Improving User Experiences to Help Students Know Their Equal Rights and Opportunities
Linn, H.A., Englund
Uppsala University, Sweden, linn.englund.1927@student.uu.se
Uppsala University (UU) recognize the importance of students knowing their rights and equal opportunities and their rights being enforced. Earlier research has shown that discrimination and harassment are problems at many universities, impacting students’
welfare and academic results. This study aimed to investigate students’ knowledge about their rights and equal opportunities and if they could find information about it on UU’s website. The study also looked into how the user experience can be improved on the UU’s website and serve as an inspiration for possible changes to be made on other university websites. Interviews and think aloud tasks were conducted with eleven students. It was found that students’ knowledge of their rights and equal opportunities is lacking. For instance, most students were unaware of where victims of harassment could turn to. Finding relevant information and whom to contact on the university’s website was challenging. An expert review was also conducted showing some issues needing improvement. Suggestions for improvement were made, focusing mainly on the visibility of information and on highlighting relevant contact persons.
CCS CONCEPTS • Human-Centered Computing ® Interaction design ® Interaction design process and methods ® User interface design • Human-Centered Computing ® Human Computer Interaction (HCI) ® HCI design and evaluation methods ® User studies • Information systems ® World Wide Web ® Web interfaces
Keywords: user experience, human-computer interaction, design, think aloud, students, equal opportunities This work was submitted in partial fulfilment for a master’s degree in Human – Computer Interaction at Uppsala University, Sweden, on June 9, 2021. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author must be honoured.
© 2021 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s).
1 INTRODUCTION
Uppsala University (UU) have two coordinators for Students’ Equal Opportunities who work with making sure that students are aware of their rights and opportunities and that all students are treated equally no matter their legal sex, gender identity or gender expression, sexual orientation, religion or other belief, ethnicity, age, disability or social background. Suppose a student experiences harassment of any kind. In that case the student should know about their rights and whom to contact about the harassment to proceed with the matter. The coordinators educate and inform students and employees by hosting workshops and seminars, and they provide relevant information on their webpage as a part of UU’s website.
Harassment and discrimination has been shown to be a problem at Uppsala University [10,26]. Several studies have also shown the occurrence of sexual harassment at other universities, and in other countries, for instance in Norway [32], Italy [4], USA [7] and Nigeria [19]. Furthermore, being sexually harassed has been shown to result in mental health problems [4,6,14].
As it has been shown that students are most commonly discriminated against and harassed by other students [3], efforts for improvements should be made focusing on students. Students spend much time browsing the web for different purposes [17]. In addition, the web continues to grow in importance when it comes to finding
information [22]. Thus, in improving the design and visibility of universities’ webpages, more students will find and understand the available information.
For this thesis, an expert review using Nielsen’s ten usability heuristics [27] was conducted on the website to find the student pages for equal opportunities. Furthermore, eleven students at UU were interviewed about what they know of UU’s work for students’ equal opportunities and if they know where to turn if having been victims of discrimination or harassment. They were also asked to solve a task, looking for relevant information on UU’s website on equal opportunities, while thinking aloud. The research was also done to identify possibilities and regulations for redesigning the website.
Suggestions were made to change the website’s design to help students find and understand information about their equal rights and opportunities. These suggestions are motivated by support from data from the interviews and design theories.
This research aims to help UU’s coordinators by exploring if students at UU know about their rights and opportunities and how they experience the availability of this information on UU’s website, where on the website they look for it, and if students know whom to contact if they have experienced harassment. This research will be used to suggest redesigns of the website with further support from relevant theories. These suggestions will also serve as an example of how other universities can improve the availability and understanding of similar information on their websites.
Therefore, the questions motivating this research are:
- How is students’ user experience of Uppsala University’s website concerning the availability of the information about their equal rights and opportunities?
- How is students’ user experience of Uppsala University’s website on how to proceed if having been victims of harassment?
- Using Uppsala University as an example, how can this information be redesigned to increase availability and understanding on universities’ websites in general?
2 BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
Some terms used are explained and defined below. Related work will also be summarized to highlight the relevance of this study and the questions being asked.
2.1 User Experience (UX)
The term User Experience (UX) is widely used within the field of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) [20,21]. While sometimes used synonymously with concepts like usability, interaction design, interaction experience and customer experience, it is also sometimes used to combine these concepts and more into one [31]. In recent years, researchers have experienced a general shift within HCI from focusing primarily on usability research to focusing more on UX research [28]. UX can be seen as a phenomenon, a field of study, or practice [31]. UX focuses on humans rather than technology, it is the experiences an individual has when using a system. UX can also be different because it is influenced by things such as previous experiences and culture. One example of a user experience is visiting a website, which is what this paper will be focusing on. When designing for a user experience, it is essential to include the user throughout the design process. Law et al. [21] describe UX as being subjective, something that exists with the individual rather than it being something social. It emerges in interaction with an object, product, system, or service.
2.2 Coordinators for Equal Opportunities at Uppsala University
Uppsala University in Sweden is a large organization with many employees and students. Some of their employees are working specifically with equal rights and opportunities. Their goal is to make sure that no one working or studying at UU is discriminated against, but also to help students who have experienced discrimination or harassment of any kind. UU’s definition of equal opportunities is that everyone working or studying at, or contacting the university should have equal rights and opportunities, regardless of their legal gender, gender identity or gender expression, sexual orientation, religion or other belief, ethnicity, age or disability or social background. Which are the seven grounds of discrimination covered by Swedish law, in the Discrimination Act (2007/08:95) [18]. Two people are working at UU as coordinators for students’ equal opportunities at the Student Affairs and Academic Registry Division. Their job is to educate and inform students and employees at UU about student rights and promote equal rights and opportunities and combat discrimination. They cooperate with student nations and student organizations and organize relevant seminars and workshops. They are also responsible for the webpage ‘Working Conditions and Equal Opportunities’ (which will be abbreviated to WCEO in this paper) at UU’s website.
