by pressing Insert+F7, JAWS announces: ―This feature is only available from within a

virtual document, such as a page on the Internet‖ (Thompson, 2009). Thompson suggests users

can press Insert+B in order to toggle application mode off. Nevertheless, this keystroke did not

work for the researcher, and in reading a forum discussion, she found that the keystroke Insert+Z

was suggested. A possible explanation is that the keystroke suggested by Thompson (2009)

worked for older versions of JAWS. Since the researcher has encountered this accessibility issue

on other platforms, it cannot be attributed to Anundis only. In order for blind users to overcome

this issue, therefore, they should be given enough information on how to toggle the application

mode off, according to the version of JAWS being used.

Since the Disabilinet‘s design is similar to that of Anundis, the researcher has experienced more

or less the same accessibility issues there. However, the structure of the page contains fewer

links and headings, which in turn makes those issues easier to overcome. Although the researcher

is already familiar with the main links on the page, she has not been able to find a link mentioned

by Proudlock during the interview. According to what Proudlock said, some of the site‘s features

could be disabled in certain countries, which is probably what happens to this link. Proudlock

also recognized that the Disabilinet design does not comply with W3C guidelines, but the people

60

in charge of IT for the site continue to work hard in order to make the page fully accessible, she

said.

As compared to the SNSs mentioned above, The ILiveWithADisability structure is certainly

much simpler. It contains just ten headings and more than 300 links that are easy to navigate.

The site was created by using BuddyPress, a series of plugins for WordPress that enable the

creation of social network platforms (WPMUDev, n.d.). Each plugin can be used to add a

different social feature to the site, and all plugins are able to work independently (WPMUDev,

n.d.). The following plugins are included: a) extended profiles; b) private messaging; c) friends;

d) groups; e) activity stream; f) blog tracking; and g) forums.

Regarding the SNS‘s level of accessibility, there are only two features that the researcher has not

been able to use. One is the chat feature, which according to Susman might be removed because

people do not use it much, and the other is the creation of blog posts, which seems not to be

working properly. Although the researcher has experienced just a few accessibility issues,

Susman insists that the site is far from being fully accessible and that there is still a lot of work to

be done.

Among the chosen SNSs, BlindWorlds is undoubtedly the most accessible. It is based on a

LAMP architecture (Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP), a combination of free and open source

software that is used to run dynamic websites or servers (Dougherty, 2001). As for the page‘s

61

structure, it only contains five headings and 63 links, which makes navigation easy for blind

users. An entire section is dedicated to accessibility, and screen-reader users are provided with a

list of shortcuts to go to their wall, publications, friend lists, private messages, and so on. Also,

there are five visualization modes for those who have a partial visual impairment. These are:

Standard: White background, orange margin, dark text and red controls.

Inverted: Dark background, light text and blue controls.

High contrast: White background and black text, separators and buttons.

Inverted high contrast: Black background and white text, separators and buttons.

Fluorescent green: Black background and text, separators and buttons in fluorescent

green.

In addition to the shortcuts and the visualization modes, liquid design was implemented, so that

the page became more attractive and could be viewed across different devices and resolutions.

Liquid design, also called responsive design, enables users to easily navigate the page, regardless

of whether they are using a desktop computer, a mobile phone or any other device (Pettit, 2012).

According to the site‘s creator, the idea is to incorporate new features with a more attractive

design, making sure that they will not affect accessibility and usability for blind and visually

impaired individuals. This accessibility focus has prompted some changes in the page. For

instance, Java support was previously used for audio files, but it was found to cause accessibility

problems for screen readers. Instead, users are now given the option to upload standard MP3

files to their profiles.

62

Regarding the accessibility level of the four sites, it can be argued that blind and visually

impaired users feel more attracted to participate in BlindWorlds than in any of the other SNSs,

since it is more accessible than the other platforms. Nevertheless, as we will see later, other

factors also need to be considered when attempting to measure the level of participation of blind

and visually impaired individuals in SNSs targeted to people with disabilities.

Possibilities for participation and interaction in all SNSs

The following items are considered in this analysis: (1) features offered by each SNS; (2) an

international vs. a local focus; (3) the relationship between the users and the site‘s

creator/administrator; (4) users with disabilities‘ involvement in the development of the site; and

(5) a comparison of the sites with Twitter and Facebook.

Features Offered by Each SNS

Both Anundis and Disabilinet offer essentially the same features one can find on Facebook.

Thus, users are able to create their individual profile, update their status, send and receive friend

requests, send and receive private messages, chat with other users, and so on. A distinctive

feature, however, is the possibility to create blogs and participate in discussion forums. In

addition, disability-related issues are frequently discussed on both sites, which might not occur

on Facebook. On both of these sites, people with physical disabilities (those who have mobility-

related impairments such as wheelchair users, people with an artificial limb, etc.) seem to

63

participate much more actively than those with sensory disabilities (like blind and visually

impaired people), which is shown by the types of stories being published and the topics being

discussed in the forums.

On Anundis, most blog posts and stories contain disability-related questions, the personal

experiences of people with disabilities, discussions on social issues affecting individuals with

disabilities in Spain, life reflections, or simply jokes. As for Disabilinet, most blog posts and

stories focus on disability-related issues, as well as on legislation and social issues pertaining to

British individuals with disabilities.

