Methodology
The methodology was based on a master’s dissertation about developing heuristics in the context of education (Silva, 2017) and divided into four stages: exploration, analysis, synthesis and verification.
Since this work concerns recommendations for creating and using educational materials on the basis of the heuristics observed, twelve recommendations for visual accessibility in educational materials were developed. The preliminary results of the analysis are presented below.
Propositional synthesis
Up to this point, the work had concentrated on selecting, adapting and organising the information available in the literature, with a view to converting it into a set of recommendations for creating and using educational materials on the basis of the heuristics observed. The first step of the synthesis stage involved applying the systematic table developed in the previous phase, from the categorisation of the existing heuristics, in order to draw up the first proposition of the set, the details of which are presented below. The considerations that follow address the questions arising from that process and the characteristics of the set of recommendations created at this stage.
The team’s first action was to interpret the recommendations in each of the categories, judging analytically the form in which that information should be expressed so as to take on the characteristics of heuristics for creating and using educational materials. The categorised information was then converted into nine recommendations for visual accessibility in educational materials, as a propositional synthesis. Table 10 shows the form in which the categories were expressed in this first version of the set developed.
| # | Categorisation | Recommendations in detail |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Communication | It is of great importance that communication be compatible with the student’s needs, so that it can be adapted to different levels of need. |
| 2 | Communication | It is of great importance that communication bring autonomy, so as to place the learning process on a par with that of the other students. |
| 3 | Communication | It is of great importance that communication foster feedback for error recovery and prevention, so that it becomes possible to relate theory and practice, matching the clarity of the content to the mode of learning, and always containing the student’s contribution. |
| 4 | Communication | It is of great importance that communication align expectations between teacher and student, using scheduling and flexibility in the programming of content, understanding what the minimum is that the student needs to take from the subject for it to be considered complete, and what the maximum is that the student can reach within their limitations. |
| 5 | Material | It is of great relevance that the materials built take account of the resources made available, always prizing clarity of the information presented, thereby securing the production of the material and its use. |
| 6 | Material | It is of great relevance that the materials built prioritise functionality and the content to be conveyed, presenting the most important information first, at the top of the hierarchy, respecting simplicity, legibility and sharpness in the presentation of the data. |
| 7 | Material | It is of great relevance that the materials built have multiple modalities so that they can be synchronised, so that when something merely described is not clear enough to the student, other senses such as touch and hearing can be used. |
| 8 | Material | It is of great relevance that the materials built use photographs with caution, and, when they are used, that a written or spoken description be provided, to secure the student’s understanding. |
| 9 | Material | It is of great relevance that the materials built favour the creation of adaptable materials, taking account of the multiplicity of students. |
Table description
Table 10, "Nine recommendations for visual accessibility in educational materials", lists the nine preliminary proposals developed from the synthesis of the literature, dividing them into two central categorisations. Recommendations 1 to 4 belong to the "Communication" category, covering compatibility with needs, autonomy in learning, fostering feedback to relate theory and practice, and aligning expectations between teacher and student. Recommendations 5 to 9 belong to the "Material" category, focusing on clarity of information, prioritisation of functionality and content hierarchy, use of multiple sensory modalities (touch, hearing), audio description of images and charts, and the multiplicity of students as grounds for adaptable materials.
A significant issue that arose during the process was the way the heuristics had been categorised and interpreted. Although it was expected that the categories defined in the previous step could be applied in the same way to represent the recommendations developed in the synthesis phase, it was observed that some categories grouped complex characteristics of recommendations that needed to be split in order to give the set greater clarity. Faced with this difficulty, it was necessary to reassess the categorisation of the heuristics and establish a writing pattern of the project’s own, so as to avoid confusion. Table 11 presents the new modifications made.