2.3 Earlier work at Uppsala University
In a survey from 2018 [10] where 28 % of students, a total of 9083 people, at UU participated, 8 % of students expressed that they had experienced discrimination at some point concerning their studies while 4 % had experienced harassment. The most common grounds for discrimination and harassment were gender, followed by ethnicity and age. Finally, 2 % of students participating in the survey said they had been victims of sexual harassment (SH).
Another survey was done in 2017 by the Uppsala Student Union of Engineering and Science [26] to study discrimination and harassment at the faculty. 33 % of students, 1595 people, answered the survey.
60 % of participants in the study answered that they did not know that UU had a program for equal opportunities, 58 % said they did not know that UU had an action plan for equal opportunities and 71 % said they did not know that UU had a council for equal opportunities [26]. 30 % of students in the same study said that UU are not clear about their work for equal opportunities and discrimination. However, 86 % of the participants expressed that they felt it was important that UU works with questions concerning equal opportunities and discrimination.
The study showed that 64 % of the students participating did not know where to turn to for help and support concerning equal opportunities and discrimination. 17 % of participants expressed that they have felt discriminated against or harassed at some point during their studies. 21 % of participants answered that they have seen someone else being discriminated against or harassed.
2.4 Sexual Harassment and Victimization
A study was conducted during three years at Lund University, Sweden, to better understand the existence of SH at the university [3]. They found that 25 % of female students and 7 % of male students expressed that they had experienced SH at some point during their studies at the university. Out of these, more than 80 % said they had been harassed by another student. Only 8 % of female students and 6 % of male students said they had been harassed by an employee or doctoral student. In addition, 26 % of female students and 20 % of male students say that they have witnessed SH at the university.
2.1 % of female students and 0.7 % of male students said they had been victims of rape or attempted rape.
The study also found that out of these students who have been subjected to SH, it was apparent that less than half have told anyone about their experience, and only 12 % of female students and 8 % of male students have informed someone at the university or student life who is in a responsible position. In interviews with students the
study found that victims of harassment need someone who can support them and help them confirm that what they have experienced counts as SH. Students without such support have often decided not to proceed with the matter.
The results in this study are not unique, similar results have been found in a study done with 50 054 full-time students in Norway, which found that 21.6 % of female students and 5.7 % of male students had experienced SH within the last year [32]. A study with American universities found that 47.7 % of students had experienced SH since starting their higher education [7]. They found that the number of students who have experienced SH are highest among undergraduate women, and among people who identify as transgender, genderqueer and non- conforming. Furthermore, the same study found that only 28 % or fewer incidents are reported to someone in a responsible position. Other research finding harassment at universities has also been made [4,12,14,19].
Sexual harassment has been shown to increase the risk of the victim suffering from mental health problems [4,6].
These mental health issues correlate with poor academic results, higher risk of physical illness, and disordered eating [14].
2.5 Information on the web
Students use the internet for varying reasons on a daily basis in relation to their studies, socially or leisurely [17].
Furthermore, the web only seems to increase in importance when it comes to finding information [22]. The above mentioned study on sexual harassment at Lund University found that both employees and students find it important that there is available information about sexual harassment [3]. They also expressed a wish for better visibility of a discussion on these issues online, and also to be able to proceed with an incident online. The web also allows for anonymity, which some students desire. Since the issues at Lund University are similar to issues at UU and other universities, as described in the sections above, it is likely that students and employees at other universities share the same wishes.
2.6 Gestalt Theory
It is challenging to design an interface rich with information, such as a university website, that is also easy to search [33]. When visiting a new website, judgments will be made about the website in the first few seconds [24]. It is when decisions are made on whether to continue browsing the site or not. Möller et al. [24] found that websites following Gestalt Principles positively affected the first impression of users visiting a site. Gestalt theory builds on the premise that objects are affected by other objects surrounding them [8]. The context and the relationship between objects are what give us the whole picture. Gestalt Principles are closure, figure and ground, proximity, area, similarity, continuity and symmetry. The principle of proximity is so vital that it has even been shown to affect infants [29]. Furthermore, in grouping certain information elements, search efficiency on a website is improved [25].
2.7 Visual Hierarchy
Basing design upon the human visual system is one of the keys to a usable user interface [30]. Visual hierarchy helps show the user what information on a website is the most important, so that they know where to first direct their attention [34]. We have limited working memory and can therefore not process all the information on a website at once. To help the user search for information, a website needs to be designed with clearly marked essential elements, encouraging users to start their search there. Elements should follow a visual hierarchy, where the most critical information has the most dominant focal points, and the next has a slightly less dominant focal point, and so on. These focal points are often created through size or color contrast. Visual hierarchy is used to aid the eye in recognizing information in a designed order, which can help guide users to a specific goal [11]. Web designers should also strive to make the other elements opposite to the dominant focal points, they should almost fade into the background [33].
3 METHODOLOGY
This research has a primarily qualitative and partly quantitative approach to answering the research questions. It follows an inductive approach by understanding students’ experiences and opinions to provide a theory on how to improve the availability of information.
3.1 Expert review
An expert review of the webpage for Equal Opportunities was conducted, along with the steps a user has to take to land on that page, starting from the UU homepage. Expert reviews are an efficient way to evaluate usability [23].
When doing an expert review, it is often recommended to be at least two experts [2,16,23] because people tend to miss things. Furthermore, expert reviews should be conducted by experts, experts in design, and in some cases experts in the area since the review is fully dependent upon the experiences and skills of the evaluator [23].
Nielsen’s ten usability heuristics [27] were used to guide the review. The heuristics are:
- Visibility of System Status (H1)
- Match Between System and Real World (H2) - User Control and Freedom (H3)
- Consistency and Standards (H4) - Error Prevention (H5)
- Recognition Rather Than Recall (H6) - Flexibility and Efficiency of Use (H7) - Aesthetic and Minimalist Design (H8)
- Helping Users Recognize, Diagnose and Recover From Errors (H9) - Help and Documentation (H10)
It was determined that the target users for the site are UU students and their goal on the site is to find and understand information about their equal opportunities, their rights regarding their studies, or where they can turn to if having been victims of harassment.