There are some differences between the sites in terms of user participation. On Anundis, most

interaction seems to occur through the chat and forums, and YouTube videos are frequently

shared by users. More than 100 groups have been created, some of which have more than 200

members. While some groups focus on disability-related issues, some others deal with a variety

of topics such as film, music, games, and so on. Some other groups have been formed according

to the users‘ home country or city. As for Disabilinet, 31 groups have been created, but the

largest group had not reached more than 25 members as of May 2013. Also, most of those

groups focus on mobility-related issues for people with physical disabilities. Some examples are

―Transport for all‖ and ―Wheelchair problems.‖ Unlike on Anundis, Disabilinet users seem not

to be very active in the chat, but the number of users is certainly growing. Based on her personal

experience as a user of both sites, the researcher found a difference in relation to the possibilities

64

for making friends. It has been easier for her to make friends on Anundis than on Disabilinet,

which may occur because most of Anundis users are, like the researcher, Spanish speakers.

ILiveWithADisability offers a very interesting Facebook-Twitter combination. As on Facebook,

users are able to send and receive friend requests and join groups, but they can also follow and

mention other users as they do on Twitter. Most interaction occurs through the blog posts, and

once again, people with physical disabilities seem to be the most active users. More than 40

groups have been created, but most of them have not been updated in one year or more. Many

blog posts and stories focus on the personal experiences or reflections of people with disabilities,

but like the groups, they have not been updated or commented on for a long time. Although more

people with and without disabilities are joining this SNS, user participation has not increased

much. This is especially true for blind and visually impaired individuals, who show little or no

participation in the SNS. During the interview, Scott Susman asked the researcher for some

suggestions in order to increase the participation of people with disabilities. Two suggestions

were to have group leaders to promote conversations, and to update articles and stories more

frequently.

BlindWorlds offers users the possibility to create a profile in which they can include a photo and

introduce themselves. Most interaction occurs either through the users‘ walls, or by commenting

on others‘ publications. It is also possible for users to add content to their favorites and to like

comments. Publications cover the following topics:

Users‘ musical works or short stories;

65

Sharing personal experiences and thoughts;

Disability-related questions, whether personal or about assistive technology for blind

people;

Links about trending topics; and

Links to reflections, audio books, short stories, or jokes found on the Internet.

Although the site lacks features such as a more attractive design, additional options for private

messages (such as the possibility to simultaneously send a message to several contacts), email

notifications, chat, birthday notifications, and the option of mentioning or tagging people, it

offers distinctive features such as the possibility for users to upload MP3 files recorded with their

own voice and attach them to their profiles. The SNS also has a page called ―Estrellas

BlindWorlds‖ (BlindWorlds Stars), where all users‘ musical works are collected; a sports section

called ―A Puerta Vacía‖ (The Empty Door), broadcasted by one of the users; and another section

called ―Entrevistas BlindWorlds‖ (BlindWorlds Interviews), in which an SNS member

interviews other users. In general terms, user participation is pretty high, and very strong

emotional ties have been built up. Also, this is the SNS where the researcher has made the

greatest number of friends (a total of 65 as of May 2013). As compared to Facebook, where she

has made more than 700 friends, this number is pretty small. However, considering that the

researcher registered on BW just in February 2013, she has been successful in making friends in

a short period of time.

66

An International vs. a Local Focus

In the researcher‘s view, the Spanish SNSs have been the most successful in attracting users

from other countries. Anundis has registered users from different Latin American countries, and

there are even groups for people who come from particular Latin American countries or cities.

BlindWorlds, on the other hand, has attracted users from more than 32 countries, some of whose

native language is not Spanish. As for ILWAD, Scott Susman said that one of the site‘s most

active users comes from New Zealand, but other than that, the researcher has not actually seen a

lot of international users participating there. Disabilinet is definitely the SNS with the most local

focus, and as a result, most registered members come from the United Kingdom. During the

interview, Tracey Proudlock asked the researcher for some ideas on how to attract more

international users. One suggestion was to give the blog posts and published stories a more

global focus as opposed to a local one. Many stories deal, for instance, with legislation affecting

British individuals with disabilities, and since there are not discussions about disability-related

international laws (such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), users

from other countries might not identify with the topics being discussed on the site.

Users’ Relationship with the SNS’s Creator/Administrator

Unlike Facebook and Twitter, these four SNSs targeted to people with disabilities allow a direct

contact between the users and the site‘s creator/administrator. All the sites‘ creators have a

profile on their SNS, but the way they approach users varies. In Anundis‘s case, Francisco

Martin is rather active as a moderator. He is always willing to respond to users‘ concerns and

67

complaints, and sometimes he even participates in chats. However, he does not publicly welcome

new users, and his profile is private, which suggests that he wants to keep a certain distance from

the users. As for Disabilinet, Tracey Proudlock is closer to the site‘s members. She welcomes

new users and even gives them tips to enhance their profiles so that they can get what they want

from the SNS.

On ILWAD, the SNS‘s co-founders are the first to send friend requests to new users (at least it

happened in the researcher‘s case). They also post messages to welcome new members.

However, since they have not posted new articles or stories for a long time, their interaction with

the users has diminished. As for BlindWorlds, Jose Ignacio Corral has a very close friendship

with many users. As with ILWAD, he was the first to send the researcher a friend request. Also,

he publishes articles very frequently, and favorites or comments on users‘ publications. Rather

than acting as a moderator, he tries to be friendly, which is confirmed by the laudatory and

affectionate comments made by the users during the discussions. In the researcher‘s view, he is

the warmest of the SNS creators in this study.

