Home Search for the Visually Impaired & Blind

Problem

The home buying process is often considered the most significant financial decision a person makes. Ideally, it should be empowering and accessible. However, for individuals who are visually impaired or blind, current real estate platforms present a significant barrier.

These platforms rely heavily on visual content like photos, virtual tours, and interactive maps. While some features might be adaptable for those with partial vision, the core issue lies deeper - in the very foundation of how these platforms are designed and coded.

‍

Goal

UX Research

Methods Used Timeline: 

‍

Approach: Employed semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions with 9 people (5 blind, 4 visually impaired) to delve into:

• User thoughts on online experiences.
• Applicable improvements for our real estate client.

To gain a holistic understanding of user needs, we conducted extended interviews (lasting 1 hour or more). Interestingly, these sessions revealed a significant focus on general internet accessibility challenges faced by users with disabilities, extending beyond the scope of real estate platforms.

This insight proved crucial for informing our design approach. It was important to understand at this early stage that the design of Real-Estate platforms were not uniquely "bad", we were tackling a internet wide issue.

‍

‍

‍

Leveraging affinity diagramming, we  identified key themes within user data, leading to nuanced user archetypes and detailed journey maps.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Understanding Screen Reader Navigation:

For sighted users, navigating a website is intuitive - we point and click. But for visually impaired users who rely on screen readers, the experience is entirely different.

Experiencing Screen Reader Navigation:

While describing an auditory experience visually can be challenging, we've created a brief demo to illustrate the difference screen reader navigation makes.

Testing Results

Following our second round of interviews which were used to allow our team the time to create a functional prototype, our team embarked on a crucial discussion: defining success for the prototype. We concluded with a clear vision:

To achieve a higher level of user empowerment by creating a real estate platform that prioritizes accessibility for visually impaired users. This includes comprehensive support for screen readers and keyboard navigation, coupled with a well-structured information architecture.

Improvised Contextual Inquiry Reveals Design Priorities:

Our improvised contextual inquiry approach yielded valuable insights that directly shaped our design decisions.  One key takeaway was the critical importance of clear and consistent labelling conventions. As users emphasized, if elements are labelled and coded correctly, they can effectively navigate the interface. This user sentiment became the driving force behind our design philosophy:  creating an interface that communicates every action clearly and directly to the user.

The second-largest takeaway from our users was the importance of consistency. We observed, and users reinforced this notion during sessions on various websites, that repeated interface elements like filters and forms often appear similar from page to page. However, these elements can be implemented in vastly different ways, leading to confusion.  This highlighted the need to ensure consistency in our design, not just visually but also in how information is communicated across the entire platform. This user-centric approach ensured a positive reception from our target audience.

Prioritizing Core Functionality for Testing:

During user interviews, we encountered a range of feature suggestions.  While these ideas were valuable insights for future development, we strategically focused on testing a core set of functionalities within the current prototype.  This decision was driven by two key considerations:

• Practical Limitations:  Maintaining a manageable scope for testing was crucial. Adding too many features would have hindered our ability to thoroughly evaluate the core functionalities.
• Building a Stable Foundation:  Similar to constructing a building, it's important to establish a strong foundation before adding additional elements.  In this project, focusing on core functionalities ensured a solid base upon which future features can be built.

Prototype Testing Beyond Tasks: User Experience Focus

While we provided specific tasks for users to complete during prototype testing, we recognized that traditional usability testing methods might not fully capture the experience of visually impaired users.  Their web navigation methods and attention to detail differ significantly.  Therefore, we adopted a more open-ended approach, focusing on the user's overall experience of how the interface communicated with them.  We prioritized understanding their feelings and perceptions as they interacted with the prototype, rather than solely measuring time on task or completion rates.

Final Prototype Refinement:

Following user testing, we incorporated their valuable feedback to further refine the prototype.  This resulted in minimal structural changes, with a key focus on clarity and conciseness of the interaction with screen readers. These refinements were well-received by participants, and a final SUS score of 87.2 demonstrates a high level of user satisfaction with the prototype.

Looking Ahead: Building on a Strong Foundation

Beyond the immediate refinements based on user feedback, our conversations with participants revealed valuable insights into their broader design preferences.  These insights will serve as a road-map for future iterations.  We are confident that the current prototype represents a solid foundation, with a well-defined design system that can readily accommodate future functionalities, as long as these additions adhere to the established design principles.

The current visual design can be found here.

‍

Development

A Shift in Perspective: Beyond Accessibility

Throughout this project, a powerful quote from a blind user interviewee resonated deeply: "Accessible does not mean usable."  This statement challenged my initial understanding of accessibility and underscored the crucial distinction between simply providing access and creating a truly usable experience.

Motivated by this new perspective, I attempted to simulate the experience of using screen readers and gesture controls.  This exercise exposed two key limitations.  First, my own familiarity with these tools paled in comparison to those who rely on them daily.  Second, I could easily discontinue the simulation, a luxury unavailable to users who depend on these technologies.  These limitations underscored the pitfalls of relying solely on personal experience in design. Effective design, as I understand, prioritizes the diverse needs of users, not just our own.

This project has been a transformative journey, instilling in me the importance of user-centered design principles and the need to constantly strive for a deeper understanding of user needs.  Moving forward, I am committed to designing inclusive and usable experiences for all users, regardless of their abilities.

What Could be Better

While working on this project and interacting with this user group, some ideas came to mind for additional testing methods. It's not that the current approach wasn't good, but rather that we could have explored a wider range of techniques.

Card sorting, for instance, would have been ideal for an optimal workshop setting. However, accessibility limitations of the platform posed a challenge, as keyboard navigation proved difficult. A/B testing was also considered, but the complexities of implementing a digital testing solution with this particular user segment presented another hurdle.

Ultimately, the biggest limitation was the participant recruitment process. We weren't able to secure as many participants as we'd hoped for, which meant a smaller pool of users to validate our changes with.

‍