3.2 Interviews with students
11 interviews including a task with think aloud were held with students at UU. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, they were held online over Zoom. All interviews were held in the participants’ native language Swedish, but the results have been translated to English for this paper. To understand students’ knowledge about their rights and opportunities, several questions were formulated about the work that UU does (see appendix A.1 for complete interview guide). Two questions were asked before the task and four questions were asked after. The task for the interviews was formulated based on the research questions and a think aloud method was used during tasks to understand the users’ decisions and thoughts on how they searched for information. The task given was ‘Imagine that you have been victims of discrimination in some way by a teacher or a classmate. Where on Uppsala University’s website would you look for information about your rights relating to that incident?’ Students were then told that they had completed the task when they felt satisfied with the information they had found and knew how to proceed in the matter.
The think aloud method [9] was applied by asking the participants to share all their thoughts aloud, as if talking with themselves. The think aloud method is often used to understand how users perform specific tasks, and understand interaction with computer systems [15]. It provides rich verbal data of how the user approaches a problem and one can attempt to understand the user’s reasoning process [13]. Before starting the main interviews, a pilot interview was conducted resulting in minor changes in how questions were formulated and affirmed that the questions and tasks were sufficient.
A sampling of participants was done through snowball sampling, where the initial participants were friends and acquaintances. Students were studying a variety of subjects and were part of different faculties. Furthermore, the students had been studying at UU for different lengths of time, which would suggest different levels of experience with the UU website.
To prepare participants for their think aloud tasks and ensure that they understood what was required of them, they were given a warm-up task, as described by Eccles and Arsal [9]. The task was to say which letter of the alphabet is four letters before the letter ‘M’. Users were asked to share their screens so that their clicks and scrolls would be visible while thinking aloud. If participants became silent during tasks, they were reminded to think aloud.
Both the participant’s screen and the conversation during questions and task was recorded after having asked for consent and having informed participants of their rights to withdraw from the interview. The recordings were then used to gather the quantitative data. They were also encouraged to ask questions if any occurred during the interview or after.
Qualitative data from the think aloud task was analyzed using thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke [5] where an initial idea on themes was defined before the analysis and then refined during analysis. Themes from participants’ shared thoughts were defined under three categories: Approach to the given problem, Comments about the content and Impressions when solving the task.
To limit frustration in participants and to maintain time, the participants would be slightly nudged if looking in the wrong direction for long. For instance, if they spent time in the staff portal or looking at information concerning a specific faculty for a long while without noticing it.
The other interview questions were of a yes/no type, to which the answers were summarized, creating an overview of how aware students were of their rights.
3.3 Design suggestions
To determine possibilities and requirements for redesign, a literature review of UU’s recommendations and regulations along with W3C’s guidelines [35,36] for how pages should be constructed was done. In addition, an interview was held with the webmaster who is responsible for parts of UU’s website, including www.uu.se/student.
Based on the literature review, expert review, interviews, and the knowledge the author has gathered as a student in HCI, suggestions for redesigns of the website were made.
3.4 Ethical considerations
Some ethical considerations need to be mentioned concerning the think aloud interviews. Firstly, asking people to share their screens can be problematic because of privacy reasons. Participants may accidentally share information on their screen but did not consider, or information may unexpectedly pop up. To try and prevent this, participants were informed before the scheduled interview that they would be expected to share their screen.
Another consideration is that questions are asked about what students know about where they would turn to if having experienced harassment or discrimination of any kind. Furthermore, they are asked to imagine that they have experienced harassment or discrimination of some kind, to see where they would search for information about it. These questions could be uncomfortable to someone who has experienced something similar and carries trauma from it. This was considered by informing the participants that they could stop the interview at any point, and that they should say if they had any questions or felt uncomfortable somehow.
4 RESULTS
This section presents the results from the expert review, qualitative and quantitative data from the interviews with the think aloud task, possibilities for redesign, and finally suggestions for redesign.
4.1 Expert Review
The website passed the review with quite few remarks. According to Nielsen’s ten Usability Heuristics [27], Visibility of System Status (H1) was clear, the site having markings under the selected page and having breadcrumbs to help users navigate the site. No technical terms or unfamiliar symbols were used on the site without an explanation, and Match Between System and Real World (H2) was followed. Moreover, it was easy to navigate backward on the site thanks to breadcrumbs. Also, the user can always return to the homepage by pressing UU’s logo. Therefore, it was deemed that User Control and Freedom (H3) was followed on the site. The site also has a responsive design which is following Consistency and Standards (H4). However, a remark was made on the site for equal opportunities where there is a bar with links that will be grouped under the headline ‘Student’ when the browser window is made smaller. This headline is not consistent since there is another headline on the site labeled
‘Student’ that led to the page for the department of equal rights. This issue could be fixed by relabeling the second headline to something else.
Error Prevention (H5) was considered by having markings that will show users potential spelling mistakes in the web page’s search bar. Also, by making it easy for the user to go backward if having made an error in navigating on the site. In addition, no symbols or icons were used without having a description, which is following Recognition Rather than Recall (H6).
When it comes to Flexibility and Efficiency of Use (H7), remarks were made regarding landing on the page for equal opportunities. From the homepage of UU, to the WCEO page the fastest way is for the user to navigate with three clicks. This could be fixed by offering a shortcut somewhere on the home page that more experienced users could potentially prefer to use. Furthermore, the site presents much information for users, both the page for equal opportunities and the pages the user visits before landing on the equal opportunities page. Much of the information also contains links that are marked in blue color. This means that the user has to scan much information before finding the information that they are looking for. There are many focal points for users. This could be improved with a redesign that lets users focus on one thing at a time, and only view the most relevant information following Aesthetic and Minimalist Design (H8).
Finally, it was deemed that there could be even more Help and Documentation (H10) with for example a quick onboarding tutorial, or a more efficient search engine. However, there are many examples of contact information being given, so the user can contact a person and be guided further.
4.2 Interviews with Think Aloud
This section presents data from the interviews and think aloud task. First, the questions asked to understand students’ knowledge about the area. Second, the thoughts shared during the task, and finally data about the actions of the participants during the study.