Users with Disabilities’ Involvement in the Development of the SNS

The more involved users are in the development of the SNS, the greater sense of belonging they

will experience. On Disabilinet, the idea is that people with disabilities get to run and manage the

site, so they participate not only by giving their opinions about what they want, but also by

contributing to develop activities in the background. BlindWorlds, on the other hand, came as the

68

result of opinions given by users with and without disabilities from different countries who

directly contacted Jose Ignacio Corral. The users decided the SNS‘s definite name, and some of

them authorized Corral to use their profile photos in the first logo. Also, sections such as

―Estrellas BlindWorlds‖ and ―Entrevistas BlindWorlds‖ came as a result of users‘ initiatives.

Comparing the Four Sites with Facebook and Twitter

In order to compare the SNSs included in this study with Facebook, it is critical to consider the

two types of surveillance discussed by Lampe et al. (2006), namely, ―social searching‖ and

―social browsing.‖ Lampe et al. found that Facebook users are more likely to look for

information about people they have already met offline (social searching) than to find

information about new people in their online community (social browsing). In applying these

types of surveillance to the SNSs included in the present study, it can be argued that they are

more likely to promote social browsing, since users seem to be more interested in finding

information about people with whom they would like to connect offline. In other words, the

SNSs targeted to people with disabilities seem to foster a greater development of new

relationships than Facebook does. This is confirmed by the amount of friendships and courtships

that have been established on BlindWorlds.

The SNSs included in this study are also different from Facebook in terms of their structure. On

Facebook, for instance, all the recent activity of friends is displayed under separate headings,

while all groups are presented as links under an individual heading. On Disabilinet and Anundis,

69

all the recent activity of friends is displayed under one heading, while group activities are posted

under separate headings, one for each group. The structure of ILWAD and BlindWorlds has even

more differences in comparison with Facebook, since fewer headings are displayed in both cases,

and it is easier to find links as on Facebook mobile or Twitter mobile.

One of the fundamental differences users find between BlindWorlds and Facebook has to do

with the level of accessibility. In their survey, Tollefsen et al. (2011) found that constant changes

in the Facebook page bring serious accessibility and usability problems for blind and visually

impaired users, since they have to spend a considerable amount of time and effort learning new

ways to navigate. Also, consistent with previous research, the relative simplicity or difficulty is a

crucial factor influencing the use of popular SNSs by blind and visually impaired individuals

(Fuglerud et al., 2012). The following quotes illustrate this:

Female, 21-year-old user: ―The Facebook page is already very developed and its structure

changes constantly. By contrast, BW does not change, it‘s very simple and it makes it more

accessible for screen reader users. On Facebook, for instance, I recently have had difficulties in

reading updates, due to the constant changes they make.‖

Female, 55-year-old user: ―I had joined Facebook two years ago and I loved it. I didn‘t find it

very accessible but I used it to chat with my friends (I just had a small list). I also used it to keep

updated with my friends‘ publications, among other things, and I felt satisfied. It was a kind of

‗magic,‘ something new and I felt good. Time passed and I felt the site was every time less

accessible, so I decided to stop using it one year ago. I got angry because they were forcing me

to accept an inaccessible site and I didn‘t like it. Although I didn‘t delete my account, I never

70

logged in again. I don‘t like the idea of having to stop using a site simply because I can‘t find

‗my place.‘ I‘m surprised to know that many BW users are still on Facebook, they are silly,

haha!‖

As the following passages will show, some users compared BW with Facebook in terms of

privacy.

Male, 18-year-old user: ―Another thing that I don‘t like on Facebook is that there is no complete

control over privacy. ‗Everything you post will only be seen by your friends,‘ but when someone

likes or comments on your publications, that person‘s friends can see them.‖

Male, 44-year-old user: ―There are certain privacy features that are not present on BlindWorlds,

but which I considered essential on Facebook, and since these features, as well as the Facebook

platform, have become more and more difficult to use, I decided to leave that social network

site.‖

Female, 41-year-old user: ―I know there are many ways to limit access to your profile and

publications on Facebook, but anyway I don‘t think it‘s a safe site. Here, however, there‘s no

need to limit access by now, and it will not change if we keep on being authentic and respecting

each other. That‘s why this is my favorite site!‖

Some other users mention more personal reasons in order to explain their preference of BW over

Facebook. This is shown in the following excerpts:

Male, 52-year-old user: ―We want to build up a true friendship, which is not possible on

Facebook because most people are only interested in viewing pictures, posting insignificant

comments, or commenting on publications that are not uplifting. On Facebook there are not

71

many interesting publications, while here there are a lot. BW helps us be better people, whereas

Facebook does not.‖

Female, 41-year-old user: ―I think BW is a different site simply because there is a lot of respect,

and especially because it is full of affection and friendship. There is not coldness here. You can

find true friends and you can trust them. I also have a Facebook account, but here I feel more

confident to accept friend requests than on Facebook because I have had a lot of bad experiences

there.‖

Male, 22-year-old user: ―It has happened to me that sighted people think that I can see just

because I have a Facebook account. Many people also think that a blind person is able to have an

interesting conversation only with another blind person, for they have common issues to talk

about. People absurdly think that blind individuals can only talk about their disability. So

whenever I talked to Facebook contacts who knew that I‘m blind, they neither talked much nor

discussed any topics with me, and when I brought up a topic, they just started asking how I had

been able to learn about it being blind.‖

Male, 18-year-old user: ―In FB, for instance, I feel that sighted people constantly disapprove my

status updates, or answer with stupid comments that have nothing to do with what I said, or even

start fighting with me, and I‘m not the only one who has lived this. While here there is freedom

of expression and I feel that people understand me. We do understand each other, people answer

exactly what you expect, nobody censures others and we interact with each other respectfully.‖

Male, 52-year-old user: ―I got pleasantly amazed for what I found and I‘m still pleased to be

here. I have liked this site so much that I decided to permanently close my Facebook account last

year.‖

72

Although the researcher agrees that Facebook is not fully accessible for blind people, she

continues to be a very active user and making friends, both sighted and visually impaired.