| # | Heuristics in detail | Original heuristics |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | It is important that communication be compatible with, and adaptable to, the different levels of need of students with visual impairments. | Make the dialogue self-descriptive (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); Representation of the task structure (Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa – 2002); Clarify actions for the user (Neema Moraveji and Charlton Soesanto – 2012). |
| 2 | It is important that the student with a visual impairment have autonomy, so as to place the learning process on a par with that of the others. | User involvement across the life cycle (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Fit with involvement (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Compatibility with user expectations (Walter Cybis – 2010); Autonomy (Bruce Tognazzini – 2003). Phrase: Nothing about us without us. |
| 3 | It is important that communication foster feedback for identifying and correcting errors, thereby fostering a connection between theory and practice. This entails adapting the clarity of the content to the students’ learning style and encouraging their active contribution to the learning process. | Informative feedback (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Feedback (auditory; combined; visual; tactile; verbal) (Donald Norman – 1988); Visibility of system status (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Ensure ease of understanding (Preece et al. – 1994); Feedback (Apple Computer, Inc. – 1995 / 2014, Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004); Self-descriptiveness (feedback) (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Feedback (Neto et al. – 2000); Provide users with information on game status (Pinelle et al. – 2008); Error prevention and handling (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Good error messages (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Error prevention (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Robustness of interaction (response time, task conformance, recognition, error recovery) (Alan Dix – 1993); Error management (quality of messages, error correction criteria) (Christien Bastien and Dominique Scapin – 1993); Engineer for errors (Preece et al. – 1994); Tolerance for error (Gregg Vanderheiden – 1997); Error prevention and recovery (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Error tolerance (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Error handling and prevention (Neto et al. – 2000); Error prevention and recovery (Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004). |
| 4 | It is important that expectations be aligned between the teacher and the student with a visual impairment. This can be achieved through the use of scheduling and flexibility in the programming of content. In this way it becomes possible to understand what the minimum objectives are that the student needs to reach for the subject to be considered complete, as well as to identify the upper limits the student can attain within their capabilities. | Know the user (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Adapt to different levels of user and different styles (Preece et al. – 1994); Specificity (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Consideration of users’ abilities (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Suitability for individualisation (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Conformity with user expectations (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Focus on the user (Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa – 2002); Take account of human perception of time (Neema Moraveji and Charlton Soesanto – 2012); Compatibility with user expectations (Walter Cybis – 2010); Content with user contribution (Chorianopoulos – 2008); Dialogues that signal the end of an action (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Simple and natural dialogue (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); The dialogue should be error-tolerant (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); The dialogue should be adaptable to individuals (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); The dialogue should be adaptable to learning (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); The dialogue should be suited to the task (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); Make the dialogue controllable (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); The dialogue should meet the user’s expectations (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); Use appropriate metaphors (Preece et al. – 1994); Metaphors (Apple Computer, Inc. – 1995 / 2014); Transition between dialogues in a multimodal interaction (Neto et al. – 2000). |
| 5 | It is important that the resources made available always prize clarity of the information presented, thereby securing the production of the material and its use. | Consistency of the data being displayed (Sidney Smith and Jane Mosier – 1986); Consistency (Walter Cybis – 2010); Consistency (Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004); Consistency and standards (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Homogeneity / coherence (Christien Bastien and Dominique Scapin – 1993); Maintain consistency and clarity (Preece et al. – 1994); Consistency (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Coherence; Consistency in interaction (Neto et al. – 2000); Consistency (Donald Norman – 1988); Consistency (Alan Dix – 1993); Consistency (Apple Computer, Inc. – 1995 / 2014); Consistency (Bruce Tognazzini – 2003); Consistency (Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004); Consistency (Walter Cybis – 2010). |