4.2.1 Interview questions
The interview questions were of a yes/no nature and showed that a clear majority of students did not know where to turn to if having been victims of harassment or discrimination (See Appendix A.2 for complete data from the interview questions). In addition, most participants did not know that UU has employees working for students’
equal rights. The following questions were more specific and showed that students were unaware of some of UU’s work. They were, however, mostly aware of UU being required by law to investigate and take action against harassment and sexual harassment, and their right to be involved in the work for equal opportunities at UU.
4.2.2 Theme 1: Approach to the given problem
While attempting their task, participants would explain their approach through the think aloud method. Where they would first attempt to look for information seems to be based on what information, if any, they have received
in the context of their education. Many expressed that they did not know where to turn to without searching for information, others expressed a vague idea of whom they might contact to be referred to the right person. While searching for the right information participants would express more ideas on who they might contact. These would often be people that they found in their search on UU’s website that seemed to be somewhat relevant for students’
rights, although perhaps not exactly the most relevant person. Several participants expressed that they would prefer to contact those people even if they were not exactly right, to avoid the need to continue looking for the right person to contact, and instead contact someone who is likely to know where they should turn to. To summarize, it seemed that participants were confused about who is the right person to contact, therefore they would turn to a person that felt close enough to the right person.
One thing that was mentioned by most of the participants was that they had a preference for using Google when searching for information on UU’s website. While feeling a bit lost one student said ‘Hmm, I think I will try and Google again and maybe I will get closer’. One person also mentioned not being comfortable with the UU website and therefore preferred Google.
Overall, when participants conveyed thoughts about whom they would like to contact, a common feeling was that they preferred to contact someone they felt comfortable with. Furthermore, they preferred to contact someone in a position close to them, not someone with fancy titles to their name and position. One person said ‘I would probably contact someone at my faculty or department. But if I’m being honest then I probably wouldn’t do that to 100 % since they are sitting in high positions, or rather… I probably wouldn’t reach out that way.’
4.2.3 Theme 2: Comments about the content
Many thoughts that were voiced during the think aloud task concerned the content of the UU website. Several participants expressed discontent with the UU site saying that it was messy. One participant said they did not feel comfortable using the UU site because they would need to look in many places before finding what they were looking for. One participant got frustrated and said, ‘How do I keep ending up on all these pages?!’ after having landed on several different pages where the content was directed to a specific faculty at UU without realizing that that was the type of page they were visiting. Several participants expressed this issue at least once, and it would take a while for them to notice.
Other comments concerned expectations about what participants expected the content to be under specific headlines or links on the website. For example, one student said they would not expect to have found information about being harassed under the headline ‘Working Conditions’ which is in part the title of the page WCEO. Two students expressed that they had expected information about harassment to be under the tab that in Swedish means education, but in the English site it is presented as ‘Admissions’. One said that it was because it does not appear to go under the other tabs on UU’s main page: ‘Research’, ‘Collaboration’ or ‘The University’, the other said they expected it to be there because it is a priority for students to feel well, and therefore they would expect the information to be close to the home page.
4.2.4 Theme 3: Impressions when solving the task
The third theme expressed the participants’ impressions when solving the given task. Several of the participants participating in this study expressed feelings of frustration when solving the task saying things like ‘By this point in time I would be quite frustrated.’, ‘One would feel quite frustrated if trying to find someone to talk to since one could feel completely damn broken in such a situation.’ and ‘I think that by now I would have broken down and I would have told my boyfriend to come and help me do this.’.
Students also expressed uncertainty about whom to contact, even after having found the WCEO page. More than one student mentioned that it feels important to contact another person, even if it is someone who will redirect them to the right person. On this subject, one student also said they felt that were they to write to the official mail
of the coordinators for equal opportunities, it felt as though they would receive an automated response. Another student said they felt like contacting the coordinators would make it into a longer and larger process than they wanted.
Finally, there were several thoughts on the qualities of the person they would contact. Several participants mentioned that they would not feel comfortable contacting a person highly positioned at UU, that they would prefer to contact someone who felt less formal, or maybe a student representative who feels more on their level. One person said ‘Here are some people I could contact! But… hmm. It sounds so professional. They use such fancy words.’.
4.2.5 Quantitative data from think aloud task
The number of completed terms at UU among participants varied from 1 to 11, with the mean being 5.7 terms. On average, the task given to participants took six minutes and two seconds to complete. Time started when the task had been read in full to them and ended when they had reached the WCEO page and had found the information they were looking for. The number of times a participant used the back-button, could suggest how often they entered a page expecting to find specific information and not finding it. The average being 3 times.
Participants used Google searches more than UU searches. Four out of eleven students found the WCEO page without help, while seven were nudged in the right direction, or were guided to the WCEO page if they were satisfied with information they had found on another page. In total, three students found information on other pages that they deemed to satisfy their needs for solving the given task. These other pages were a PDF titled ‘On the prohibition of and measures against discrimination’ which two students found, and the Department of Economics’ page ‘Discrimination and equal treatment’. Finally, three students had relevant information on their screens without noticing. One student scrolling past a link to the WCEO page, one student missing the ‘Check whom I can turn to’-button and one student scrolling past ‘The Equal Opportunities Office’ in the PDF ‘On the prohibition of and measures against discrimination’.
Three participants did not use Google search or UU’s search engine to land on a specific page on UU. Two of these first visited the page ‘Admissions’ (in Swedish ‘Utbildning’ which would translate to ‘Education’) and one scrolled down to the bottom of the start page and visited the shortcut ‘Mål & Regler’ which would translate to ‘Goals and Rules’ however, this link does not exist on the international version of UU.
Table 2: Data from think aloud task Participant
# Completed terms at
UU
Completion
time Used
back- button
Searches UU
Searches Found the page without help
Found information
on another page
Missed Information
1 5 6 min, 33s 4 4 1 No No Yes
2 7 4 min, 44s 1 2 0 Yes No No
3 1 2 min, 57s 0 0 1 Yes No No
4 11 5 min, 21s 3 1 1 No Yes No
5 5 5 min, 59s 0 3 1 Yes No No
6 4 6 min, 43s 8 2 3 No No No
7 5 8 min, 25s 11 1 2 No Yes. Yes.