Nevertheless, consistent with previous research, she prefers to use mobile Facebook rather than

the desktop version, since navigation is faster and easier. Like many Facebook users, the

researcher has also experienced privacy concerns, but she has been able to adjust some privacy

settings by using Facebook mobile. When it has not been possible, she has asked for sighted help

in order to adjust those settings through the Facebook desktop site. As previous research has

shown (Wentz, 2011), in the researcher‘s experience, mobile Facebook continues to be more

accessible and usable for blind people. Finally, the researcher does not share the negative views

of Facebook expressed by some BW users. In general terms, her interaction with sighted friends

on Facebook has been pretty positive, and she has not felt that they treat her differently for being

blind. In fact, when promoting the discussion of social or political issues pertaining to people

with disabilities, she has received positive feedback from both visually impaired and sighted

Facebook contacts.

Regarding Twitter, a BW user said that she finds it pretty accessible, and that she essentially uses

it to read what journalists and celebrities from her country publish. This opinion confirms that for

some users, Twitter is rather a news source than an SNS (Kwak et al., 2010). Other BW users

said that they neither know it nor know how it works. Since BlindWorlds gives users the

possibility to connect their BW and their Twitter accounts, some people use Twitter just to share

information they had previously published on BW. For the researcher, by contrast, Twitter has

become more than simply a news source (she certainly uses it to follow important media and

journalists from around the world, as well as to keep updated with her favorite rock/metal

73

bands). However, she also uses it to encourage conversation about social and political issues in

general and disability-related issues in particular. Thus, as pointed out by Ellis and Kent (2010),

Twitter can be used to promote social and political mobilization within the disability community.

As on Facebook, her interaction with sighted contacts on Twitter has been successful, although

she has fewer Twitter followers than Facebook friends (224 Twitter followers and 701 Facebook

friends as of May 2013).

The last aspect to be considered in this analysis deals with how the four SNSs use Facebook and

Twitter to share their content. As the interviews show, all SNSs‘ creators/administrators agree

that sharing content on popular SNSs helps their communities to grow. The following quote by

Jose Ignacio Corral reflects this:

―We didn‘t want our users to feel like they belong to an isolated SNS, so from the very

beginning, we favored BW‘s integration to popular SNSs, particularly Twitter and Facebook. We

encourage the use and knowledge of popular SNSs and we consider them our friends.‖

Despite the recognized advantages of sharing content on those popular SNSs, the Disabilinet and

ILWAD creators/administrators expressed some concerns regarding the high information traffic

on their Facebook page, as compared with the low traffic on their SNSs‘ pages. For instance,

Scott Susman said that ILWAD has more Facebook fans than registered members. In

Disabilinet‘s case, Tracey Proudlock is gradually trying to move content away from the

Facebook page, as well as to persuade Facebook fans to share more content on the Disabilinet

page. On Twitter, BlindWorlds, Anundis and Disabilinet share content more frequently than

74

ILWAD does. Table 3 contains the links to each SNS‘s Facebook and Twitter pages, as well as

the number of fans and followers in each case (as of May 13, 2013).

Table 3. Numbers of fans and followers.

Name of the

Site

Facebook Page(s)

FB

Fans

Twitter Profile Twitter

Followers

Anundis.com https://www.facebook.com/anundis 507 https://twitter.com/A

nundis

598

ILiveWithADisa

bility

https://www.facebook.com/ilivewithadisa

bility

808 https://twitter.com/il

ivwdisability

807

BlindWorlds https://www.facebook.com/blindworlds

https://www.facebook.com/pages/blindwo

rlds/277330798961760

453

friends

191 fans

https://twitter.com/b

lind_worlds

704

Disabilinet.com https://www.facebook.com/Disabilinet 1,186 https://twitter.com/D

isabilinet

878

75

DISCUSSION

As the results of this study have shown, disability-specific SNSs have been created in order to

provide accessible spaces where people with disabilities can exchange information, find peer

support, and meet people with whom they have shared interests. In all cases, the SNS creators‘

personal experiences have played an important role, whether as individuals with disabilities

themselves, or as people without disabilities whose contact with the disability community has

made them aware of the needs of people with disabilities. The creation of disability-specific

SNSs, therefore, goes beyond providing platforms that enable people with disabilities to share

user-generated content, which they could easily do on popular SNSs such as Twitter and

Facebook.

Previous research has shown that joining disability-specific websites lets individuals with

disabilities find peer support and develop a sense of community (Obst and Stafurik, 2010;

Williamson et al., 2001). This is also true for the SNSs included in the present study, particularly

BlindWorlds, where strong friendships and courtships have been formed. Regarding this, it can

be argued that blind and visually impaired people use recent SNSs in the same way they have

used more traditional disability online communities such as forums and mailing lists.

Furthermore, SNSs aimed at people with disabilities have the potential to foster the development

of close relationships outside of the online boundaries, which is demonstrated by the stories of

some BW users who have already met offline.