| 6 | It is important that functionality and the content to be conveyed be prioritised, presenting the most important information first, at the top of the hierarchy, thereby respecting simplicity, legibility and sharpness in the presentation of the data. | Visibility (Donald Norman – 1988); Design evaluation and refinement (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Facilitate team learning in design (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Facilitate design modification (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Integrated design of the human infrastructure (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Simultaneous design of the human infrastructure and the technical system (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Aesthetic integrity (Apple Computer, Inc. – 1995 / 2014); Playful (attractiveness, interactivity, presence of graphic elements) (Theo Mandel – 1997); Visual clarity (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Present the most important information first, at the top of the hierarchy (Lari Karkkainen and Jari Laarni – 2002); Present the most important information first, at the top of the hierarchy (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Prioritisation of functionality and information (Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004); Television grammar and aesthetics (Chorianopoulos – 2008); Sharpness of presentations (Walter Cybis – 2010); Legibility (Walter Cybis – 2010). |
| 7 | It is important that there be redundancy — that is, several forms of teaching to secure students’ full understanding, using not only oral description but also resources that engage the other senses, such as touch and hearing. | Adaptability (allowance for experience) (Christien Bastien and Dominique Scapin – 1993); Suitability for the task (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Focus on the user (Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa – 2002); Allow users to customise video and audio settings, difficulty and game speed (Pinelle et al. – 2008); Simple and intuitive use (Gregg Vanderheiden – 1997); Direct manipulation (Kent Norman – 2003); Appropriate transfer of technology (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Ease of use (user-friendliness) (Brigitte Borja de Mozota – 2003); Speak the user’s language (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Adapt to different levels of user and different styles (Preece et al. – 1994); Use appropriate metaphors (Preece et al. – 1994); Specificity (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Consideration of users’ abilities (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Multimodal interfaces should adapt to the user’s environment (Neto et al. – 2000); Focus on the user (Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa – 2002); Consideration of users’ resources (Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004); Take account of human perception of time (Neema Moraveji and Charlton Soesanto – 2012). |
| 8 | It is important that images and charts be used with caution. When they are used, a written or spoken description should be provided, to secure the student’s full understanding. | Use photographs with caution (Lari Karkkainen and Jari Laarni – 2002); Provide visual representations that are easy to interpret and that minimise the need for micromanagement (Pinelle et al. – 2008). |
| 9 | It is important to favour the creation of adaptable materials, taking account of the multiplicity of students. | Flexibility of access to and use of information (Sidney Smith and Jane Mosier – 1986); Shortcuts for frequent users (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Shortcuts (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Flexibility of interaction (task migration, substitutivity, customisation, dialogue initiative, multi-tasking) (Alan Dix – 1993); Allow flexibility of input (Preece et al. – 1994); Provide shortcuts (Preece et al. – 1994); Flexibility in use (Gregg Vanderheiden – 1997); Generic (ease of use, reliability, documentation, chaining of ideas, usability) (Theo Mandel – 1997); Suitability for individualisation (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Wide range of users and contexts of use (Neto et al. – 2000). |
Table description
Table 11, "Reformulation of the nine recommendations for visual accessibility in educational materials", shows the restructuring of the preliminary proposals presented in Table 10, comparing the new "Heuristics in detail" directly with the "Original heuristics" from the various authors studied in the literature that underpinned each premise.
The inclusion of some new themes, however, required morphological changes to the original structure of the systematic table. Detailed adjustments were also made to standardise the terms and give the final product a sense of cohesion. Table 12 presents the nine accessibility recommendations initially proposed and the expansion into twelve recommendations for visual accessibility in educational materials.
| # | Former recommendation | Recommendation in detail |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | It is important that the student with a visual impairment have autonomy, so as to place the learning process on a par with that of the others. | It is important to involve the student with a visual impairment at every stage of the educational process, from planning through to assessment, adapting teaching methods and resources to their individual needs, fostering their autonomy and independence. |
| 2 | Does not exist | It is important to recognise and reduce cultural, physical and bureaucratic constraints in the academic environment in order to advance the inclusion of the student with a visual impairment. Likewise, to encourage social interaction, creating a welcoming and collaborative environment for all students. |
| 3 | It is important that expectations be aligned between the teacher and the student with a visual impairment. This can be achieved through the use of scheduling and flexibility in the programming of content. In this way it becomes possible to understand what the minimum objectives are that the student needs to reach for the subject to be considered complete, as well as to identify the upper limits the student can attain within their capabilities. | It is important that there be a prior dialogue between the teacher and the student with a visual impairment, so as to learn and understand that student’s needs and limits, thereby aligning expectations between the two and, in mutual collaboration, drawing up a learning plan that sets feasible goals for the student’s academic progress. |
| 4 | It is important that communication foster feedback for identifying and correcting errors, thereby fostering a connection between theory and practice. This entails adapting the clarity of the content to the students’ learning style and encouraging their active contribution to the learning process. | It is important to establish a routine of systematic feedback between the teacher and the student with a visual impairment, in which both understand the progress made and identify opportunities to improve learning strategies and to consolidate practices that may benefit the whole academic community. |