8 2 8 min, 18s 1 2 0 No Yes Yes
9 8 8 min, 24s 3 2 2 No No No
10 4 5 min, 15s 3 1 0 No No No
11 11 3 min, 34s 0 0 0 Yes No No
4.3 Possibilities for redesign
UU has a template for website construction. This includes examples of components that can be applied to a page.
These have a set width, font, color, etc., and are applied by simply changing the example text and the potential example image. It is also specified what these different components are suitable for and where they can be placed on a page.
There are guidelines in place developed by W3C [35,36] to make websites more accessible. Following those guidelines will make websites accessible to visually impaired, hearing impaired, people who have learning disabilities, cognitive limitations, limited movement, speech disabilities or photosensitivity. Following the guidelines will also increase the usability of the website overall. It has been suggested that an accessible website will be seen by users as good, beautiful and appealing, while a less accessible website will be seen as bad, ugly and unappealing [1].
Moreover, an interview was held with the webmaster for the student pages on UU, who explained several challenges in running a website for such a large organization as UU. First, judgments have to be made on how to prioritize information. Decisions need to be made on what should be visible on the home page, which pages qualify for a shortcut on the footer of the site, etc. She said, ‘Whenever you are looking for something you want it to be at the top, in the center, always visible.’ Not everything qualifies for a shortcut in the margin of the home page even if it is crucial information, since there are so many things on UU’s site that are important.
Another challenge she mentioned is that it is difficult to know what pages students will land on when visiting the site. Students can land on the main pages, pages for specific faculties or departments, the staff portal or the student portal. This means that maybe there are pages where there should be links to another page. Some pages concern students only, while others are more for employees, and others more general.
Furthermore, when you have an organization that is as large as UU, there are many people involved in creating and running the different pages of the site. For instance, the different departments and faculties all have their pages and web editors. The same information can therefore exist in many different places on the site, and users can land on any of these places when searching for information. Work could be done to reach out to every editor, link their pages to the larger information on the main pages, or even ask them to remove some of their pages if their information is the same as can be found on the main pages. UU’s search engine is possible to tweak in certain ways, for example, make the main pages show up before the narrower pages for each department and faculty. Google’s search engine is more complex as it is not possible to tweak in the same way, one will have to meet the criteria that Google has set.
5 DISCUSSION
This paper aims to understand how informed students at UU are about their rights and equal opportunities and how UU addresses these matters. Furthermore, the study aimed to find out where and how students searched for information about their rights and equal opportunities, and how that information could become more available for students by improving the UX of UU’s website. Furthermore, how other universities can use these findings and suggestions as motivation and inspiration to make improvements on their respective websites.
5.1 Suggestions for redesign
The following sections present the design suggestions grouped into different areas that especially need improvements.
5.1.1 Visibility
Related work conducted at UU, and at other universities showed that discrimination and harassment are present issues [3,4,7,10,14,32]. For students who have experienced discrimination or harassment, it is important to know
about the rights you have as a student. Therefore, it is important that such information on universities’ websites is visible.
This study found that it took on average six minutes for UU students to find the WCEO page, and that not a single student managed to find the shortest path there from the homepage.
Hence, several suggestions were made on visibility with Nielsen’s Usability Heuristics [27] and the principle of Visual Hierarchy [34] in mind. To add a link where some students looked, in the footer of a relevant page where there is a list of shortcuts. To make the headlines into dropdown menus so that content on the website is more understandable. Making the headline on the homepage that eventually leads to the WCEO page higher priority according to visual hierarchy. Finally, linking on to the WCEO page from other similar pages that students may land on. Other universities may also look into where students will first look for information on their websites and help guide students from there to the page with the desired information.
5.1.2 Search
Several students preferred to use search engines to find information on UU’s site. This makes it harder to design a path for the students to help find the WCEO page. Students can land on any page. Issues with this are that the top hit in a search is not always the best matched with the user’s goal, but simply matches the search engine’s criteria.
Also, these hits often have some part of the desired information but can be much narrower than the information that exists on another more central page. Additionally, these pages rarely link the student to the more central page, so students may hit these dead ends and not realize that they have only reached parts of the information available.
Many students landed on pages for specific faculties and departments and did not always realize that they had landed on such a page. Since this is an issue for UU, that students prefer search engines to the navigation on site, it is likely an issue at other universities as well. What is needed is to improve the search engine on site, by prioritizing the central pages, and also optimize each universities’ webpages according to Google search criteria. Another suggestion would be to remove information that exists on the narrower pages if it is repetitive of the information that exists on the central page or ask the webmasters for each individual page to link to the central page. This would mean less work for the webmasters in updating information.
5.1.3 Information
The UU website contains much information, and students can feel a bit lost on their way to find the WCEO page.
They have to process much information before finding the information they are looking for. Several of the participants in this study said they felt that the UU site was messy, that it was difficult to navigate on the site and find what they were looking for. Therefore, they did not use the navigation on the site but rather googled until they found the right information on the site.
When processing all the information that exists on UU’s website, or the website of another university containing a lot of information, specific things help users understand the content, gestalt principles [8] describe some of these.
For example, the principle of proximity can be used to group similar content. Möller et al. [24] found that in grouping elements according to the principle of proximity the user’s acceptance of a webpage increases.
Many UU students experienced frustration when searching for information for a while without noticing that it belonged to a specific faculty for example. It is suggested that the headline showing which part of UU a page belongs to could be given higher priority according to visual hierarchy [34] by adding contrast or increasing its size, however, this would require a change of the university’s template for their webpages.
5.1.4 Contact
It is important that students know where to turn to if they have questions about their rights and equal opportunities, or if they have experienced harassment or discrimination, and feel comfortable enough to reach out. Universities need to make it apparent who students can reach out to.
Several participants in this study said they felt that it was necessary to receive contact information quickly in these situations, even if it is not exactly the right contact, someone who can direct them to the right person. On the WCEO page there are currently only two email addresses, one to the coordinators and one to the advisory board.