76

Although accessibility is not the only aspect to be considered when creating SNSs targeted to

people with disabilities, it is definitely a crucial factor influencing their usage among blind and

visually impaired individuals. As the results indicate, the disability-specific SNSs still present

some accessibility issues that may prevent blind and visually impaired users from joining. The

specific case of BlindWorlds indicates that participation of blind and visually impaired people

increases when the platform is found to be readily accessible and usable. This applies not only to

disability-specific platforms, but also to mainstream SNSs, which have the potential to raise

awareness about disability-related issues (Ellis and Kent, 2011). As shown by BlindWorlds

users‘ responses to the discussions initiated by the researcher, the lack of accessibility on

Facebook partly explains why they prefer to use BW. Although these results are not

generalizable to all SNSs targeted to people with disabilities, they represent the first step toward

an understanding of the reasons leading blind individuals to prefer those alternative platforms.

In addition to accessibility and usability, factors such as these influence users‘ decision to join

and actively participate in SNSs targeted to people with disabilities: the topics being discussed,

the site‘s local or global focus, the linguistic barriers faced by users, the relationship between the

SNS creators and its members, and individuals with disabilities‘ involvement in the development

of the site. Blind and visually impaired individuals, for instance, may not feel attracted to register

on SNSs focusing on people with physical disabilities (those having mobility impairments)

because the topics being discussed do not pertain to them. Similarly, people with disabilities in

general might not want to participate in SNSs with a very local focus as opposed to an

international one. In order to attract a larger number of users with disabilities from different

77

countries, therefore, it is critical to promote the discussion of disability-related topics with a

global focus.

The results also show that the creators/administrators of SNSs targeted to people with disabilities

find it convenient to share content on more popular SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter, since it

contributes to making their communities larger and more visible. However, it can also be a

disadvantage, in that people may have access to the site‘s content on the Facebook page or the

Twitter profile without actually registering on the SNS. In other words, the purpose of sharing

content on Facebook and Twitter is to lead users to register on the disability-specific sites, so that

they invite more users and the communities grow. This study also indicates that many blind

people have Facebook accounts, whereas the use of Twitter seems not to have been so

widespread among the blind and visually impaired, despite being found to be more accessible

and usable than Facebook (Buzzi et al., 2011).

78

CONCLUSIONS

Previous research had already addressed the use of mainstream social network sites by people

with disabilities. The present study sought to expand the literature by providing evidence about

the reasons behind the creation and use of SNSs targeted to people with disabilities, focusing on

blind and visually impaired individuals. There is no doubt that the sites‘ creators/administrators

have put a good amount of time and effort into making their communities grow. Nevertheless,

the participation of people with disabilities in those alternative platforms is still low, if we

consider that Anundis, being the oldest and the largest of the four SNSs, has gotten about 4,400

users with different types of disabilities. In addition, individuals with disabilities make up 10%

of the world‘s population (United Nations, n.d.). In order to make individuals with disabilities

get more involved, the SNSs‘ work teams should focus on implementing strategies that give the

platforms a more diverse character, while making them readily accessible for blind and visually

impaired individuals. It is also critical for the sites‘ creators/administrators to network with

people with disabilities, in order to know exactly what they expect or want from the SNSs.

Although discussions with the users could be carried out only in one SNS, and the number of

participants is not representative of the entire Internet-connected blind population, the responses

provide evidence of SNSs‘ usage patterns among blind individuals, and help to explain their

preferences for some SNSs over others. Undoubtedly, one of the most widely discussed issues

has to do with the importance of accessibility and how it influences blind people‘s attitudes

toward SNSs. In the researcher‘s view, the accessibility challenges found on SNSs targeted to

79

people with disabilities could be solved by making relatively minor modifications. Rather than

creating more SNSs targeted to people with disabilities, therefore, the staff of the sites that

already exist should work harder in order to make them fully accessible for blind and visually

impaired people. Facebook, on the other hand, has still a long way to go in order to become fully

accessible and usable. It will largely depend on the Facebook staff‘s real commitment in

providing accessibility guidelines that facilitate the use of the platform by blind and visually

impaired individuals.

It is critical to mention that making SNSs fully accessible would not only benefit blind and

visually impaired people, but also users who have difficulties in using a keyboard or other

devices due to their physical impairments, e.g., people who cannot move their hands.

Furthermore, as pointed out by Jaeger and Xie (2009), the creation of accessible online

communities would also be beneficial for older adults. Improving online accessibility, therefore,

will provide opportunities for diverse populations to communicate and exchange information

with their peers.

Finally, the researcher should acknowledge that her perception of SNSs targeted to people with

disabilities changed dramatically after conducting this project. She previously saw those sites as

―ghettos‖ where only disability-related issues were discussed. Also, she has always felt

comfortable sharing content on Facebook and Twitter, despite the accessibility issues she has to

face sometimes. Now, however, she considers disability-specific SNSs as legitimate alternative

platforms to share content and interact with people with disabilities from around the world.

80

LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE

RESEARCH

The low participation of blind and visually impaired individuals in three of the four platforms did

not allow the researcher to get generalizable results on how they use disability-specific SNSs.

One possible explanation of this low participation is that blind and visually impaired people

might think of those sites as ―ghettos,‖ but further research would help to determine if this is true

or not. It might also provide strategies to be used by SNS creators in order to attract larger

numbers of blind and visually impaired users.

Because the researcher was interested in analyzing disability-specific SNSs offering features that

are similar to those we find on Facebook and Twitter, some audio-based SNSs aimed at blind

and visually impaired people were excluded from the present study. Further research might

analyze those audio-based sites in terms of accessibility and user participation. Also, a

comparison between BlindWorlds and those audio-based SNSs could be carried out, in order to

determine if the latter, due to their distinctive features, are able to attract larger numbers of blind

and visually impaired users.