| 5 | It is important that communication be compatible with, and adaptable to, the different levels of need of students with visual impairments. | It is important that every interaction and task be described in fine detail, in short, progressive steps, in order to make understanding and fluid participation easier for the student with a visual impairment. |
| 6 | Does not exist | It is important to establish a tutoring programme that serves the needs of the student with a visual impairment, offering personalised guidance and access to support resources and documentation, with the aim of providing adequate conditions for their academic and personal development. |
| 7 | It is important to favour the creation of adaptable materials, taking account of the multiplicity of students. | It is important to develop educational resources and systems that offer flexibility in accessing and using information, providing options for personalisation to ease the interaction of the student with a visual impairment, and allowing each student to choose how they wish to access the material. |
| 8 | It is important that there be redundancy — that is, several forms of teaching to secure students’ full understanding, using not only oral description but also resources that engage the other senses, such as touch and hearing. | It is important to implement several forms of teaching that go beyond sight, using resources that engage the senses of smell, taste, hearing and touch, securing an alternative experience of the content for the student with a visual impairment. |
| 9 | It is important that the resources made available always prize clarity of the information presented, thereby securing the production of the material and its use. | It is important to ensure that the different pieces of information and materials are consistent in format and structure for each student with a visual impairment. |
| 10 | Does not exist | It is important to develop and present the educational content clearly and concisely, ensuring that it is easily assimilated and understood by the student with a visual impairment. This includes fostering the relationship between theory and practice, using codes and names that reduce memory and workload, providing direct, rapid access to the relevant information. |
| 11 | It is important that functionality and the content to be conveyed be prioritised, presenting the most important information first, at the top of the hierarchy, thereby respecting simplicity, legibility and sharpness in the presentation of the data. | It is important to develop teaching and learning materials with design principles that prioritise aesthetic quality, visual clarity, information hierarchy, functionality, legibility, colour and contrast, ensuring that all students, including those with visual impairments, can access and understand the content effectively. |
| 12 | It is important that images and charts be used with caution. When they are used, a written or spoken description should be provided, to secure the student’s full understanding. | It is important that the use of images and charts in educational materials be carried out with caution, prioritising the provision of accessible visual representations that are easy to interpret. This involves ensuring that images and charts are accompanied by adequate descriptions and that the visual content is understandable to everyone, including those with visual impairments. |
Table description
Table 12, "Expansion into twelve recommendations for visual accessibility in educational materials", correlates the numbers 1 to 12 of the final recommendations with the earlier formulations (labelled "Former recommendation"), side by side with their new "Recommendation in detail". Recommendations 2, 6 and 10 are marked "Does not exist" in their former version, evidencing the expansion and refinement of the content into the 12 pillars that guide the project.
Looking at the proposed set of recommendations developed here, it can be seen that, although the original heuristics were nested into categories and dimensions, the detailed wording of the new recommendations suggests that they carry those specific recommendations within them. The new recommendations still lacked a name that would classify their context, and so Table 13 presents the propositional synthesis, corresponding to twelve recommendations for visual accessibility in educational materials, with two levels of information.
| # | Title | Recommendation | Original heuristics |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Student agency | It is important to involve the student with a visual impairment at every stage of the educational process, from planning through to assessment, adapting teaching methods and resources to their individual needs, fostering their autonomy and independence. | User involvement across the life cycle (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Fit with involvement (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Compatibility with user expectations (Walter Cybis – 2010); Autonomy (Bruce Tognazzini – 2003). Phrase: Nothing about us without us. |
| 2 | Role of the teacher | It is important to recognise and reduce cultural, physical and bureaucratic constraints in the academic environment in order to advance the inclusion of the student with a visual impairment. Likewise, to encourage social interaction, creating a welcoming and collaborative environment for all students. | Constraints: cultural, logical, physical (Donald Norman – 1988); Reduce bureaucracy (Frederick van Amstel and Paulo Jorge Sousa – 2012); Encourage social interaction (Neema Moraveji and Charlton Soesanto – 2012). |
| 3 | Teacher–student communication | It is important that there be a prior dialogue between the teacher and the student with a visual impairment, so as to learn and understand that student’s needs and limits, thereby aligning expectations between the two and, in mutual collaboration, drawing up a learning plan that sets feasible goals for the student’s academic progress. | Know the user (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Adapt to different levels of user and different styles (Preece et al. – 1994); Specificity (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Consideration of users’ abilities (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Suitability for individualisation (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Conformity with user expectations (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Focus on the user (Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa – 2002); Take account of human perception of time (Neema Moraveji and Charlton Soesanto – 2012); Compatibility with user expectations (Walter Cybis – 2010); Content with user contribution (Chorianopoulos – 2008); Dialogues that signal the end of an action (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Simple and natural dialogue (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); The dialogue should be error-tolerant (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); The dialogue should be adaptable to individuals (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); The dialogue should be adaptable to learning (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); The dialogue should be suited to the task (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); Make the dialogue controllable (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); The dialogue should meet the user’s expectations (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); Use appropriate metaphors (Preece et al. – 1994); Metaphors (Apple Computer, Inc. – 1995 / 2014); Transition between dialogues in a multimodal interaction (Neto et al. – 2000). |
| 4 | Feedback | It is important to establish a routine of systematic feedback between the teacher and the student with a visual impairment, in which both understand the progress made and identify opportunities to improve learning strategies and to consolidate practices that may benefit the whole academic community. | Informative feedback (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Feedback (auditory; combined; visual; tactile; verbal) (Donald Norman – 1988); Visibility of system status (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Ensure ease of understanding (Preece et al. – 1994); Feedback (Apple Computer, Inc. – 1995 / 2014, Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004); Self-descriptiveness (feedback) (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Feedback (Neto et al. – 2000); Provide users with information on game status (Pinelle et al. – 2008); Error prevention and handling (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Good error messages (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Error prevention (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Robustness of interaction (response time, task conformance, recognition, error recovery) (Alan Dix – 1993); Error management (quality of messages, error correction criteria) (Christien Bastien and Dominique Scapin – 1993); Engineer for errors (Preece et al. – 1994); Tolerance for error (Gregg Vanderheiden – 1997); Error prevention and recovery (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Error tolerance (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Error handling and prevention (Neto et al. – 2000); Error prevention and recovery (Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004). |
| 5 | Description | It is important that every interaction and task be described in fine detail, in short, progressive steps, in order to make understanding and fluid participation easier for the student with a visual impairment. | Make the dialogue self-descriptive (Jan Dul and Bernard Weerdmeester – 1991); Representation of the task structure (Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa – 2002); Clarify actions for the user (Neema Moraveji and Charlton Soesanto – 2012). |
| 6 | Tutoring | It is important to establish a tutoring programme that serves the needs of the student with a visual impairment, offering personalised guidance and access to support resources and documentation, with the aim of providing adequate conditions for their academic and personal development. | Subjective satisfaction (Soren Lauessen and Houman Younessi – 1988); Help and documentation (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Help the prospective student choose their programme (Frederick van Amstel and Paulo Jorge Sousa – 2012); Services to the community (Frederick van Amstel and Paulo Jorge Sousa – 2012); Serve the public’s interests (Frederick van Amstel and Paulo Jorge Sousa – 2012); Provide instructions, training and help (Pinelle et al. – 2008); Design for user growth (Preece et al. – 1994); Size and space for use and interaction (Gregg Vanderheiden – 1997). |
| 7 | Adaptability | It is important to develop educational resources and systems that offer flexibility in accessing and using information, providing options for personalisation to ease the interaction of the student with a visual impairment, and allowing each student to choose how they wish to access the material. | Flexibility of access to and use of information (Sidney Smith and Jane Mosier – 1986); Shortcuts for frequent users (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Shortcuts (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Flexibility of interaction (task migration, substitutivity, customisation, dialogue initiative, multi-tasking) (Alan Dix – 1993); Allow flexibility of input (Preece et al. – 1994); Provide shortcuts (Preece et al. – 1994); Flexibility in use (Gregg Vanderheiden – 1997); Generic (ease of use, reliability, documentation, chaining of ideas, usability) (Theo Mandel – 1997); Suitability for individualisation (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Wide range of users and contexts of use (Neto et al. – 2000). |
| 8 | Multisensory | It is important to implement several forms of teaching that go beyond sight, using resources that engage the senses of smell, taste, hearing and touch, securing an alternative experience of the content for the student with a visual impairment. | Adaptability (allowance for experience) (Christien Bastien and Dominique Scapin – 1993); Suitability for the task (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Focus on the user (Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa – 2002); Allow users to customise video and audio settings, difficulty and game speed (Pinelle et al. – 2008); Simple and intuitive use (Gregg Vanderheiden – 1997); Direct manipulation (Kent Norman – 2003); Appropriate transfer of technology (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Ease of use (user-friendliness) (Brigitte Borja de Mozota – 2003); Speak the user’s language (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Adapt to different levels of user and different styles (Preece et al. – 1994); Use appropriate metaphors (Preece et al. – 1994); Specificity (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Consideration of users’ abilities (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Multimodal interfaces should adapt to the user’s environment (Neto et al. – 2000); Focus on the user (Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa – 2002); Consideration of users’ resources (Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004); Take account of human perception of time (Neema Moraveji and Charlton Soesanto – 2012). |
| 9 | Consistency | It is important to ensure that the different pieces of information and materials are consistent in format and structure for each student with a visual impairment. | Consistency of the data being displayed (Sidney Smith and Jane Mosier – 1986); Consistency (Walter Cybis – 2010); Consistency (Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004); Consistency and standards (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Homogeneity / coherence (Christien Bastien and Dominique Scapin – 1993); Maintain consistency and clarity (Preece et al. – 1994); Consistency (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Coherence; Consistency in interaction (Neto et al. – 2000); Consistency (Donald Norman – 1988); Consistency (Alan Dix – 1993); Consistency (Apple Computer, Inc. – 1995 / 2014); Consistency (Bruce Tognazzini – 2003); Consistency (Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004); Consistency (Walter Cybis – 2010). |
| 10 | Understanding | It is important to develop and present the educational content clearly and concisely, ensuring that it is easily assimilated and understood by the student with a visual impairment. This includes fostering the relationship between theory and practice, using codes and names that reduce memory and workload, providing direct, rapid access to the relevant information. | Ease of assimilation of information by the user (Sidney Smith and Jane Mosier – 1986); Understanding (Soren Lauessen and Houman Younessi – 1988); Ease of learning (Soren Lauessen and Houman Younessi – 1988); Learnability (generality, consistency, predictability, visibility, familiarity) (Alan Dix – 1993); Significance of codes and names (Alan Dix – 1993); Educational (relationship between theory and practice, suitability of content, learning, clarity of content) (Theo Mandel – 1997); Explicitness (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Suitability for learning (ISO 9241:10 – 1998); Clarity of the information presented (Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004); Minimisation of the user’s memory load (Sidney Smith and Jane Mosier – 1986); Low memory load (Ben Shneiderman – 1986); Ease of recall (Soren Lauessen and Houman Younessi – 1988); Minimise the user’s memory load (Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich – 1990); Workload (brevity, information density) (Christien Bastien and Dominique Scapin – 1993); Reduce cognitive load (Preece et al. – 1994); Low physical effort (Gregg Vanderheiden – 1997); Prioritisation of functionality and information (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Optimise the reading process (Lari Karkkainen and Jari Laarni – 2002); Reduction of latency (Bruce Tognazzini – 2003); The most direct access possible to information (Jeniffer Ferreira – 2005); Ease time pressure on the user (Neema Moraveji and Charlton Soesanto – 2012); Do not overload the user (Neema Moraveji and Charlton Soesanto – 2012). |
| 11 | Design | It is important to develop teaching and learning materials with design principles that prioritise aesthetic quality, visual clarity, information hierarchy, functionality, legibility, colour and contrast, ensuring that all students, including those with visual impairments, can access and understand the content effectively. | Visibility (Donald Norman – 1988); Design evaluation and refinement (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Facilitate team learning in design (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Facilitate design modification (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Integrated design of the human infrastructure (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Simultaneous design of the human infrastructure and the technical system (Jeffrey Liker and Ann Majchrzak – 1994); Aesthetic integrity (Apple Computer, Inc. – 1995 / 2014); Playful (attractiveness, interactivity, presence of graphic elements) (Theo Mandel – 1997); Visual clarity (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Present the most important information first, at the top of the hierarchy (Lari Karkkainen and Jari Laarni – 2002); Present the most important information first, at the top of the hierarchy (Patrick Jordan – 1998); Prioritisation of functionality and information (Elisabeth Fátima Torres and Alberto Angel Mazzoni – 2004); Television grammar and aesthetics (Chorianopoulos – 2008); Sharpness of presentations (Walter Cybis – 2010); Legibility (Walter Cybis – 2010). |
| 12 | Images | It is important that the use of images and charts in educational materials be carried out with caution, prioritising the provision of accessible visual representations that are easy to interpret. This involves ensuring that images and charts are accompanied by adequate descriptions and that the visual content is understandable to everyone, including those with visual impairments. | Use photographs with caution (Lari Karkkainen and Jari Laarni – 2002); Provide visual representations that are easy to interpret and that minimise the need for micromanagement (Pinelle et al. – 2008). |
Table description
Table 13, "Propositional synthesis", compiles the transition from the theoretical basis to the practical form of the 12 recommendations. The table correlates each of the twelve numbered pillars with its final "Title" (such as Student agency, Role of the teacher, Feedback, Tutoring and so on), followed by the text of the "Recommendation" itself, and lists in the last column the "Original heuristics" from the various authors that underpin them theoretically.
Finally, it was judged that the set of twelve recommendations for visual accessibility in educational materials developed here, together with the adjustments made to the systematic table and the definition of different levels of information, was ready for the verification session.