While students mentioned they felt more comfortable contacting a person than a mail address with no name. While the email addresses are formal for a reason, adding some info about who the coordinators are would reassure students who said they would like a personal contact. This would likely lessen the feeling of not wanting to contact someone with fancy titles, and as one student said: the feeling of your email getting an automated response were you to contact the coordinators.
Furthermore, the recommendations for whom they should contact if having been subjected to harassment are dead ends. How many students know the contact details of the head of their department? A suggestion would be to make it more transparent who to contact by helping students find their head of department and their contact info.
Also, if one manages to find the list of head of departments, on none of these people’s contact pages it says that they are responsible for investigating and ending the harassment of students. Maybe adding something about their duties around this would reassure students.
5.1.5 Miscellaneous
It seems that once students found the page, they did not have much trouble understanding it. Most students felt confident in how to proceed and whom they would contact. However, the WCEO page is long, and most students would skip information on the page by pressing the ‘Check whom I can turn to’-button. One student said they did not associate being discriminated against with the headline ‘Working conditions’ which may be why some students scrolled past a link to the page when looking for its content. There could therefore be benefits to dividing the page into smaller pages with different headlines.
The yes/no questions were asked to gather an understanding of students’ knowledge about their rights and equal opportunities. The result of many of these questions was that students lack knowledge about many of the things that UU work within this area. This means that another suggestion that may help students find information is to teach them more about UU’s work for students’ equal opportunities and create more awareness.
Finally, it should be noted that several other issues were noted, and suggestions were made but did not fit in the scope of this paper. In addition, each university will have their own list of areas that need improvement, but these suggestions may serve as an inspiration for areas to consider.
5.2 Understanding the students’ user experience
The expert review showed quite few problems with the site, several heuristics were followed without remark which was unexpected. However, the website has many functions that can fit under the definitions of Nielsen’s ten heuristics [27], which are written to be general. Consequently, there was some individual interpretation to apply them to the site. It is expected that another set of heuristics more specified for websites would have resulted in more noticed problems. The main negative observations made through the expert review were that the shortest way for users to take from the home page to WCEO were three clicks, following the heuristic Flexibility and Efficiency of Use, experienced users should be offered a shortcut, so that students who frequently visit the site do not have to make three clicks each time. Also, it was observed that the site could appear clustered at times, which is not following the heuristic Aesthetic and Minimalist Design.
The interviews and think aloud task showed that the participants had a lacking knowledge about the work that UU does for students’ equal opportunities. This matches the results found in a previous survey at UU [26] which described more specifically that a majority of students did not know that UU had a program for equal opportunities, an action plan for equal opportunities nor a council for equal opportunities. This could also partly explain why none of the students in this study chose the shortest path to the WCEO page. It was found that students would begin to search for information based on the information they had on the area, if they had any. Had they had more knowledge perhaps they would know to look under the student pages, however not even the students with the most completed terms managed this.
Some participants had a vague idea of whom to contact while others were confused. Several participants said they would proceed with the first contact person who seemed slightly relevant just to be finished with their search and hopefully be redirected to the right person. It seems that the more information students had on the topic of students’ rights and equal opportunities, the closer they would be to contacting a person who could help them directly. Most participants preferred using Google rather than the UU website. This is likely because of several reasons. Some participants rarely use the UU website and therefore are not used to it. Others said they found the UU website to be messy, that they would land on pages without realizing where they were on the site, that headlines were confusing and that they did not always agree with the structure of the website.
It seems important for participants that if they were to reach out to someone, that person should be someone whom they felt comfortable with. Preferably someone in a position close to them hierarchically, not someone with fancy titles next to their name. A common feeling amongst the participants when attempting to solve the task by reaching the WCEO page was frustration and uncertainty. This is a clear sign that improvements are needed on the website. On average it took around six minutes for participants to complete the task. This seems like a long time when the shortest path is three clicks from the home page. This is also a clear sign of the need for improvements.
The average participant used Google search 1.6 times, and UU’s search engine 1 time, meaning that they have a preference for Google’s search engine, and that they did not succeed in landing on the correct page on their first Google search. Only four students managed to find the page without guidance, which suggests that they might have given up in a real scenario.
5.3 Improving the students’ user experience
In suggesting redesigns for the website, limitations in different forms had to be considered. One major consideration is prioritizing information on a site that has to fit so much information. Because there are so many pages with information, it is impossible to know where users will land when using Google, for instance.
Ensuring that students can find information about their rights and equal opportunities is important, because we know that discrimination and harassment affect students [3,10,26]. In addition, students are most commonly discriminated and harassed against by other students [3]. If universities were to put more effort into educating students on this area it could perhaps help decrease discrimination and harassment.
As it is now, it takes a while for students to find the page which is why it is suggested that links to the WCEO page be added in the places that students did look. Also, that the intended path gets higher priority according to visual hierarchy [34] and that a shortcut be added somewhere. That way experienced users do not have to navigate the three clicks from the home page to the WCEO page. This last suggestion, while being optimal to find the WCEO page, is a matter of priority of information, which information deserves a direct link from the home page? Perhaps a link to the page that leads to the WCEO page is an alternative suggestion relevant to a larger group of users.
Many of the participants in this study experienced frustration when attempting to solve the task. Some said they would have given up if it was a real scenario. Given that if someone needs to find information because they have themselves experienced discrimination or harassment, they are likely upset. Adding frustration to that will not help.
The site should be organized in a way that helps users understand the content quickly. Such principles are Gestalt Principles [8], which is why they were applied in the suggestions for improvement.
Furthermore, it is apparent that it needs to be made clearer whom students should contact. It says that the head of the department is responsible for investigating harassment and abusive discrimination at the department and ending the harassment. However, it does not say anywhere how students find out who their head of department is, or how to contact someone who knows. Moreover, if they would take this issue and for example google their way to a list of head of departments and find the right person, it does not say next to any of their names that they have this responsibility. This will likely make the confused student uncertain about proceeding. As it was found in the study at Lund University [3] that less than half of students who had experienced SH had told anyone about their experience, and only approximately 10 % of students had told anyone in a responsible position, it seems very important to work on the visibility of people to contact. Especially since it was shown that students who had support in their matter were much more likely to proceed with it. At the same time, surveys done previously at Uppsala University show that this is a problem at the university [10,26]. In one study, 8 % of students say they have experienced discrimination, and 4 % say that have experienced harassment [10]. In another study 17 % said they had experienced discrimination or harassment at some point in their studies [26].
6 CONCLUSION
This study provided insight into how much students know about their rights and equal opportunities and if they know where to find information about it on UU’s website by conducting an expert review and think aloud interviews. The results were used to help UU’s coordinators for equal opportunities by suggesting redesigns for the website that will increase the visibility of the information. The suggestions can also be applicable for other universities wanting to make information on their websites more visible and understandable. As for the research questions, it was found that students had trouble finding information about their equal rights and opportunities.
They were also confused about whom to contact if they had been victims of harassment. Suggestions for redesign were mostly focused on increasing the visibility of the WCEO page and making it clearer whom to contact for questions about discrimination or harassment. In helping students find information about their rights and equal opportunities and making contact persons visible and inspiring confidence amongst students, hopefully more students will receive the support they need, and universities will be one step closer to ending discrimination and harassment. In turn, making the working environment at university campuses a more positive experience for students.
6.1 Discussion of methods
Earlier, related research has been conducted through surveys with many participants. This study could have taken a similar approach to answer the research questions and collected data from many students. However, it was decided that a more in-depth approach would provide better insight to how students search for information. In addition, this research could have conducted regular interviews only, skipped the think aloud method, and simply ask students where they would look for information, what search terms they would use, etc. However, the think aloud method has shown to provide better understanding of how users of a system solve their given task, as described earlier in this paper.
Finally, the review could have been different if another set of heuristics more specified on websites were chosen.
Problems in using the think aloud method are that it may feel unnatural for the participant to share their thoughts aloud and there is a risk of them filtering out comments that they do not consider relevant or in other ways decide not to share.
There is also the possibility that if students had received the task in English and solved the task on the English version of the webpage, the results could have been different. For example, there is quite a difference between the
Swedish headline ‘Utbildning’ which would translate to ‘Education’ and the word used for the same page on the English version of the page ‘Admissions’. The page ‘Utbildning’, which a couple of students visited, seems closer to the information students are looking for than the English page ‘Admissions’.
It could also be argued that the number of participants in this study should have been larger to be truly representative for the group UU students. However, efforts were made to make sure that the participants would be a mixed group. They studied different programs in different faculties at UU, had been studying for a various number of terms, were in different ages and of mixed genders. It was deemed that saturation in the data gathered had been reached as there were no new surprises in the data collected, and no new themes emerged.
6.2 Limitations
The results of this study are based on students at Uppsala University and UU’s website; however, they provide suggestions for what other universities could look at in their organizations and on their websites.
One can discuss how representative 11 students are for doing interviews about students’ user experience of the website, and also how much one student can find in doing an expert review. For a complete design process, designs should also have been implemented or prototyped and evaluated on students with iterations.
Because of the scope of a master’s thesis, there were time constraints to follow. Had this been a more extended study, more participants could have been interviewed and an evaluation process could have been added. However, this study focused on gathering an understanding of how students would approach a situation in which they have experienced harassment or discrimination, through the think aloud, which seeks rich data from a small sample rather than sending out a survey and getting more shallow answers and less of an understanding of the process.
The think aloud method has been shown to be an effective way of understanding users’ interaction with computer systems and is effective in providing an understanding of how users of a system solve their given task.
6.3 Future work
Future research should focus on applying the suggestions and evaluate them in iterations to make the best possible user experience. Also, a larger number of students should be involved to make sure that the results are generalizable.
It is also possible that a study considering the entire UU website could lead to discoveries and insights that could be used to restructure and redesign the website as a whole, which could lead to the website becoming less ‘messy’ and more easily navigated. Another interesting approach would be to research whether doing a study with the English- speaking students using the English version of the site would receive the same results as in this study, as differences were found between the two versions of the site. It would be interesting to investigate differences between students and employees in finding information and a contact person, and differences in the process going forward when proceeding with a matter of discrimination or harassment. Finally, students knowing their rights and equal opportunities is essential for students at all universities, and studies have shown occurrences of harassment and discrimination at other universities as mentioned earlier in this paper. Therefore, other universities should conduct similar studies to understand the situation among their students and potential need for improvement on their websites.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to thank Josefin and Guri at UU for letting me conduct this study. I would also like to thank my supervisor Åsa Cajander for all her support throughout writing this paper. Furthermore, I would like to thank all the students who participated in this study who offered their time and shared their thoughts and knowledge. Lastly, I would like to thank my partner and friends who have offered their help in reviewing this paper.
7 REFERENCES
1. Amaia Aizpurua, Simon Harper, and Markel Vigo. 2016. Exploring the relationship between web accessibility and user experience.
International Journal of Human Computer Studies 91: 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.03.008
2. Asmaa Alsumait and Asma Al-Osaimi. 2009. Usability heuristics evaluation for child e-learning applications. iiWAS2009 - The 11th International Conference on Information Integration and Web-based Applications and Services: 425–430.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1806338.1806417
3. Ulrika Andersson, Anette Agardh, Ulrika Andersson, Hanna Björklund, Einar Elén, Maria Emmelin, Lena Lindell, and Jack Palmieri.
2020. Tellus -Sexual Harassment , Harassment and Victimisation at Lund University Tellus – Sexual Harassment , Harassment and Victimisation at Lund. October.
4. Federica Bastiani, Patrizia Romito, and Marie Josephe Saurel-Cubizolles. 2019. Mental distress and sexual harassment in Italian university students. Archives of Women’s Mental Health 22, 2: 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-018-0886-2
5. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2: 77–101.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
6. John Briere and Carol E. Jordan. 2004. Violence against women: Outcome complexity and implications for assessment and treatment.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence 19, 11: 1252–1276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269682
7. David Cantor, Bonnie Fisher, Susan Chibnall, Reanne Townsend, Hyunshik Lee, Westat Carol Bruce, and Gail Thomas. 2017. Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. 3129, 301: 1–132. Retrieved from
https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/AAU-Campus-Climate-Survey-FINAL-10-20-17.pdf 8. Carlos J. Costa, Pedro Costa, and Manuela Aparício. 2004. Principles for creating web sites: A design perspective. ICEIS 2004 -
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, May 2014: 484–488.
https://doi.org/10.5220/0002613004840488
9. David W. Eccles and Güler Arsal. 2017. The think aloud method: what is it and how do I use it? Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 9, 4: 514–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2017.1331501
10. Enheten för kvalitet och Utvärdering. Uppsala Universitets studentbarometer 2018. Avdelningen för kvalitetsutveckling, Uppsala universitet.
11. Doaa Farouk and Badawy Eldesouky. 2013. Visual Hierarchy and Mind Motion in Advertising Design. Journal of Arts and Humanities 2, 2: 148–162. https://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v2i2.78
12. Louise F. Fitzgerald, Sandra L. Shullman, Nancy Bailey, Margaret Richards, Janice Swecker, Yael Gold, Mimi Ormerod, and Lauren Weitzman. 1988. The Incidence and Dimensions of Sexual Harassment in Academia and the Workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior 32: 152–175. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(88)90012-7
13. Marsha E. Fonteyn, Benjamin Kuipers, and Susan J. Grobe. 1993. A Description of Think Aloud Method and Protocol Analysis.
Qualitative Health Research 3, 4: 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239300300403
14. Marisela Huerta, Lilia M. Cortina, Joyce S. Pang, Cynthia M. Torges, and Vicki J. Magley. 2006. Sex and power in the academy:
Modeling sexual harassment in the lives of college women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32, 5: 616–628.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284281
15. Monique W.M. Jaspers, Thiemo Steen, Cor Van Den Bos, and Maud Geenen. 2004. The think aloud method: A guide to user interface design. International Journal of Medical Informatics 73, 11–12: 781–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2004.08.003
16. Laurie Kantner and Stephanie Rosenbaum. 1997. Usability studies of WWW sites. January 1997: 153–160.
https://doi.org/10.1145/263367.263388
17. A. Kirkwood. 2008. Getting it from the Web: Why and how online resources are used by independent undergraduate learners. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24, 5: 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00265.x
18. Kulturdepartementet. 2008. Proposition från Kulturdepartementet Ett starkare skydd mot diskriminering Prop. 2007/08:95. Retrieved from https://www.regeringen.se/49bafd/contentassets/9992e1e8bedd4019aaa6a9e8565f778b/ett-starkare-skydd-mot-diskriminering- prop.-20070895
19. Olugbenga Jelil Ladebo. 2003. Sexual Harassment in Academia in Nigeria: How Real? African Sociological Review / Revue Africaine de Sociologie 7, 1: 117–130. https://doi.org/10.4314/asr.v7i1.23133
20. Carine Lallemand, Guillaume Gronier, and Vincent Koenig. 2015. User experience: A concept without consensus? Exploring practitioners’ perspectives through an international survey. Computers in Human Behavior 43: 35–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.048
21. Effie L.C. Law, Virpi Roto, Marc Hassenzahl, Arnold P.O.S. Vermeeren, and Joke Kort. 2009. Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: A survey approach. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, April: 719–728.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518813
22. Mary Madden. Internet Penetration and Impact – April 2006. A Data Memo from the Pew Internet and AmericanLife Project. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2006/04/26/internet-penetration-and-impact/
23. Maristella Matera, Maria Francesca Costabile, Franca Garzotto, and Paolo Paolini. 2002. SUE inspection: An effective method for systematic usability evaluation of hypermedia. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Part A:Systems and Humans. 32, 1:
93–103. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.995532
24. Birte Möller, Cornelia Brezing, and Dagmar Unz. 2012. What should a corporate website look like? the influence of Gestalt principles and visualisation in website design on the degree of acceptance and recommendation. Behaviour and Information Technology 31, 7: 739–
751. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2011.642893
25. Atsuo Murata and Nobuyasu Furukawa. 2005. Relationships among display features, eye movement characteristics, and reaction time in visual search. Human Factors 47, 3: 598–612. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872005774860032
26. Uppsala teknolog- och Naturvetarkår. 2017. Diskrimineringsenkäten. Conducted by Enkätfabriken.
27. Norman Nielsen. 1994. 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Retrieved from https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten- usability-heuristics/
28. Marianna Obrist, Virpi Roto, Effie L.C. Law, Arnold Vermeeren, Kaisa Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, and Kari Kuutti. 2011. UX research:
What theoretical roots do we build on - If any? Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, May 2014: 165–168.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979526
29. Paul C. Quinn, Ramesh S. Bhatt, and Angela Hayden. 2008. Young infants readily use proximity to organize visual pattern information.
Acta Psychologica 127, 2: 289–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.06.002
30. Ruth Rosenholtz, Nathaniel R. Twarog, Nadja Schinkel-Bielefeld, and Martin Vvattenberg. 2009. An intuitive model of perceptual grouping for HCI design. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, August 2015: 1331–1340.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518903
31. Virpi Roto, Effie Law, Arnold Vermeeren, and Jettie Hoonhout. 2010. Bringing clarity to the concept of user experience. User Experience White Paper: 12. Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:USER+EXPERIENCE+WHITE+PAPER#0%5Cnhttp://www.allaboutux.
org/uxwhitepaper
32. Børge Sivertsen, Morten Birkeland Nielsen, Ida E.H. Madsen, Marit Knapstad, Kari Jussie Lønning, and Mari Hysing. 2019. Sexual harassment and assault among university students in Norway: A cross-sectional prevalence study. BMJ Open 9, 6: 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026993
33. Jeremiah D. Still. 2017. Web page attentional priority model. Cognition, Technology and Work 19, 2–3: 363–374.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0411-9
34. Jeremiah D. Still. 2018. Web page visual hierarchy: Examining Faraday’s guidelines for entry points. Computers in Human Behavior 84:
352–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.014
35. W3C. 2008. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
36. W3C. 2021. Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0. Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/TR/wcag-3.0/