Although the researcher was able to identify some accessibility challenges on the analyzed sites,

the present study did not provide specific suggestions on how those issues could be solved.

Further research would help to determine which accessibility guidelines could be used in each

81

case, or if the Web Content Accessibility guidelines provided by the W3C would suffice in order

to make the disability-specific SNSs fully accessible for blind and visually impaired users, which

in turn would also benefit other populations.

Throughout her interaction with the users of the four SNSs, the researcher found the Spanish-

speaking users to be more friendly and outgoing than English-speaking users. Further research

might focus on this cultural difference by analyzing and comparing the English-based with the

Spanish-based SNSs. It might also examine how linguistic barriers affect user participation on

SNSs targeted to people with disabilities. The analysis of these cultural differences would

certainly expand the scope of the literature, since no previous research has addressed them.

Due to time restrictions, this study focused only on the use of disability-specific SNSs by blind

and visually impaired individuals. Further research might also include users with other types of

disabilities such as hearing impairments, physical disabilities, mental disorders and intellectual

disabilities. These analyses, along with the present study, will contribute to provide an overview

of how people with disabilities in general use disability-specific SNSs, while addressing the

different motivations leading people to join those sites, depending on the type of disability they

have.

82

REFERENCES

Anderberg, P., & Jönsson, B. (2005). Being there. Disability & Society, 20(7), 719-733.

Anundis.com: Discapacidad: Red social (n.d.). Sobre Anundis.com. Retrieved April 12, 2013,

from http://www.anundis.com/

Asakawa, C. (2005, May). What‘s the Web like if you can‘t see it? International Cross

Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A), (May 23-26, 2005). Edinburgh, UK,

(pp. 1-8).

Aysenbach, G., Powell, J., Englesakis, M., Rizo, C., & Stern, A. (2004). Health related virtual

communities and electronic support groups: Systematic review of the effects of online

peer to peer interactions. British Medical Journal, 328, 1166-1170.

Bedinghaus, T. (2007). What does it mean to be color blind? Retrieved February 2, 2013, from

http://vision.about.com/od/sportsvision/p/Color_blindness.htm

BlindWorlds (n.d.). Qué es BlindWorlds. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from

http://www.blindworlds.com/contenido/que-es-blindworlds

boyd, d., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010, January). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects

of retweeting on Twitter. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on

System Sciences – 2010, pp. 1-10.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

83

Brady, E., Shong, Y., Morris, M. R., & Bigham, J. P. (2013). Investigating the appropriateness of

social network question asking as a resource for blind users. In Proceedings of CSCW

’13, February 23–27, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA, (pp. 1225-1236).

Brandtzæg, P. B., Lüders, M., & Skjetne, J. H. (2010). Too many Facebook ―friends‖? Content

Sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites. International

Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 1006-1030.

Brandtzæg, P. B., & Heim, J. (2009, July). Why people use social networking sites. In A. Ozok

and P. Zaphiris (Eds.), Proceedings of the HCI International, San Diego, (pp. 143-152).

Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Brewer, J. (2004, May 18). Web accessibility highlights and trends. In Proceedings of the 2004

International Cross Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility. Paper presented at

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series - AICPS W4A, (76), New York, N.Y.

(pp. 51-55). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. ACM 1581139039/04/0005.

Buzzi, M.C., Buzzi, M., & Leporini, B. (2011). Web 2.0: Twitter and the blind. In P. Marti, A.

Soro, L. Gamberini, and S. Bagnara (Eds.), Italian Chapter International Conference on

Computer-Human Interaction: Facing Complexity. Paper presented at CHItaly 2011

Facing Complexity, Alghero, Italy, September 13-16, 2011. New York, NY, USA: ACM

Press.

Buzzi, M. C., Buzzi, M., Leporini, B., & Akhter, F. (2010, June). Is Facebook really ―open‖ to

all? In Technology and Society (ISTAS). Paper presented at ISTAS 2010 - IEEE

International Symposium on Technology and Society, Wollongong, New South Wales,

Australia, June 7-9, 2010 (pp. 327 – 336). Australia: IEEE.

84

Carter, J., & Merkel, M. (2001, December). Web accessibility for people with disabilities: An

introduction for Web developers. In IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,

44(4). IEEE Professional Communication Society. IEEE PII S 0361-1434(31)10135-9.

(pp. 225-233).

Constantinides, E., & Fountain, S. J. (2008). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing

issues. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9, 231-244.

Correa, T., Willard, A., Hinsley, H., & Gil de Zuniga, G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The

intersections of users‘ personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior,

26, 247-253.

Craven, J. (2008, August). Web accessibility: What we have achieved and challenges ahead.

World Library and Information Congress: 74TH IFLA General Conference and Council,

August 2008, Québec, Canada, (pp. 10-14).

Disabilinet Chat Friends Campaigns and Disability Forums. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved April 25,

2013, from http://www.disabilinet.com/page/aboutus

Dougherty, D. (2001). LAMP: The open source Web platform. O'Reilly Media. Retrieved May

30, 2013, from http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2001/01/25/lamp.html

Dwyer, C., Passerini, K., & Hiltz, S. R. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social

networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of the

Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, 123(4), Keystone, Colorado,

August 9-12, 2007 (pp. 339-350).

85

Easy Chirp: Web accessibility for the Twitter.com website application. (n.d). Retrieved February

23, 2013, from http://www.easychirp.com/

Ellis, K., & Kent, M. (2011). Disability and New Media. New York: Routledge.

Ellis, K. & Kent, M. (2010). Tweeters take responsibility for an accessible web 2.0. Fast

Capitalism. Retrieved from

http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/7_1/elliskent7_1.html

Fuglerud, K. S., Gunnarson, B. R., Tjostheim, I., & Tollefsen, M. (2012). Use of social media by

people with visual impairments: Usage levels, attitudes and barriers. In K. Miesenberger

et al. (Eds.): ICCHP 2012, Part I, LNCS 7382, pp. 565–572.

Fulton, C. (2011). Web accessibility, libraries, and the law. Information technology and

libraries, March, (2011), 30(1), 34-43.

Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook Me: Collective self-esteem, need to belong, and Internet

self-efficacy as predictors of the I Generation‘s attitudes toward social networking sites.

Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.jiad.org/article100

Guo, B., Bricout, J. C., & Huang, J. (2005). A common open space or a digital divide? A social

model perspective on the online disability community in China. Disability and Society,

20(1), 49-66.

Hackett, S., Parmanto, B., & Zeng, X. (2004). Accessibility of Internet websites through time. In

Proceedings of the 6th international ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and

Accessibility, 32–39.

86

Harper, S., & Yesilada, Y. (2008). Web accessibility and guidelines. In S. Harper and Y.

Yesilada (Eds.), Web Accessibility: A Foundation for Research (pp. 61-78). Springer.

Hay-Gibson, N. V. (2009). Interviews via VoIP: Benefits and disadvantages within a PHD study

of MSEs. Library and Information Research, 33 (205), 39-49.

Hollier, S. (2012). Social media accessibility review – version 2.0. Media Access Australia.

Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://www.mediaaccess.org.au/online-media/social-

media

Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration

via Twitter. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System

Sciences – 2009 IEEE. 978-0-7695-3450-3/09, pp. 1-10.

Huang, J., & Guo, B. (2005). Building social capital: A study of the online disability community.

Disability Studies Quarterly, 25(2). Retrieved February 23, 2013, from http://dsq-

sds.org/article/view/554/731

Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under

the microscope. First Monday, 14 (1 – 5). Retrieved from

http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2317/2063

ILiveWithADisability (n.d.). What is ILWAD? Retrieved April 15, 2013, from

http://ilivewithadisability.com/about-ilwad/

Jaeger, P. T., & Xie, B. (2009). Developing online community accessibility guidelines for

persons with disabilities and older adults. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(1), 55-

63.

87

Java, A., Finin, T., Song, X., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we Twitter: Understanding

microblogging usage and communities. Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop

’07, August 12, 2007, San Jose, California, (pp. 56-65). ACM.

Jeng, A., Tseng, C. C., Tseng, D. F., & Wang, J. C. (2010). A study of CAPTCHA and its

application to user authentication. Proceedings of ICCCI2, Computational Collective

Intelligence. Technologies and Applications, volume 6422 of Lecture Notes in Computer

Science, Springer, 2010 (pp. 433-440).

Jerber, E. (2003). The benefits of and barriers to computer use for individuals who are visually

impaired. Journal of Blindness and Visual Impairment, 97(9), 536-550.

Joinson, A. M. (2008). ‗Looking at‘, ‗looking up‘ or ‗keeping up with‘ people? Motives and uses

of Facebook. Proceedings of CHI (2008), 1027-1036.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68.

Katsanos, C., Tselios, N., Tsakoumis, A., & Avouris, N. (2012). Learning about Web

accessibility: A project based tool-mediated approach. Education and Information

Technologies, 17(1), 79-94.

Kazmer, M. M., & Xie, B. (2008). Qualitative interviewing in Internet studies: Playing with the

media, playing with the method. Information, Communication and Society, 11(2), 257-

278.

88

Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J., Petrie, H., Lauke, P., & Ball, S., (2007, May).

Accessibility 2.0: People, policies and processes. Technical Paper (W4A2007). 16th

International World Wide Web Conference, Banff, Canada, 138-147.

Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social

network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers

in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365–372.

Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon. S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news

media? Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, WWW

2010, April 26-30, 2010, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, (pp. 591-600). ACM.

Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs.

social browsing. In Proceedings of ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Supported

Cooperative Work, ACM Press, 167-170.

Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., & Greenidge, K. D. (2004). Improving Web accessibility: A

study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 269-288.

Lazar, J., Allen, A., Kleinman, J., & Malarkey, C. (2007). What frustrates screen reader users on

the Web: A study of 100 blind users. International Journal of Human-Computer

Interaction, 22(3), 247-269.

Leech, B. L. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. Political

Science and Politics, 35(4), 665-668.

89

Leporini, B., & Paternò, F. (2008). Applying Web usability criteria for vision-impaired users:

Does it really improve task performance? International Journal of Human-Computer

Interaction, 24(1), 17-47.

Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study

integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior,

27(3), 1152-1161.

Marco‘s accessibility blog (2012). If you use the WAI-ARIA role ―application‖, please do so

wisely. Retrieved May 7, 2013, from http://www.marcozehe.de/2012/02/06/if-you-use-

the-wai-aria-role-application-please-do-so-wisely/

Meiselwitz, G., & Lazar, J. (2009). Accessibility of registration mechanisms in social

networking sites. In A. A. Ozok and P. Zaphiris (Eds.): Online Communities and Social

Computing, LNCS 5621, 82–90.

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2011). Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

fact sheet. Retrieved April 12, 2013, from

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/charcot_marie_tooth/detail_charcot_marie_tooth.htm

Obst, P., & Stafurik, J. (2010). Online we are all able bodied: Online psychological sense of

community and social support found through membership of disability-specific websites

promotes well-being for people living with a physical disability. Journal of Community

and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 525-531.

Pascolini, D., & Mariotti, S. P. (2012). Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. British

Journal of Ophthalmology, 96, 614–618.

90

Pettit, N. (2012). Beginner‘s guide to responsive Web design. Treehouse Blog. Retrieved May

30, 2013, from http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/beginners-guide-to-responsive-web-design

Pribeanu, C., Marinescu, R. D., Fogarassy-Neszly, P., & Gheorghe-Moisii, M. (2012). Web

accessibility in Romania: The conformance of municipal Web sites to Web content

accessibility guidelines. Informatica, 16, 28-37.

Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and

gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior,

11(2), 169-174.

Reid, L. G. , & Snow-Weaver, A. . (2008). WCAG 2.0: a web accessibility standard for the

evolving web. W4A 08 Proceedings of the 2008 international crossdisciplinary

conference on Web accessibility W4A (pp. 109-115). ACM.

Resnikoff, S., Pascolini, D., Etya‘ale, D., Kocur, I., Pararajasegaram, R., Pokharel, G. P., &

Mariotti, S. P. (2004). Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bulletin of the

World Health Organization, 82(11), 844-851.

Romen, D., & Svanæs, D. (2011). Validating WCAG versions 1.0 and 2.0 through usability

testing with disabled people. In Universal Access in the Information Society, 1(11),

Springer. Paper presented at Unitech2010, The International Conference on Universal

Technologies, Oslo University College, Oslo, Norway, May 19-20, 2010 (pp. 168-189).

Schwerdtfeger, R. (2011). HTML5 accessibility coming soon – are you ready? IBM. Retrieved

March 2, 2013, from http://www-03.ibm.com/able/news/html5.html

Slatin, J., & Rush, S. (2003). Maximum accessibility. New York: Addison-Wesley.

91

Takagi, H., Asakawa, C., Fukuda, K., & Maeda, J. (2004, October 18-20). Accessibility

designer: Visualizing usability for the blind. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: ASSETS'04, 177-

184.

Terril, T. (2009). Musings on ARIA role=―application.‖ Retrieved May 10, 2013, from

http://terrillthompson.com/blog/20

Tollefsen, M., Dale, Ø., Berg, M., & Nordby, R. (2011). Connected! A paper about the disabled

and the use of social media. MediaLT, Media Lunde Tollefsen AS, April 01, 2011. (pp. 1-

51). Retrieved from

http://medialt.no/pub/info_pdf/status_social_media_2010_english.pdf

Tollefsen, M., Kalvenes, C., & Begnum, M. N. (2010). Demands for screen reader user

qualifications. MediaLT. Retrieved March 11, 2013, from

http://www.medialt.no/demands-for-screen-reader-user-qualifications/827.aspx

Thoreau, E. (2006). Ouch! An examination of the self-representation of disabled people on the

Internet. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 11, 442-468.

United Nations (n.d.). Fact sheet on persons with disabilities. Retrieved May 14, 2013, from

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=18

Viswanath, B., Mislove, A., Cha, M., & Gummadi, K. (2009). On the evolution of user

interaction in Facebook. WOSN’09: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on Online

social networks. August 17, 2009, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 37-42). New York: ACM.

WAI-ARIA overview. (n.d). Retrieved March 2,2013, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria

92

Wentz, B. (2011). Are separate interfaces inherently unequal? An evaluation with blind users of

the usability of two interfaces for a social networking platform. iConference '11:

Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, 2011, February 8-11, 2011, Seattle, Washington,

USA (pp. 91-97).

Wentz, B., & Lazar, J. (2011). Usability evaluation of email applications by blind users. Journal

of Usability Studies, 6(2), 75-89.

Williamson, K., Wright, S., Schauder, D., & Bow, A. (2001). The Internet for the blind and

visually impaired. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 7(1). Retrieved

February 23, 2013, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/williamson.html

WPMUDev (n.d.). What is BuddyPress? Retrieved May 13, 2013, from

http://premium.wpmudev.org/manuals/the-buddypress-manual-2/what-is-buddypress/

93

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SNSs’ CREATORS

1. Which were your main motivations for creating this social network site?

2. Were people with disabilities involved in the creation of the site?

3. Was the site initially targeted to individuals with a specific disability? Which one?

4. Which accessibility guidelines were used when creating the site?

5. Which challenges did you find when creating the site?

6. How is your site different from popular social network sites such as Facebook and

Twitter?

7. What have you and your work team done in order to attract users from other countries?

8. Has the site‘s number of users fulfilled your expectations?

9. I have realized that blind and visually impaired people do not participate on your site as

much as people with physical disabilities. How could you explain that?

10. Do you think your site contributes to empower people with disabilities, particularly blind

and visually impaired individuals? If so, how?

11. Do people without disabilities participate in your SNS as well?

12. Do you visualize your site as a strong competitor of SNSs such as Twitter and Facebook?

13. How convenient is it for your site to share content on Facebook and Twitter?

14. Do you or your team readily respond to users‘ feedback?

15. Will new features be added soon, and if so, which ones?

94

APPENDIX B: LIST OF DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Which motivations led you to use this site?

2. Does this site facilitate the discussion of disability-related issues or sensitive topics, and

if so, how?

3. How similar or different is this site from popular SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter?