BEYOND ACCESSIBILITY: THE USE OF SOCIAL NETWORK SITES BY BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED INDIVIDUALS

By Adriana Pulido

A project-in-lieu-of-thesis presented to the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Mass Communication (MAMC)

ABSTRACT

Previous research had already addressed the use of mainstream social network sites such as Twitter and Facebook. This study sought to find out the motivations behind the creation and use of SNSs sites targeted to people with disabilities, focusing on blind and visually impaired individuals. Four SNSs two Spanish-based, one U.S-based, and one U.K.-based were analyzed. In addition to interviewing the sites creators/administrators, the researcher promoted discussions with blind and visually impaired users of the sites, in order to understand their motivations for joining. The researcher also presented her own perspective as a blind user of the SNSs, taking into account their level of accessibility, as well as their possibilities offered in terms of user participation and interaction. Finally, the disability-specific SNSs were compared with Facebook and Twitter, and once again, accessibility and the possibilities offered in terms of user participation and interaction were considered.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank Professor McAdams for helping me choose this topic, and for her guidance and valuable suggestions during this research. I also want to thank Drs. Cleary and Rodgers for serving on my committee and for their valuable suggestions, which helped me improve this project. I thank the sites creators/administrators and the users of the BlindWorlds site, for it could not have been possible to carry out this project without their valuable participation and responses. Special thanks to my parents, Aureliano and Adela, and to my sisters, Olga and Yamile, for their constant support and for always believing in me. I also thank my relatives and friends for their nice words and constant encouragement during this research. Last but not least, I thank my wonderful boyfriend, Nelson, not only for his emotional support, but also for being my eyes when needed.

Table of Contents
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................................................... 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................... 3 1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Biographical Note...................................................................................................................................... 8 LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................................................................................... 9 SOCIAL NETWORK SITES: DEFINITIONS AND MOTIVATIONS .................................................................... 9 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, SOCIAL NETWORK SITES, AND DISABILITY-SPECIFIC ONLINE COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................................................................................ 19 WEB ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES FOR BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED PEOPLE ............ 22 RESEARCH QUESTIONS............................................................................................................................ 34 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................................... 35 REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE SITES ...................................................................................................... 38 TIMETABLE FOR RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 42 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 43 Information about the sites staff ........................................................................................................... 43 The SNS as a support group and a socializer .......................................................................................... 46 The desire to create a truly accessible SNS............................................................................................. 48 Simplicity of the page structure .............................................................................................................. 50 People, values, and sense of community................................................................................................ 51 Knowledge and learning ......................................................................................................................... 54 Accessibility level of the SNSs ................................................................................................................ 57 Possibilities for participation and interaction in all SNSs........................................................................ 62 Features Offered by Each SNS............................................................................................................. 62 An International vs. a Local Focus....................................................................................................... 66 Users Relationship with the SNSs Creator/Administrator ................................................................ 66 Users with Disabilities Involvement in the Development of the SNS ................................................ 67 Comparing the Four Sites with Facebook and Twitter ....................................................................... 68

DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................................. 75 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 78 LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .............................................. 80 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 82 APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SNSs CREATORS .............................................................................. 93 APPENDIX B: LIST OF DISCUSSION QUESTIONS .......................................................................................... 94

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the use of social network sites (SNSs) has become overwhelmingly popular (Lin and Lu, 2011; Viswanath et al., 2009; Gangadharbatla, 2008; Huberman et al. 2008; Joinson, 2008; Dwyer et al., 2007). Among other purposes, people are increasingly using SNSs to communicate, express themselves, and share information and content (Viswanath et al. 2009). Previous studies have investigated the main motivations leading people without disabilities to use popular SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter. However, little attention has been given to the use of these popular SNSs by people with disabilities, particularly blind and visually impaired individuals (Brady et al., 2013). Furthermore, no previous studies have dealt with the reasons behind the creation and use of SNSs targeted to people with disabilities.

Some scholars have investigated the reasons leading individuals with disabilities to join disability-specific online communities such as mailing lists, forums and support sites (Obst and Stafurik, 2010; Guo et al., 2005; Williamson et al., 2001). Participating in those types of sites enables people to share interests, ask questions, and offer or look for emotional support (Aysenbach et al., 2004). More recently created SNSs for people with disabilities, however, offer similar features to those found on Facebook and Twitter, such as the possibility to create an individual profile and join shared interest groups. It is critical, therefore, to find out if people with disabilities join those newer sites for the same reasons leading them to participate in more traditional online disability communities.

As a social group, people with disabilities in general, and blind and visually impaired people in particular, are expected to have the same motivations as those without disabilities regarding the use of social network sites. In other words, they are expected to use SNSs for communicating and sharing content. When it goes to blind and visually impaired people, most previous studies have dealt with accessibility issues encountered on Facebook and Twitter (Buzzi et al., 2011, 2010; Ellis and Kent, 2010; Wentz, 2011). Undoubtedly, accessibility is a key factor determining whether blind and visually impaired individuals use an SNS a lot or do not use it at all (Ellis and Kent, 2011; Fuglerud et al., 2012). Nevertheless, other factors need to be considered in order to better understand users preferences for certain SNSs over others.

The purpose of the present study was to analyze the motivations leading to the creation and use of social network sites targeted to people with disabilities, focusing on blind and visually impaired people. Four SNSstwo Spain-based, one U.S.-based, and one U.K.-basedwere included in this analysis. In addition to interviewing the SNS creators or administrators, the researcher promoted discussions among blind and visually impaired users, in order to find out their motivations for using those alternative platforms. The researcher also incorporated her own perspective as a blind user of the sites. Given that both the researcher and many users of the chosen sites are also registered on Facebook and Twitter, a comparison between these popular SNSs and the four sites aimed at people with disabilities was carried out.

Three main reasons highlight the importance of the present study. First, it will expand the literature by providing evidence of SNS usage patterns among blind and visually impaired people. Second, it will represent the first attempt to understand blind and visually impaired users preference for SNSs targeted to people with disabilities over popular SNSs such as Twitter and Facebook. Finally, this analysis goes beyond Web accessibility aspects widely considered in previous research.

Biographical Note

The author of this study is completing her masters degree in mass communication journalism at the University of Florida. She is bilingual, and she was the first person with a disability to win a Fulbright grant in her country, Colombia. She was a premature baby, and she became blind due to the excessive amount of oxygen she received inside the incubator. She is a very active social media user, and she has gained a lot of knowledge and experience in relation to assistive technology for blind people. Precisely one of her biggest interests as a journalist is to contribute to improve Web accessibility for blind and visually impaired people.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This section will be organized as follows: the first part will provide definitions of key terms such as Web 2.0, user generated content, social media, and social network sites. It also will include relevant information from previous studies dealing with peoples motivations for using SNSs. The second part will cover previous research on disability-specific online communities, as well as on the benefits obtained by people with disabilities when using popular SNSs. It will also include relevant information about a few studies addressing the use of Facebook and Twitter by blind and visually impaired individuals. Finally, the third part will incorporate definitions of essential terms such as Web accessibility, accessibility issues and assistive technology, while providing useful information about previous research on general Web accessibility issues, accessibility guidelines, and blind and visually impaired users direct experiences with SNSs.

SOCIAL NETWORK SITES: DEFINITIONS AND MOTIVATIONS

In order to better understand how social network sites function, it is critical to define two interrelated concepts, namely, Web 2.0 and user generated content (UGC). In general terms, Web 2.0 can be defined as a collection of open-source, interactive and user-controlled online applications expanding the experiences, knowledge, and market power of the users as participants in business and social processes (Constantinides and Fountain, 2008, p. 232). By using Web 2.0 applications, users create informal networks that facilitate the flow of ideas, as well as the effective generation, dissemination, sharing and editing of informational content (Constantinides and Fountain, 2008). Unlike Web 1.0, considered as an HTML-only world, Web

2.0 evolved into a medium capable of providing innovative services across stationary and mobile devices (Romen and Svans, 2011; Reid and Snow-Weaver, 2008). In order to provide those services, the World Wide Web requires enhanced functionalities such as Adobe Flash, RSS, and AJAX (Asynchronous JavaScript and XML). The term UGC, on the other hand, is usually applied to describe the various forms of media content that are publicly available and created by users. (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010, p. 61).

Regarding the definitions above, social media can be conceptualized as a group of Internet based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content. (Kapla n and Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). By combining the dimensions of self-presentation and self-disclosure, Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) classified social media applications into the following categories: Collaborative projects and blogs, which enable the simplest level of interaction; Content communities and social networking sites, which allow users to share content in addition to text-based communication; and Virtual game worlds and social worlds, which attempt to replicate all the stages of faceto-face interaction. In other words, social media is an embracing term that encompasses the group of applications just mentioned.

10

The definition of social network sites provided by boyd and Ellison (2007) was found to be the most suitable for the purpose of the present study, since it encompasses most of the essential features of the sites to be analyzed. They defined SNSs as Web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system (p. 311). Boyd and Ellison (2007) clarify that the terms network and networking are used interchangeably in public discourse, and that the term networking often implies the formation of relationships between strangers. In addition to users own unique space, the services provided by SNS s include the possibility to share photos and videos, maintain blogs, and interact through chat rooms, instant messaging (IM), and email (Gangadharbatla, 2008). SNSs have also incorporated other features such as testimonials and the ability to join groups of shared interests (Lampe et al., 2006).

Now that a broad definition of SNSs has been provided and their main features mentioned, let us turn to review previous research focusing on peoples motivations for using those sites. By conducting a qualitative and quantitative content analysis among 1,200 Norwegian users, Brandtzg and Heim (2009) found that the three main reasons leading adults to use SNSs are meeting new people, keeping in touch with friends, and general socializing. In a similar vein, the comparative analysis of SNSs usage among Korean and U.S. students conducted by Kim et al. (2011) revealed that their main motivations are seeking friends, social support, entertainment, information, and convenience. In addition, the survey conducted by Lin and Lu (2011) show that perceived motivations such as usefulness and enjoyment, as well as network externalities such as

11

the number of members and the number of peers using the site, significantly influence peoples motivations for joining SNSs.

Some studies have specifically addressed peoples motivations for using Facebook and similar SNSs (Joinson, 2008; Raacke and Bonds-Raacke, 2008; Lampe et al. 2006). According to Lampe et al. (2006), one of the most remarkable Facebook features is the so-called surveillance function, which enables users to track the actions, beliefs and interests of the larger groups to which they belong (p. 68). Taking into account users goals in searching for others, Lampe et al. (2006) classify this type of surveillance into two categories called social searching and social browsing. The former takes place when users search for information about people they already meet offline to learn more about them, whereas the latter lets users find people or groups with whom they would like to connect offline (Lampe et al., 2006).

Based on those concepts, Lampe et al. (2006) conducted two surveys in order to determine how college students use Facebook. Their results indicate that students are more likely to search for information about people they have already met offline (social searching) than to find out information about new people in their online community (social browsing). Joinson (2008) also took the concepts of social searching and social browsing to examine the uses and gratifications adults seek to satisfy when using Facebook. After conducting two surveys, he identified seven major uses and gratifications, namely: 1. Social connection (connecting with current and old friends); 2. Shared identity (joining groups, organizing events, and finding like-minded people);
12

3. Posting or viewing photographs; 4. Content (involves the use of Facebook applications and quizzes to satisfy a content gratification); 5. Social investigation (involves social searching or social browsing); 6. Social network surfing (comprises users ability to view other peoples networks and friends); and 7. Status updating.

Raacke and Bonds-Raacke (2008) also applied the uses and gratifications theory to explore and compare Facebook and MySpaces usage among U.S. college students. After conducting a survey with 116 participants, the authors concluded that the most popular uses and gratifications for having either account were keeping in touch with current and old friends, posting/looking at pictures, and meeting new friends,. Other less popular uses and gratifications included learning about events, posting social functions, feeling connected, sharing information about oneself, for academic purposes, and for dating purposes.

In addition to the motivations for using SNSs, peoples attitudes towards and perceptions of the sites should be regarded in order to better understand their usage patterns. By conducting a survey with more than 200 U.S. undergraduate students, Gangadharbatla (2008) found that factors such as Internet self-efficacy, need to belong, and collective self-esteem positively influence students attitudes towards SNSs and willingness to join them. The author suggests that

13

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

Undoubtedly, a key factor influencing peoples usage of SNSs has to do with privacy concerns. Joinson (2008) found that users who might want to meet new people tend to leave their privacy settings relatively open. Similarly, Brandtzg et al. (2010) referred to the so-called privacy dilemma, which originates in the complex relationship between the need for privacy and the need for socializing and sharing content. Based on this dilemma, Brandtzg et al. (2010) analyzed peoples Facebook usage across different age groups, in order to determine the relationship between privacy experiences, sociability and content sharing. By using an interview protocol and an explorative usability test, the authors found that younger people are more skillful Facebook users than older adults. The results also indicate that younger adults Facebook usage is more purpose-driven, since Facebook has led them to reduce the use of other services such as email and instant messaging. Finally, both younger and older adults are concerned about their social privacy on Facebook.

In a similar vein, Dwyer et al. (2007) conducted a survey in order to determine how trust and privacy concerns mediate peoples usage of Facebook and MySpace. Their results indicate that Facebook users were likely to reveal more private information than MySpace ones, but MySpace users were more likely to extend online relationships beyond the SNS boundaries. Paradoxically, although Facebook users showed higher levels of trust in the site than MySpace users, MySpace seemed to foster a greater development of new relationships.

14

Social media usage in general, and SNS usage in particular, is also influenced by peoples personality traits. Correa et al. (2009) conducted an online survey among U.S. adults, in order to determine how personality dimensions such as extroversion, emotional stability, and openness to new experiences influence peoples willingness to use instant messaging and SNSs. The results indicate that extraversion and openness to new experiences are positively associated with social media use and, therefore, both extroverted individuals and people who are open to new experiences use social media more frequently. It was also found that people who are more emotionally stable will use social media less frequently than those exhibiting greater neurotic tendencies.

All studies previously mentioned have focused on Facebook and similar SNSs. Twitter, however, should be addressed differently. It can be conceptualized as a microblogging service that allows people to share information about their activities, opinions and status within a 140-character limit (boyd et al., 2010; Kwak et al., 2010; Huberman et al., 2008; Java et al., 2007). Topics range from daily life to current events, news stories, and other interests (Java et al., 2007). Thus, regarding its potential to connect people globally, Twitter enables users to transform personal events into greater social and political issues (Ellis and Kent, 2010).

Twitter combines SNS and blogs features (boyd et al., 2010). Like other SNSs, Twitter connects profiles through an articulated direct network, enabling people who follow others to receive their messages (better known as tweets). However, reciprocity is not required (Boyd et al., 2010;
15

Kwak et al., 2010; Huberman et al., 2008). In other words, a user can follow any other users, but they do not necessarily have to follow him back (Kwak et al., 2010; Huberman et al., 2008). As to its blogging features, a users profile page shows his tweets in a reverse chronological order (boyd et al., 2010). Although it is not possible for users to comment on individual posts (boyd et al., 2010; Honeycutt and Herring, 2009), they can reply to tweets by using the @ sign followed by a username.

Having provided a wide definition of Twitter, let us review previous studies focusing on the reasons leading people to use the site. By proposing a two-level framework of user intention detection, Java et al. (2007), elaborated a taxonomy of users intentions for using this platform. According to their findings, Twitter users and their intentions can be categorized as follows: Daily chatter: People talk about their daily life and activities. It was found to be the most popular intention for using Twitter. Conversations: People use the @ sign to reply to other users. Sharing information: It refers to posts containing a URL. Reporting news or current events. Information source: This type of user may post tweets either regularly or infrequently. Friends: Many users have their families, co-workers or friends among their followers. Information seeker: This type of user may not post very often, but follows others regularly. The authors concluded that users can have multiple intentions or serve different purposes in different communities within the site.

16

In order to analyze Twitters essential characteristics, as well as its power as a medium of information sharing, Kwak et al. (2010) conducted a quantitative study of the entire site. They collected 41.7 million users profiles, 147 billion social relations, 4,262 trending topics, and 106 million tweets. Confirming the features differentiating Twitter from other SNSs pointed out by other scholars, their findings revealed low reciprocity on Twitter, which is shown by the small percentage of users who are followed back by the people they follow (only 1%). This is further explained by the fact that Twitter accounts having the greatest number of followers belong either to mass media or celebrities, and in most cases they do not follow back the people who follow them. Another important finding shows that the overwhelming majority of tweeted and retweeted trending topics (about 85%) are headlines or persistent news in nature, which may in turn indicate that some users see Twitter as a news source rather than as a social network.

Previous studies have addressed the notions of friendship and reciprocity on Twitter (Huberman et al., 2008; Java et al., 2007). By analyzing Twitters geographical characteristics across continents, Java et al. (2007) found that Asian and European users exhibit higher degrees of reciprocity than their North American counterparts. The authors also found that like in other social networks, Twitter users often start using the site on friends invitations, and that more friends and acquaintances are added by browsing through user profiles.

In a similar vein, Huberman et al. (2008) collected a large data set from Twitter in order to assess the relevance of users lists of friends. By looking at users followers and the people they
17

followed, the authors concluded that most Twitter users have a very small number of friends, as compared to the number of followers they have and the number of people they follow. A friend is defined as anyone who a user has directed a post to at least twice (p. 6). Despite the small number of friends, the network of friends is viewed by users as more dense and significant, due to the higher level of interaction taking place there in terms of replies, retweets and mentions. Regarding the great significance of friendship and reciprocity, it can be argued that many users utilize Twitter in exactly the same way they use other SNSs.

Honeycutt and Herring (2009) analyzed the use of Twitter as a tool for conversation. By examining a large dataset collected from Twitters timeline, the authors found English to be the dominant language, although Spanish and Japanese are well represented. It indicates that Twitter is being globally used as a tool for interaction. It was also found that tweets with the @ sign express a higher degree of exhortation and content related to an addressee, and that the @ sign is used to expand conversations previously started. Finally, by looking at responses given to tweets with the @ sign, the authors concluded that coherent and successful conversational exchanges can in fact take place on the site. This is consistent with what Java et al. (2007) had previously found, regarding the use of Twitter as a tool for conversation.

18

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, SOCIAL NETWORK SITES, AND DISABILITYSPECIFIC ONLINE COMMUNITIES

Many scholars have recognized the benefits of the Internet for people with disabilities in terms of information-seeking, education, employment, entertainment, and social interaction (Ellis and Kent, 2011; Obst and Stafurik, 2010; Thoreau, 2006; Guo et al., 2005; Williamson et al., 2001). Thus, Internet access contributes to remove social barriers, while expanding the social networks of individuals with disabilities (Guo et al., 2005). Confirming this, Jerber (2003) found that the major benefits of Internet access for blind and visually impaired individuals include employment, financial independence, development of their own identity, expansion of their social networks, learning outcomes and literacy, and information access. The Internet can, therefore, be considered as an instrument for improving the quality of life of people with disabilities, while promoting their social inclusion (Huang and Guo, 2005).

With regards to disability-specific online communities, researchers have found that participating in these platforms develops a sense of community among their members, while increasing the availability of social support through information sharing and friendships (Obst and Stafurik, 2010; Williamson et al., 2001). Jaeger and Xie (2009) mention three main benefits of disabilityspecific online communities. These are: 1) They enable the formation of new relationships, regardless of geographical distance or physical disabilities; 2) They give people the possibility to build support networks with those who have the same disability; and

19

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

A quantitative study conducted by Obst and Stafurik (2010) confirms the existence of the benefits mentioned above. After conducting a survey with adults having a physical disability, they concluded that belonging to disability-specific forums, newsgroups and mailing lists has a positive influence on people with disabilities well-being. In a similar vein, Huang and Guo (2005) used the concept of social capital to explore the dynamics of online disability communities in China. Based on the results of a survey with 122 individuals with disabilities, the authors concluded that participating in online communities positively influences the formation of social capital, including aspects such as trust, reciprocal support (whether tangible or emotional), social participation and friendship.

The advantages of using popular SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter for people with disabilities have been recognized, although very few studies have been published. Hollier (2012) affirms that interacting through Facebook is extremely beneficial for individuals with physical disabilities or visual impairment, since they can easily share information and communicate with friends without traveling. The author also highlights the opportunities for community support this platform can provide to people with disabilities in general. Similarly, Ellis and Kent (2011) state that Facebook promotes political mobilization within the disability community, which may in turn contribute to raise awareness about accessibility issues. Twitter, on the other hand, enables people to quickly seek disability-related information, in order to solve potential issues or

20

share experiences (Hollier, 2012). The platform also can be used by people with disabilities to unify either to protest or to receive quick answers to particular issues (Hollier, 2012).

Despite the recognized benefits of using popular SNSs, little attention has been given to the use of those sites by blind and visually impaired people. Tollefsen et al. (2011) conducted a survey with 101 people with disabilities in Norway, including blind and visually impaired individuals. Their findings indicate that people with disabilities use SNSs such as Facebook to find old friends, meet people, keep updated, exchange information and opinions, and find peers support. Moreover, participants expressed that using social media enables them to overcome mobility and communication challenges, which in turn lets them feel like everyone else. Thus, an added value is attributed to social media use within the disability community. In a similar vein, Fuglerud et al. (2012) conducted two surveys with blind and visually impaired users of popular SNSs. Their findings show a high use of social media among blind and visually impaired people. It was also found that the two main factors influencing the use of SNSs for blind and visually impaired individuals are the relative simplicity or difficulty to use them, as well as the possibility to have contact with their sighted peers and with other visually impaired individuals.

Brady et al. (2013) analyzed how blind individuals use SNSs to ask visual questions that they would be unable to answer without sighted help (a bills denomination, the name of a letters sender, etc.). Those questions are accompanied by a picture blind people can take by using a smartphone application called BizWiz social. After conducting a survey with 191 blind users of Twitter and Facebook, the authors found that blind people limit SNS Q&A due to three main

21

concerns: social cost, usability and accessibility issues, and discomfort with public questionasking. They also concluded that in general terms, blind people seem to ask fewer questions in SNSs than do their sighted counterparts. It can be argued, therefore, that Q&A is not one of the main reasons leading blind people to use Twitter and Facebook.

WEB ACCESSIBILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES FOR BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED PEOPLE

Before reviewing previous research on Web accessibility, it is critical to provide a definition and classifications of visual impairment. The World Health Organization (WHO), in its International Classification of Diseases (2006), distinguishes four levels of visual function (Pascolini and Mariotti, 2012). These are: Normal vision Moderate visual impairment Severe visual impairment Blindness

Moderate and severe visual impairment are grouped under the term low vision (Pascolini and Mariotti, 2012). Low vision, therefore, is defined as visual acuity of 6/18, but equal to or better than 3/60, or a correspondent visual field loss to less than 20 degrees in the better eye with best possible correction (Resnikoff et al., 2004, p. 845). Blindness, on the other hand, is defined as visual acuity of less than 3/60, or a correspondent visual field loss to less than 10 degrees in the better eye with best possible correction (Resnikoff et al., 2004, p. 845). Another type of visual

22

impairment to be considered is color blindness, which can be defined as the inability to distinguish between certain colors (Bedinghaus, 2007). Color-blind individuals find it difficult to distinguish between the colors red and green, or blue and yellow (Bedinghaus, 2007).

In order to better understand how blind and visually impaired people use the Internet in general and SNSs in particular, three interrelated concepts need to be defined, namely: Web accessibility, assistive technologies, and accessibility issues.

In general terms, accessibility can be conceptualized as the equal access to information and communication technologies for everyone, regardless of the type of disability they present (Jaeger and Xie, 2009). In order for a website to be considered as accessible, therefore, all technical barriers should be removed, so that people with disabilities can access it and use it as effectively as those without disabilities (Harper and Yesilada, 2008; Leporini and Patern, 2008; Hackett et al., 2004; Slatin and Rush, 2003).

Assistive technologies can be defined as hardware and software designed to facilitate the use of computers by people with disabilities (Harper and Yesilada, 2008, p. 61). Screen readers constitute the most popular assistive technology among blind users (Lazar et al., 2007). A screen reader provides the content on the screen as output using computer-synthesized speech (Buzzi et al., 2010; Lazar et al., 2007). Job Access with Speech (JAWS), developed by Freedom Scientific, and Window-Eyes, by GW-Micro, are the two best known screen readers in the market (Lazar et

23

al., 2007). There is also a free screen reader called NVDA, which can be used with all currently supported Windows versions (Holier, 2012). Visually impaired people, on the other hand, use different strategies according to their visual impairment. Some people use large monitors or increase the size of fonts and images, while some others rely on magnification software (Leporini and Patern, 2008).

Despite the evolution of assistive technologies, some scholars argue that blind and visually impaired people continue to find accessibility issues preventing them from effectively using social media (Fuglerud et al., 2012) and the Web (Fulton, 2011; Craven, 2008; Harper and Yesilada, 2008; Asakawa, 2005; Lazar et al., 2004; Takagi et al. 2004). Moreover, the Web has become increasingly visual and, therefore, exclusionary (Ellis and Kent, 2010; Leporini and Patern, 2008; Carter and Merkel, 2001). This is especially true for those sites based on user generated content, which present serious accessibility and usability challenges for blind and visually impaired individuals (Ellis and Kent, 2011). It occurs not only because of the high presence of photos, videos, and Flash animations, but also because most content is created by users who are not accessibility experts.

Carter and Merkel (2001) mentioned seven common accessibility barriers listed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). These are: 1. Images without alternative text; 2. Imagemap hot spots without alternative text;

24

3. Misleading use of structural elements on a page; as pointed out by Lazar et al. (2007), many blind users access a list of links instead of reading through the entire page. If link labels are confusing or unclear (click here or this link), blind users may not be able to find the link they are looking for (Lazar et al., 2007); 4. Uncaptioned audio or undescribed video; 5. Lack of alternative information for users who cannot access frames or scripts; 6. Tables that are difficult to decipher when linearized; and 7. Sites with poor color contrast.

For blind people, one of the major challenges appears when components such as toolbars or other interactive elements, commonly activated with a mouse click, cannot be activated by using the keyboard (Leporini and Patern, 2008). Instead of the mouse functionalities such as pointing, selecting or scrolling, blind people prefer to use the tab key, arrow keys or other shortcuts for moving around a Web page (Leporini and Patern, 2008). Thus, an accessible website should give blind people the possibility to use those keyboard functionalities. Other accessibility issues listed by Buzzi et al. (2010) include: Difficulty processing page content: If structure and content mix, screen reader users receive confusing or misleading information. It occurs because tables content is sometimes organized in columns, and the screen reader reads the Web content by rows. Lack of context: Since screen readers allow users to access small portions of text, the overall context of the page may be lost, and the user may need to repeat the reading process to recover lost information.

25

Lack of interface overview: Since blind users do not perceive the overall structure of the interface, it can be difficult for them to quickly find the relevant content on a page.

Difficulty understanding user interface elements: Links, content, and buttons should be properly labeled and self-explanatory. For example, the purpose of a blank button without text may not be clear to someone who cannot see the button in its visual context.

As an attempt to tackle the Web accessibility issues mentioned above, the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI), a working group within the W3C, developed the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) (Romen and Svans, 2011; Jaeger and Xie, 2009; Harper and Yesilada, 2008; Kelly et al., 2007; Brewer, 2004). The first version of the guidelines, known as WCAG 1.0, was presented in 1999, and became W3Cs first attempt to create an international standard defining Web content accessibility (Reid and Snow-Weaver, 2008; Brewer, 2004). Essentially, these guidelines described how to make websites and Web content fully accessible for people with disabilities (Harper and Yesilada, 2008; Reid and Snow-Weaver, 2008). This version was constituted by 14 general principles, some of which are mentioned by Brewer (2004). These are: Providing equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content; Providing context and orientation information to help users understand complex pages or elements; Using features that enable activation of page elements via a variety of input devices; and Providing clear and consistent navigation mechanisms to increase the likelihood that people will find what they are looking for in the site.

26

Because of the Webs transition from 1.0 to 2.0, the guidelines had to be u pdated as well (Harper and Yesilada, 2008; Reid and Snow-Weaver, 2008). Released in 2008, WCAG 2.0 had two main goals. The first was to make the guidelines applicable to any W3C or non-W3C technology, including CSS, XML, PDF and Flash, in addition to HTML and XHTML. The second goal was to ensure that requirements could be objectively testable, in order for governments to be able to implement them (Romen and Svans, 2011). WCAG 2.0 was created around four accessibility principles and 12 guidelines. According to those principles, Web content must be operable, perceivable, understandable and robust, in order for people with disabilities to be able to use the Web (Romen and Svans, 2011).

In order to make the Web even more accessible and usable for people with disabilities, W3C is currently working on improving accessibility features in HTML5. As Schwerdtfeger (2011) pointed out, this is critical because not all features of HTML5 have been implemented in all browsers, which poses challenges for people using assistive technologies such as screen readers. HTML5 now includes WAI-ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications), which enables the development of applications that are accessible in all platforms (Schwerdtfeger, 2011). WAIARIA addresses the following accessibility issues: The lack of information required by assistive technologies in order to interact with complex user interface controls, which are currently used in many websites. Drag-and-drop functionality is not always available to people who use the keyboard to navigate a website.

27

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

WAI-ARIA addresses those issues by providing a framework for attributes to identify features enabling user interaction, while describing new navigation techniques to identify and mark regions such as menus, primary content, secondary content, banner information, and so on. The identification of regions would let developers, for instance, enable keyboard commands to be used by screen-reader users when moving from one region to another.

Some scholars have attempted to demonstrate the validity of WCAG. By conducting an experiment with a group of users with disabilities and a control group, Romen and Svans (2011) sought to determine the extent to which conformance to WCAG contributes to solving the most common accessibility issues encountered by individuals with disabilities on the Web. The results show that individuals with disabilities experienced accessibility issues almost as twice as often as the controls. In addition, from 47 website accessibility problems identified by users with disabilities, only 13 were caused by WCAG violations, whereas the other ones would not have been identified by applying the guidelines alone. It implies that the application of the guidelines does not necessarily ensure that websites are fully accessible for people with disabilities. In fact, despite the existence of the guidelines and the correspondent regulations demanding their application, Web accessibility issues continue to be found (Katsanos et al., 2012; Pribeanu et al., 2012). Furthermore, as pointed out by Slatin and Rush (2003), full accessibility goes beyond compliance with the guidelines, since users individual experiences on a website should also be

28

considered. These experiences will be determined by peoples knowledge of the browsers user interface, as well as of the assistive technology being used (Tollefsen et al., 2010).

Some other scholars have not necessarily considered WCAG in their studies, but they have certainly incorporated users with disabilities direct experiences when assessing Web accessibility. Based on blind users testing, Wentz and Lazar (2011) evaluated the level of accessibility and usability of three desktop email applications (Microsoft Outlook 2007, Outlook Express, and Mozilla Thunderbird-Sunbird), and four Web-based email applications (Outlook Web Access 2007 Light, Gmail, Yahoo Mail Classic, and Hotmail). From their analysis, the authors concluded that both desktop and Web-based email applications present some usability issues for screen-reader users, and that these issues are significantly higher in Web-based email applications. It was also found that most of the encountered issues could be solved through relatively minor modifications.

According to Tollefsen et al. (2011), social media in general and SNSs in particular do not follow WCAG or WAI-ARIA. The accessibility level of SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter has been addressed in previous studies. Meiselwitz and Lazar (2009) evaluated the accessibility level of 22 SNSs registration mechanisms. The sites were classified into three categories: strictly social (Facebook or MySpace), social with a special focus (YouTube or Flickr), and social with a professional focus (LinkedIn or Xing). Among the 22 sites, 40% were found to be marginally inaccessible, and 59% were seen as moderately inaccessible. The registration process for people

29

with disabilities, and particularly for blind individuals using screen readers, is further complicated by the use of CAPTCHA (Hollier, 2012; Fuglerud et al., 2012).

CAPTCHA is defined as distorted language used to verify that a user is human and not an automated security threat (Wentz and Lazar, 2011, p. 76). Jeng et al. (2010) distinguish four types of CAPTCHA, namely: text-based scheme, image-based scheme, audio-based scheme, and video-based scheme. Among those types, the audio-based scheme CAPTCHA is presented as an alternative for blind and visually impaired users authentication. However, using this type of CAPTCHA may cause error of identification for non-native speakers of the language (Buzzi et al., 2010; Jeng et al., 2010). Moreover, many users have reported that it does not work properly in all devices and browsers (Hollier, 2012). The use of CAPTCHA, therefore, can be considered as a strong obstacle preventing blind and visually impaired individuals from accessing certain sites (Ellis and Kent, 2011).

Buzzi et al. (2010) tested the accessibility and usability of the Facebook interface. By using JAWS, the authors performed the most common tasks, including registering, adding friends, accepting friend requests, inviting friends to join, and answering messages. The authors findings indicate that the page is not logically organized, which obliges blind users to read it sequentially. This can be particularly tedious for expert screen-reader users. Another serious issue is related to events and notifications, since the screen reader does not notify the users automatically when they receive an invitation or a friend request. Yet another issue has to do with the absence of JAWS feedback after an action is carried out. Since JAWS does not announce the result of the

30

task, users have to sequentially explore the page to find out. Moreover, as expressed by the participants in the survey conducted by Tollefsen et al. (2011), constant changes to the Facebook pages structure brings new accessibility challenges for blind and visually impaired users, which leads them to spend a considerable amount of time and effort trying to find new ways to navigate the page.

Wentz (2011) took blind users direct experiences in order to compare the usability levels of Facebook mobile and Facebook desktop. The results show that Facebook desktop presents significantly greater accessibility and usability issues than Facebook mobile, since many screenreader users were unable to perform tasks such as updating their status, posting comments or uploading pictures. Although Facebook mobile was found to be more accessible and navigable, it does not include all of the features encountered in Facebook desktop (Hollier, 2012; Tollefsen et al., 2011).

In addition to CAPTCHA, Ellis and Kent (2011) mention other six areas of concern discussed by The Official Petition for a more Accessible Facebook. These are: Gifts Newsfeed preferences Drop-down menus Drop-down boxes Adjusting text size

31

Web page layout

A number of strategies to overcome accessibility issues on Facebook have been proposed. Hollier (2012) provides detailed instructions on how screen-reader users can perform the most common tasks on the site. These include signing up, setting ones profile, finding and adding friends, posting status updates, captioning photographs, sending messages, chatting, and adjusting privacy settings. Also, a list of links to additional accessibility resources, as well as a list of shortcuts, is provided. Similarly, Buzzi et al. (2010) provide some suggestions to improve accessibility for screen-reader users. These include adding semantics to UI elements and organizing the page in a more logical way, so that blind users can easily move from one area to another.

Regarding Twitter, Ellis and Kent (2010) mentioned some accessibility issues listed by Web developer Denis Lembree. Some of them are lack of headings, fieldset used without legends (which makes it difficult or even impossible for a blind user to fill in a Web form), and the requirement of JavaScript for favoriting and viewing details about the latest tweet (time, in reply to). JavaScript is defined as a programing language which is used to make webpages more dynamic and interactive (Ellis and Kent, 2011, p. 52). Since it is an add-on to HTML, it has traditionally posed challenges for blind users, although more recent screen reader versions are better equipped to handle it (Ellis and Kent, 2011). Similarly, by testing the Twitter interface via a screen reader, Buzzi et al. (2011) found the platform to be much more usable and accessible

32

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

In order to make Twitter fully accessible for people with disabilities, Denis Lembree created a tool called Accessible Twitter, whose name was later changed to Easy Chirp. Some of its accessibility features include: All links are keyboard-accessible. Headings and page titles are implemented. The tool works with or without JavaScript. AJAX action concludes with an alert to notify the user of the result of the action. Large text size and high color contrast. Keyboard shortcuts to main menu items.

Hollier (2012) provides detailed instructions on how screen-reader users can carry out the most common tasks on the site. These include setting up a Twitter users profile, sending tweets, adjusting visibility and privacy settings, following other people, tweeting another person directly, replying to a tweet, and using hashtags to join conversations. Similarly, Buzzi et al. (2011) suggest a simplification of the page, so that blind users can navigate it faster.

33

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

As shown by the literature review, previous research has focused on the main motivations leading people to use popular social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Nevertheless, little attention has been given to the motivations behind the creation and use of SNSs targeted to people with disabilities. Researchers have found that participating in disability-specific websites, including forums, mailing lists and news groups, fosters a sense of community and well-being among their members (Obst and Stafurik, 2010; Williamson et al., 2001). It is critical, therefore, to make online communities fully accessible for people with disabilities (Jaeger and Xie, 2009). Concerning more recent disability-specific SNSs, however, no previous studies have addressed the motivations leading to the creation and use of those alternative platforms.

Regarding the above, the following questions were addressed:

RQ1: What are the main motivations behind the creation of social network sites aimed at people with disabilities? RQ2: What are the main motivations leading blind and visually impaired individuals to use SNSs targeted to people with disabilities? RQ3: How different or similar are the chosen SNSs from Facebook and Twitter in terms of: a) accessibility and b) possibilities offered in terms of users interaction and participation?

34

METHODOLOGY

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

Interviewing the sites creators. The researcher attempted to conduct semistructured interviews with the creators of four SNSs aimed at people with disabilities (see Appendix A for the interview guide). According to Leech (2002), a semistructured interview with open-ended questions, as compared with a structured one, provides the researcher with more detail and an insiders perspective. In all cases, the researcher directly contacted the sites creators via email. In Disabilinets case, however, the email was replied not by the sites creator, but by the person who is currently driving the site.

Due to geographical distances, the researcher suggested to conduct the interviews either on the telephone or by using a Voice Internet Protocol application such as Skype (Hay-Gibson, 2009). In two cases, however, the interviews were conducted via email upon interviewees request. In explaining his preferences, one of the sites creators argued that there might be some scheduling conflicts due to the time zones differences (Kazmer and Xie, 2008).

The Skype interviews were 60 to 90 minutes long, and the researcher was open to the emergence of new themes during the interview process. Moreover, taking into account the characteristics of each site, more specific questions were asked in each case. As for the email

35

interviews, the researcher sent the interviewees the whole questionnaire, and some follow-up questions were sent when needed (Kazmer and Xie, 2008).

The two Skype interviews were entirely recorded and transcribed by the researcher, while the email interviews were translated from Spanish to English. Since the purpose of the study was to deeply understand each sites case, the interviews were carried out in four different weeks. Once the interview transcripts were ready, the researcher proceeded to analyze them in order to find the overarching theme and a list of subthemes emerging from the data. Some passages reflecting those themes were then selected for further analysis.

Promoting discussions among blind and visually impaired users of the sites. Some weeks before beginning the project, the researcher registered on the four SNSs, in order to promote discussions among visually impaired users of those sites within groups or forums. The purpose of these discussions was to determine the main factors influencing blind and visually impaired individuals decision to use alternative social network sites, as opposed to Facebook or Twitter (see Appendix B for a list of discussion questions). The researcher invited blind and visually impaired users of the four sites to participate in the discussions, and informed them about how the results would be used in the present study (Anderberg and Jnsson, 2005). Nevertheless, only users of the BlindWorlds site replied to the researchers invitation and to the DQs posted. Because users feedback was received only in one site, the researcher decided to ask three out of the four questions she had initially considered. She realized that it was not necessary to ask users about their preferred activity on the site, since it was something she could infer from her own analysis.

36

A total of 17 BlindWorlds users, whose ages range from 14 to 62 years old, participated in the discussions. One DQ was posted each week, which gave the researcher some time to obtain participants feedback. Users comments published one or two weeks after the question had been posted were also considered in the analysis. In addition to users responses, the sites creator provided the researcher with old publications and comments about BlindWorlds posted by users. All responses in Spanish, as well as some old publications and comments, were stored and analyzed by the researcher. Since the users, as compared with the SNSs creators, tend to use a more informal language, all greetings, idiomatic expressions/interjections, repeated phrases and laudatory comments about the proposed discussions were disregarded during the translation process. The translated publications and comments were then analyzed in order to find the overarching theme and subthemes emerging from the data. These analyses were carried out over a four-week period. As for the other SNSs, there was very little or no user participation, even though the researcher had posted the invitation and questions both on her wall and in all groups that could potentially involve blind and visually impaired users. It occurred because the participation of blind and visually impaired people in those sites is very low or even nonexistent.

The researchers view of the sites. In addition to the proposed discussions, the researcher presents her own perspective as a blind user of the four sites. In this analysis, not only accessibility-related issues were considered, but also the differences and similarities between the sites in terms of users participation and interaction.

37

Comparing the sites with Facebook and Twitter. Since the researcher has Facebook and Twitter accounts, she also compared and contrasted the use of those popular SNSs with the use of the ones targeted to people with disabilities. As in the previous case, accessibility issues, as well as the possibilities for interaction and participation offered by each site, were analyzed. The researchers view, along with the results of the group and forum discussions, provide evidence of SNS usage among blind and visually impaired individuals.

REASONS FOR CHOOSING THE SITES

For the present study, the following social network sites were chosen: 1. Anundis.com http://www.anundis.com/
2. ILiveWithADisability.com

http://ilivewithadisability.com/ 3. BlindWorlds http://www.blindworlds.com/ 4. Disabilinet.com http://www.disabilinet.com/ These social network sites were chosen according to three main criteria: 1. They offer features commonly found in widely used SNSs. The sites allow users to create individual profiles and connect with one another (boyd and Ellison, 2007; Gangadharbatla, 2008); share photos and videos, create and maintain blogs, and interact

38

through chat rooms and instant messaging (Gangadharbatla, 2008); and create or join groups (Joinson, 2008). 2. The SNSs are open to all users with any disabilities. Among the chosen sites, BlindWorlds focuses on blind and visually impaired people, which does not necessarily prevent individuals without disabilities from registering. Since the present study focuses on blindness and visual impairment, those SNSs targeted to people with learning or developmental disabilities were excluded. 3. The chosen sites certainly have content related to services and resources specifically aimed at people with disabilities, but they are primarily SNSs. Some sites that had been initially considered for the present study were later excluded, since they were found to be disability-related information providers rather than social network sites. Other platforms were found to be either charity or advocacy-based (Thoreau, 2006). In platforms like these, users may have the possibility to comment on articles written by people with or without disabilities, but they are not given any options to join groups, or add user generated content such as videos or photos. Other sites that seem not to be working properly, or whose links seem to be broken, were also excluded from the present study.

The main features of the chosen sites are summarized in Table 1. These include hosting server location, year in which the sites were launched, their disability focus, a general description, and accessibility-related information, as well as some information about their terms of use and financial support. In all cases, it is possible for users to have direct contact with the sites creators, which doesnt occur in Facebook and Twitter.

39

Table 1. Site features.

Name of the Site Hosting Server Location Launching Year Anundis.com Spain I Live With A Disability (ILWAD) United States BlindWorlds Spain Disabilinet.com United Kingdom

2004 People with or without disabilities from any country

2010 People with disabilities, their families, friends and supporters

2011 People with any disabilities, focusing on blind and visually impaired individuals. People without disabilities are also welcome, regardless of their nationality or age. Registered users can: 1) Meet new friends; 2) Write private posts or share them in their Twitter account; 3) Publish 140character messages in their walls; 4) Publish voice messages (maximum 10 minutes long); and 5) Share all types of files with a maximum size of 32 megabytes). Users also have a direct contact with the sites creator. In section Condiciones de Uso (Terms of Use), it is stated that children

2012 People with disabilities

Disability focus

Registered users can: 1) Create their own profile; 2) Promote discussions and participate in forums; 3) Chat with other users; and 4) Join shared interests groups. General Description Unregister users, on the other hand, have access to the current number of members registered on the site, as well as to the discussions and groups members.

The site is presented as a dynamic online support community, where people with disabilities and their loved ones can discuss sensitive issues within a safe and friendly atmosphere. Registered users can create blogs and comment on other users posts, as well as meet friends and join shared interests groups. Moreover, users have the possibility to directly interact with the sites creators (one of them has a physical disability). The site also includes a section dedicated to disabilityrelated news.

Registered users can: 1) Add photos, videos or stories; 2) Join shared interests groups; 3) Publish and comment on users blog posts; 4) Interact through chat; and 5) Create events. Unregistered users have access to a list of recently registered individuals, as well as to a list of members birthdays. The site cannot be used by individuals younger than 13.

Terms of Services Essential Information

In section Normas y Funcionamiento (Norms and Functioning), it is clearly stated that only

Users are totally responsible for the information they make available on the site.

40

adults can register on the site. Also, discussions about topics such as politics and religion are not welcome, unless they are disability-related

younger than 14 can register on the site, but their parents or caregivers must fill out and sign some documents in order to authorize the registration

Also, users age is not available to other people.

Accessibilityrelated Information

In addition to an explanation on how to adjust settings, section Normas y Funcionamiento provides some links that can be used to report issues and complains, as well as to send comments and suggestions. The section also provides some functioning guidelines, both in English and in Spanish. The English version is more complete and extensive. The money is provided by the sites creator

Although there is not a section entirely dedicated to accessibility, the website is easy to navigate and use.

The Accesibilidad (Accessibility) section offers five different ways in which visually impaired users can adjust the color and size of the screen. Also, a list of shortcuts to be used by blind individuals is provided

There is not a section exclusively dedicated to accessibility, but the site is easy to use and navigate

Financial support

The site is financially supported by disabilityrelated organizations and private donors. They are also open to receive peoples donations.

The site is financially supported by its creator, as well as by disability-related organizations.

The site is financially supported by charities and disability-related organizations.

41

TIMETABLE FOR RESEARCH

Week 1

Plan of Research First interview, transcription and analysis. Researchers interaction with blind and visually impaired users of all sites. First DQ posted on the four sites and initial analyses of participants responses. Researchers complete analysis of the first site. Second interview, transcription and analysis. Researchers interaction with users of all sites. Second DQ posted and follow-up to the responses given to the previous question. Researchers complete analysis of the second site. Third interview, transcription and analysis. Researchers interaction with users of all sites. Third DQ posted and follow-up to the responses given to previous questions. Researchers complete analysis of the third site. Last interview, transcription and analysis. Researchers interaction with users of all sites. Researchers complete analysis of the forth site. Reached conclusions and final analyses.

42

RESULTS
Information gathered in the interviews provides an overview of the four sites. Data such as the sites creator(s) and staff, their goals, the approximate number of users, and the level of blind and visually impaired users participation on the sites are provided.

Information about the sites staff

Anundis.com: Francisco Martin, creator/manager. He has a disability caused by the Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, also known as hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy or peroneal muscular atrophy. It comprises a set of disorders affecting the peripheral nerves, both motor and sensory (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 2011). Martin is also in charge of IT for the site. ILiveWithADisability: Scott Susman, one of the sites co-founders. He has cerebral palsy, and he is in charge of answering nontechnical questions. Ronald Bercume, a graphic designer who is in charge of IT for the site. He answers users technical questions. BlindWorlds: Jose Ignacio Corral, sites creator/administrator. For almost 20 years, he has worked with ONCE, a Spanish foundation for blind and visually impaired people. While working there, he has had the opportunity to make blind close friends, as well as to learn a good deal about the assistive technologies to be used by this population. Manuel Adan, in charge of IT for the site.

43

Disabilinet: Mike Simmons, leads the team involved in the creation of the site. He is a global entrepreneur who has worked, for many years, in the field of mobility products for people with disabilities. Tracey Proudlock, a wheelchair user who currently manages the site. She is in charge of welcoming users and giving them tips, so that they can get what they want from the SNS. Two people are in charge of IT for the site.

Goals to be reached by the SNSs creators Anundis.com: A social network site for people with and without disabilities. A place where we can meet, discuss, chat, help, make friends, share information, experiences, feelings, likes and opinions, make plans, support, reclaim, and so on. Participate, network, create community, and in that way the site will make sense and will be useful for all. (Description translated by the researcher from Spanish to English). ILiveWithADisability: A place for those of us who refuse to allow a disability to become a defect, a disadvantage or a defeat. ILWAD.com is the first social networking platform of its kind, empowering the people with disabilities and their loved ones with the tools and resources they need to live a happy and fulfilling life. BlindWorlds: BlindWorlds: the accessible social network site truly for all. BlindWorlds will become an accessibility model, both nationally and internationally. Through its various features, it facilitates the formation of interpersonal relationships, information exchange, communication, and the sake of people whom users share feelings, opinions, publications, and so on. (Description translated from Spanish to English by the researcher).

44

Disabilinet: Disabilinet.com is more than just a social network, we are creating with you a place where the worlds of disabled individuals come together!

Approximate number of users as of May 2013

Anundis.com: Almost 4,400 users, of which about 120 are visually impaired. ILiveWithADisability: More than 500 registered members. BlindWorlds: More than 1,200 users from 32 countries. Disabilinet: More than 700 users, and there are not statistical data about the number of

blind and visually impaired registered members. Level of blind and visually impaired users participation

Anundis.: Low participation. Most blind or visually impaired users have not even updated their profile or added content in a year or more.

ILiveWithADisability: Low participation of blind and visually impaired users. BlindWorlds: Most of the sites users are blind and visually impaired people, and user participation and involvement are pretty high.

Disabilinet: Low participation of blind and visually impaired individuals.

45

RQ1: What are the main motivations behind the creation of social network sites aimed at people with disabilities? Taking into account the interviewees responses, two main motivations could be identified. These are: (1) the SNS as a support group and a socializer; and (2) the desire to create a truly accessible SNS.

The SNS as a support group and a socializer

One of the main motivations leading to the creation of SNSs for people with disabilities is consistent with some of the benefits of disability online communities discussed by Jaeger and Xie (2009). These are: a) The formation of social relationships regardless of geographical distance and type of impairment; b) The possibility for people with disabilities to build up support networks with those who have the same disability; and c) The discussion of sensitive or disability-related issues. As the following excerpt will show, the creation of Anundis.com highlights the role of SNSs aimed at people with disabilities as facilitators of the formation of new relationships. These responses were translated by the researcher from Spanish to English.

46

Francisco Martin, Anundis creator: In 2004, when the site was launched, there were not big online communities targeted to people with disabilities where they could exchange information, meet people, help others, or establish interpersonal relationships. Anundis is intended to be a place where people with and without disabilities can meet people, socialize, make friends, chat, share information, experiences, likes, feelings and opinions, as well as make plans to go out, find their significant others, and help each other The site contributes to people with disabilities social integration, focusing on those who feel lonely and do not have friends or a life project due to their physical impairment. The following passage shows that the creation of Disabilinet was based on similar motivations. Tracey Proudlock, Disabilinets general manager: Disabilinet is about social media, is about disabled people being less isolated, and its giving people opportunities to get together. As the previous quote shows, the Disabilinet staff is not only interested in promoting online communication among people with disabilities, but they also want to provide opportunities for people to meet offline. Thus, they constantly give people ideas on things to do and places to go. In addition to providing a space for socializing, the creation of Disabilinet was motivated by the future provision of employment and training for people with disabilities. This can be seen in the following excerpt taken from Proudlocks responses: The ideal is that the site will be run and managed by disabled people getting work, you know, there are quite a lot of jobs in social media or online work. So my role is to get the site in better

47

shape, in a stronger position, so it can bring in more money and provide employment and training for people.

The four SNSs included in this study offer people the possibility to give and receive support, whether tangible or emotional (Huang and Guo, 2005). In the specific case of ILiveWithADisability, however, the provision of online support for people with disabilities and their loved ones was clearly one of the main motivations leading to its creation. This is the explanation given by Scott Susman, one of the sites co-founders: When I grew up, I didnt know anybody with a disability, and therefore I didnt have anybody to ask a question to. I never felt or acted differently, it was just that there were some times I had liked to find support on someone who had gone through it or done that So I decided that I would put myself out there and create a pretty open form where people were, you know, happy and were dealing with things in positive ways. So I was able to create this website where siblings, parents, and friends of people with disabilities could have the ability to ask a question and really find the right person to ask the question to, as opposed to put it on a message board.

The desire to create a truly accessible SNS

Accessibility and usability concerns, ALONG with a good knowledge of assistive technology, clearly motivated the creation of the Spanish site BlindWorlds. This is what Jose Ignacio Corral, the sites creator and administrator said (responses were translated by the researcher from Spanish to English):
48

While learning about assistive technologies, I became aware of the obstacles blind people have to face in order to access information in general and the Internet in particular. This is caused by the lack of accessibility in Web pages and, more specifically, in the most popular social network sites which everybody wants to join in order to find their friends. So the knowledge of the software needed by blind people in order to access ICT (particularly screen readers such as JAWS, NVDA and Orca), as well as the lack of accessibility guidelines in well-known SNSs, led me to think of creating an SNS in which everybody could have equal access. As we will see later, the lack of accessibility in popular social network sites mentioned by the BlindWorlds creator was confirmed by blind users of this platform.

In summary, covering Web accessibility needs encountered by blind and visually impaired users, as well as providing a space where people could socialize and find peer support, were found to be the main motivations behind the creation of SNSs targeted to individuals with disabilities. Undoubtedly, the SNS creators personal experiences also played an important role. In the case of ILiveWithADisability, for instance, Susmans experiences as a person with a disability led him to create the SNS, in order to provide a space where individuals with disabilities and their loved ones could get support. Mike Simmons, on the other hand, created Disabilinet as a way to give something back to the customers with disabilities he had worked with. Finally, Corral decided to create BlindWorlds after having identified common online accessibility and usability issues faced by blind and visually impaired people. It was possible not only because of his work with ONCE, but also, and even most important, because of his contact with blind and visually impaired close friends.

49

RQ2: What are the main motivations leading blind and visually impaired individuals to use SNSs targeted to people with disabilities? Although the researchers intention was to promote discussions on the four sites, the low participation of blind and visually impaired users on Disabilinet, ILiveWithADisability and Anundis prevented her from getting replies to the posted questions. Thus, she was able to promote discussions only with BlindWorlds users, whose opinions highlight the main reasons leading blind and visually impaired individuals to use, and in some cases prefer, SNSs targeted to people with disabilities. From the analysis of the discussions, three main motivations could be identified: (1) simplicity of the page structure; (2) people, values, and sense of community; and (3) knowledge and learning.

Simplicity of the page structure

For many BlindWorlds users, accessibility played an important role in leading them to join the site. The following quotes exemplify this: Male, 45-year-old user (1): The page is very simple and its very easy to find links. It doesnt have lots of links to lots of sites for chatting, listening to the radio, searching for people or topics, translators, and so on. Male, 25-year-old user: I found it very easy to use. After registering, I immediately started exploring the social network site, and in a little more than a day I already knew it all.

50

Male, 45-year-old user (2): I think this is an excellent website, since it is mainly targeted to people with visual impairments. Its simple structure led me to choose it.

Another topic mentioned by participants was the use of different screen readers to navigate the site. The following quote illustrates this point: Male, 45-year-old user (1): It is easy to access BlindWorlds with any screen reader, either JAWS or NVDA. For instance, Im using JAWS 10.0 (a relatively old version), and I havent had any difficulties so far. This was confirmed by the researcher. She mostly uses JAWS 12.0 (released two years ago), but she has also used the latest version of NVDA and she has not experienced any accessibility issues on the BlindWorlds site.

People, values, and sense of community

In explaining the reasons leading them to join BlindWorlds, users highlight the presence of values such as respect, solidarity, friendship, peer support, and freedom of expression. The following excerpts illustrate this: Female, 55-year-old user: In addition to accessibility, there is absolute freedom and a lot of respect among BW members, mixed with a bit of solidarity and affection.

51

Female, 41-year-old user: I should say that this site hooked me from the beginning! Not only because it is accessible, but rather because of all the warm, nice people I have found here, and because I feel free to express what I feel or think. Female, 21-year-old user: What I like the most about this site is that all its members are very special people. I would even say that this site is a very special world, full of wonderful angels. Its such a great privilege for me to be here. I just hope to please and meet everyone. Im really happy to belong to this virtual ideal world! Male, 52-year-old user: This site is a paradise within that Internet jungle. Male, 33-year-old user: A social network site where respect, free expression and friendship are the rules in order for people to get along, and where very interesting people know and do things that enrich me every time I log in. Male, 37-year-old user: In a few words, this site has given me a reason for living. I havent been here so long and Im meeting you all through your comments and articles. Im sure Ill make good friends here.

As the following quotes will show, some users refer to the site as their own family, and some others have even found their significant other. Female, 18-year-old user: Thanks to this wonderful site, Ive met a lot of nice people whom I now consider as my family members.

52

Female, 37-year-old user: BlindWorlds has given me a new family that is able to know the limitations and difficulties caused by my visual impairment. A family in which we support each other when we are down. Female, 28-year-old user: Now I have a virtual little sister, a great brother-in-law, and a boyfriend that I met thanks to this social network site! Male, 18-year-old user: BlindWorlds is my second home, the place where I have been able to freely express myself.

The following passages show the importance of peer support among BW users: Male, 42-year-old user: Im not exaggerating when I tell you that BlindWorlds has given me life, it has helped me feel stronger, it has opened my eyes and it has shown me that Im not alone. Male, 23-year-old user: Those users who meet me offline know how much I love this little corner of the world where visually impaired people feel comfortable with their peers. And although we use Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Messenger, and other tools to communicate, nothing is better than logging to BlindWorlds to write and publish a text, share songs played by ourselves or by our favorite artists, share books and other texts, and help those who need a piece of advice or a nice word, or simply being heard or have fun. Helping others makes you feel important. Female, 21-year-old user: Here we have a sensation of freedom to express what we want (of course, respectfully). And we feel even freer when we realize that most people here are blind, which makes us be more open in the relationships we establish.

53

Female, 17-year-old user: I found out about BlindWorlds by chance and I registered. I pretty much like it because, as others have said, you have to be in a good mood to log in to Facebook, and nobody lives the same things you live being blind. Here, by contrast, I feel I identify with people, particularly with blind users. Male, 22-year-old user: I identify with you guys not only because we have a disability in common, but rather because of our shared likes and interests. As the following two passages will show, some users reported that joining BlindWorlds helped them to break isolation. Male, 34-year-old user: I joined because I began to feel lonely when I lost my sight. Here I met a lot of friends and now I feel better because the site is pretty accessible. I have also found here a sense of equality that I havent seen in other social network sites. Male, 22-year-old user: To be honest, I joined BlindWorlds due to a lack of social life, and I havent regretted so far.

Knowledge and learning

For some users, the possibility to discuss and learn about different topics is one of the main motivations leading them to join and remain on the site. This is shown in the following excerpts: Male, 62-year-old user: At first I was attracted by the sites name and its emphasis on accessibility. I now recommend it for the variety of topics that are discussed, as well as for the great support one can find in order to solve different problems.

54

Female, 18-year-old user: Every day I learn something new with the reflections, articles, stories, documentaries, and songs you guys publish. Male, 44-year-old user: I wont leave BlindWorlds by now. There is a lot of education here, even when controversial issues are discussed, and we protect each other in order to avoid problems. Female, 27-year-old user: This family has given me what I hadnt received in 27 years. I get so excited when thinking about all Ive learned, from jokes to sciences to law! Im happy to meet people who have taught me a lot, Im very happy to belong to such a welcoming virtual family. Male, 27-year-old user: BlindWorlds has given me the opportunity to join an accessible social network site where I can exchange information and knowledge about different topics. It has also let me make a lot of friends. Moreover, Ive been able to compare experiences and situations blind people live, and to learn through other users comments.

Overall, BW users comments and responses show that the main motivations in order for them to have joined and remain on the site were the pages simple structure, the possibility to contact other blind users in order to get peer support, and the opportunity to get knowledge about different topics. This is consistent with what Fuglerud et al. (2012) and Tollefsen et al. (2011) found in their analyses of social media usage among people with disabilities in general and blind and visually impaired people in particular. It can be argued, therefore, that blind and visually impaired individuals use disability-specific SNSs in the same way they use popular platforms such as Facebook. Nevertheless, as shown by most users comments and responses, belonging to

55

BlindWorlds has given them the possibility to establish very strong emotional ties with other users with disabilities, which might not occur on popular SNSs.

The analysis of BW users comments and responses also revealed the following: First, there were overlapping motivations leading blind and visually impaired individuals to join the site. In other words, the same user could have more than one motivation for joining and remaining on the SNS. Second, despite the differences in terms of age and gender, users are able to interact with each other, and their opinions about what they have found on the site are pretty similar. The two comments below highlight this interaction pattern: Male, 42-year-old user: Something I love about this site is that age is not important. It doesnt matter if you are 14 or 70 years old. We are all friends here regardless of our generational differences. We can learn from young people full of qualities, and also from people who have an extraordinary vitality in spite of being a little older. Female, 55-year-old user: It gives me an everyday contact with very young people who have new and worthy ideas, current news about research that otherwise I wouldnt be able to access, and some moments of laughter and puzzlement that are difficult to forget.

56

RQ3: How different or similar are the chosen SNSs from Facebook and Twitter in terms of: a) accessibility and b) possibilities offered in terms of users interaction and participation? In order to compare the four sites with Facebook and Twitter, it is critical to look at each SNS s level of accessibility for people with disabilities, as well as to discuss the features offered by each site in terms of user participation and interaction.

Accessibility level of the SNSs

According to the researchers view, Anundis was found to be the site with the most complex structure. Its main page contains more than 80 headings and more than 500 links. Since a huge amount of information is displayed, the researcher had to familiarize herself with the initial letters of the most important links, in order to quickly and efficiently navigate the page (Tollefsen et al., 2010). When using a screen reader, either JAWS or NVDA, users can press Insert+F7 in order to activate a links list, which enables them to find links faster. For instance, they may type the letter G to go to the groups, H to go to the homepage, and so on. By contrast, those users who are not familiar with screen-reader features may navigate webpages by using the Tab key to go to the next link, or Shift+Tab to go to the previous link, which of course is timeconsuming (Tollefsen et al., 2010).

57

Let us now look at some accessibility issues found by the researcher on Anundis.com: Use of CAPTCHA during the registration process. When registering on the site, users are offered an audio CAPTCHA in addition to the visual one. However, as pointed out by Buzzi et al., (2010) and Jeng et al. (2010), the use of the audio CAPTCHA is sometimes problematic for blind people. Even though the researcher can speak English, it was not possible for her to understand the words to be typed, and she ended up asking for sighted help to overcome this accessibility issue. Although users are offered the possibility to register by using their Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, or WindowsLive account, the researcher decided not to use any of them, due to privacy concerns. The registration process was further complicated by a page malfunctioning. The researcher was able to type the required information in the right fields, but the page seemed not to load correctly, making it difficult for her to complete the process. As a result, she had to try three times until she could finally register. Responding during chat. Although the researcher is able to go to the chat room and find online users, it is sometimes difficult for her to quickly find the edit field to type text, and she has experienced this problem both in Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox. Thus, it has not always been possible for her to keep the pace of the conversation (Jaeger and Xie, 2009). In some cases, she has not even been able to answer, which probably has led some users to think of her as an impolite person. When using Facebook, for instance, she accesses the chat by using AOL Instant Messenger (AIM) as an external application, which lets her maintain simultaneous conversations. However, this feature is not offered on Anundis.

58

Application mode. The so-called application is one of the WAI-ARIA landmark roles. It is used to designate a region within a web application that is to be treated as a desktop application instead of as a regular webpage (Marco, 2011). In other words, the regions are not treated as Web page regions, but as desktop icons. When the user launches the page, JAWS announces application mode on, and the user is not able to navigate by headings or form fields because the screen reader does not respond (Thompson, 2009). Moreover, when users try to bring up a links list by pressing Insert+F7, JAWS announces: This feature is only available from within a virtual document, such as a page on the Internet (Thompson, 2009). Thompson suggests users can press Insert+B in order to toggle application mode off. Nevertheless, this keystroke did not work for the researcher, and in reading a forum discussion, she found that the keystroke Insert+Z was suggested. A possible explanation is that the keystroke suggested by Thompson (2009) worked for older versions of JAWS. Since the researcher has encountered this accessibility issue on other platforms, it cannot be attributed to Anundis only. In order for blind users to overcome this issue, therefore, they should be given enough information on how to toggle the application mode off, according to the version of JAWS being used.

Since the Disabilinets design is similar to that of Anundis, the researcher has experienced more or less the same accessibility issues there. However, the structure of the page contains fewer links and headings, which in turn makes those issues easier to overcome. Although the researcher is already familiar with the main links on the page, she has not been able to find a link mentioned by Proudlock during the interview. According to what Proudlock said, some of the sites features could be disabled in certain countries, which is probably what happens to this link. Proudlock also recognized that the Disabilinet design does not comply with W3C guidelines, but the people

59

in charge of IT for the site continue to work hard in order to make the page fully accessible, she said.

As compared to the SNSs mentioned above, The ILiveWithADisability structure is certainly much simpler. It contains just ten headings and more than 300 links that are easy to navigate. The site was created by using BuddyPress, a series of plugins for WordPress that enable the creation of social network platforms (WPMUDev, n.d.). Each plugin can be used to add a different social feature to the site, and all plugins are able to work independently (WPMUDev, n.d.). The following plugins are included: a) extended profiles; b) private messaging; c) friends; d) groups; e) activity stream; f) blog tracking; and g) forums.

Regarding the SNSs level of accessibility, there are only two features that the researcher has not been able to use. One is the chat feature, which according to Susman might be removed because people do not use it much, and the other is the creation of blog posts, which seems not to be working properly. Although the researcher has experienced just a few accessibility issues, Susman insists that the site is far from being fully accessible and that there is still a lot of work to be done.

Among the chosen SNSs, BlindWorlds is undoubtedly the most accessible. It is based on a LAMP architecture (Linux, Apache, MySQL, and PHP), a combination of free and open source software that is used to run dynamic websites or servers (Dougherty, 2001). As for the pages

60

structure, it only contains five headings and 63 links, which makes navigation easy for blind users. An entire section is dedicated to accessibility, and screen-reader users are provided with a list of shortcuts to go to their wall, publications, friend lists, private messages, and so on. Also, there are five visualization modes for those who have a partial visual impairment. These are: Standard: White background, orange margin, dark text and red controls. Inverted: Dark background, light text and blue controls. High contrast: White background and black text, separators and buttons. Inverted high contrast: Black background and white text, separators and buttons. Fluorescent green: Black background and text, separators and buttons in fluorescent green. In addition to the shortcuts and the visualization modes, liquid design was implemented, so that the page became more attractive and could be viewed across different devices and resolutions. Liquid design, also called responsive design, enables users to easily navigate the page, regardless of whether they are using a desktop computer, a mobile phone or any other device (Pettit, 2012). According to the sites creator, the idea is to incorporate new features with a more attractive design, making sure that they will not affect accessibility and usability for blind and visually impaired individuals. This accessibility focus has prompted some changes in the page. For instance, Java support was previously used for audio files, but it was found to cause accessibility problems for screen readers. Instead, users are now given the option to upload standard MP3 files to their profiles.

61

Regarding the accessibility level of the four sites, it can be argued that blind and visually impaired users feel more attracted to participate in BlindWorlds than in any of the other SNSs, since it is more accessible than the other platforms. Nevertheless, as we will see later, other factors also need to be considered when attempting to measure the level of participation of blind and visually impaired individuals in SNSs targeted to people with disabilities.

Possibilities for participation and interaction in all SNSs

The following items are considered in this analysis: (1) features offered by each SNS; (2) an international vs. a local focus; (3) the relationship between the users and the sites creator/administrator; (4) users with disabilities involvement in the development of the site; and (5) a comparison of the sites with Twitter and Facebook.

Features Offered by Each SNS

Both Anundis and Disabilinet offer essentially the same features one can find on Facebook. Thus, users are able to create their individual profile, update their status, send and receive friend requests, send and receive private messages, chat with other users, and so on. A distinctive feature, however, is the possibility to create blogs and participate in discussion forums. In addition, disability-related issues are frequently discussed on both sites, which might not occur on Facebook. On both of these sites, people with physical disabilities (those who have mobilityrelated impairments such as wheelchair users, people with an artificial limb, etc.) seem to

62

participate much more actively than those with sensory disabilities (like blind and visually impaired people), which is shown by the types of stories being published and the topics being discussed in the forums.

On Anundis, most blog posts and stories contain disability-related questions, the personal experiences of people with disabilities, discussions on social issues affecting individuals with disabilities in Spain, life reflections, or simply jokes. As for Disabilinet, most blog posts and stories focus on disability-related issues, as well as on legislation and social issues pertaining to British individuals with disabilities.

There are some differences between the sites in terms of user participation. On Anundis, most interaction seems to occur through the chat and forums, and YouTube videos are frequently shared by users. More than 100 groups have been created, some of which have more than 200 members. While some groups focus on disability-related issues, some others deal with a variety of topics such as film, music, games, and so on. Some other groups have been formed according to the users home country or city. As for Disabilinet, 31 groups have been created, but the largest group had not reached more than 25 members as of May 2013. Also, most of those groups focus on mobility-related issues for people with physical disabilities. Some examples are Transport for all and Wheelchair problems. Unlike on Anundis, Disabilinet users seem not to be very active in the chat, but the number of users is certainly growing. Based on her personal experience as a user of both sites, the researcher found a difference in relation to the possibilities

63

for making friends. It has been easier for her to make friends on Anundis than on Disabilinet, which may occur because most of Anundis users are, like the researcher, Spanish speakers.

ILiveWithADisability offers a very interesting Facebook-Twitter combination. As on Facebook, users are able to send and receive friend requests and join groups, but they can also follow and mention other users as they do on Twitter. Most interaction occurs through the blog posts, and once again, people with physical disabilities seem to be the most active users. More than 40 groups have been created, but most of them have not been updated in one year or more. Many blog posts and stories focus on the personal experiences or reflections of people with disabilities, but like the groups, they have not been updated or commented on for a long time. Although more people with and without disabilities are joining this SNS, user participation has not increased much. This is especially true for blind and visually impaired individuals, who show little or no participation in the SNS. During the interview, Scott Susman asked the researcher for some suggestions in order to increase the participation of people with disabilities. Two suggestions were to have group leaders to promote conversations, and to update articles and stories more frequently.

BlindWorlds offers users the possibility to create a profile in which they can include a photo and introduce themselves. Most interaction occurs either through the users walls, or by commenting on others publications. It is also possible for users to add content to their favorites and to like comments. Publications cover the following topics: Users musical works or short stories;
64

Sharing personal experiences and thoughts; Disability-related questions, whether personal or about assistive technology for blind people;

Links about trending topics; and Links to reflections, audio books, short stories, or jokes found on the Internet.

Although the site lacks features such as a more attractive design, additional options for private messages (such as the possibility to simultaneously send a message to several contacts), email notifications, chat, birthday notifications, and the option of mentioning or tagging people, it offers distinctive features such as the possibility for users to upload MP3 files recorded with their own voice and attach them to their profiles. The SNS also has a page called Estrellas BlindWorlds (BlindWorlds Stars), where all users musical works are collected; a sports section called A Puerta Vaca (The Empty Door), broadcasted by one of the users; and another section called Entrevistas BlindWorlds (BlindWorlds Interviews), in which an SNS member interviews other users. In general terms, user participation is pretty high, and very strong emotional ties have been built up. Also, this is the SNS where the researcher has made the greatest number of friends (a total of 65 as of May 2013). As compared to Facebook, where she has made more than 700 friends, this number is pretty small. However, considering that the researcher registered on BW just in February 2013, she has been successful in making friends in a short period of time.

65

An International vs. a Local Focus

In the researchers view, the Spanish SNSs have been the most successful in attracting users from other countries. Anundis has registered users from different Latin American countries, and there are even groups for people who come from particular Latin American countries or cities. BlindWorlds, on the other hand, has attracted users from more than 32 countries, some of whose native language is not Spanish. As for ILWAD, Scott Susman said that one of the sites most active users comes from New Zealand, but other than that, the researcher has not actually seen a lot of international users participating there. Disabilinet is definitely the SNS with the most local focus, and as a result, most registered members come from the United Kingdom. During the interview, Tracey Proudlock asked the researcher for some ideas on how to attract more international users. One suggestion was to give the blog posts and published stories a more global focus as opposed to a local one. Many stories deal, for instance, with legislation affecting British individuals with disabilities, and since there are not discussions about disability-related international laws (such as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), users from other countries might not identify with the topics being discussed on the site.

Users Relationship with the SNSs Creator/Administrator

Unlike Facebook and Twitter, these four SNSs targeted to people with disabilities allow a direct contact between the users and the sites creator/administrator. All the sites creators have a profile on their SNS, but the way they approach users varies. In Anundiss case, Francisco Martin is rather active as a moderator. He is always willing to respond to users concerns and

66

complaints, and sometimes he even participates in chats. However, he does not publicly welcome new users, and his profile is private, which suggests that he wants to keep a certain distance from the users. As for Disabilinet, Tracey Proudlock is closer to the sites members. She welcomes new users and even gives them tips to enhance their profiles so that they can get what they want from the SNS.

On ILWAD, the SNSs co-founders are the first to send friend requests to new users (at least it happened in the researchers case). They also post messages to welcome new members. However, since they have not posted new articles or stories for a long time, their interaction with the users has diminished. As for BlindWorlds, Jose Ignacio Corral has a very close friendship with many users. As with ILWAD, he was the first to send the researcher a friend request. Also, he publishes articles very frequently, and favorites or comments on users publications. Rather than acting as a moderator, he tries to be friendly, which is confirmed by the laudatory and affectionate comments made by the users during the discussions. In the researchers view, he is the warmest of the SNS creators in this study.

Users with Disabilities Involvement in the Development of the SNS

The more involved users are in the development of the SNS, the greater sense of belonging they will experience. On Disabilinet, the idea is that people with disabilities get to run and manage the site, so they participate not only by giving their opinions about what they want, but also by contributing to develop activities in the background. BlindWorlds, on the other hand, came as the

67

result of opinions given by users with and without disabilities from different countries who directly contacted Jose Ignacio Corral. The users decided the SNSs definite name, and some of them authorized Corral to use their profile photos in the first logo. Also, sections such as Estrellas BlindWorlds and Entrevistas BlindWorlds came as a result of users initiatives.

Comparing the Four Sites with Facebook and Twitter

In order to compare the SNSs included in this study with Facebook, it is critical to consider the two types of surveillance discussed by Lampe et al. (2006), namely, social searching and social browsing. Lampe et al. found that Facebook users are more likely to look for information about people they have already met offline (social searching) than to find information about new people in their online community (social browsing). In applying these types of surveillance to the SNSs included in the present study, it can be argued that they are more likely to promote social browsing, since users seem to be more interested in finding information about people with whom they would like to connect offline. In other words, the SNSs targeted to people with disabilities seem to foster a greater development of new relationships than Facebook does. This is confirmed by the amount of friendships and courtships that have been established on BlindWorlds.

The SNSs included in this study are also different from Facebook in terms of their structure. On Facebook, for instance, all the recent activity of friends is displayed under separate headings, while all groups are presented as links under an individual heading. On Disabilinet and Anundis,

68

all the recent activity of friends is displayed under one heading, while group activities are posted under separate headings, one for each group. The structure of ILWAD and BlindWorlds has even more differences in comparison with Facebook, since fewer headings are displayed in both cases, and it is easier to find links as on Facebook mobile or Twitter mobile.

One of the fundamental differences users find between BlindWorlds and Facebook has to do with the level of accessibility. In their survey, Tollefsen et al. (2011) found that constant changes in the Facebook page bring serious accessibility and usability problems for blind and visually impaired users, since they have to spend a considerable amount of time and effort learning new ways to navigate. Also, consistent with previous research, the relative simplicity or difficulty is a crucial factor influencing the use of popular SNSs by blind and visually impaired individuals (Fuglerud et al., 2012). The following quotes illustrate this: Female, 21-year-old user: The Facebook page is already very developed and its structure changes constantly. By contrast, BW does not change, its very simple and it makes it more accessible for screen reader users. On Facebook, for instance, I recently have had difficulties in reading updates, due to the constant changes they make. Female, 55-year-old user: I had joined Facebook two years ago and I loved it. I didnt find it very accessible but I used it to chat with my friends (I just had a small list). I also used it to keep updated with my friends publications, among other things, and I felt satisfied. It was a kind of magic, something new and I felt good. Time passed and I felt the site was every time less accessible, so I decided to stop using it one year ago. I got angry because they were forcing me to accept an inaccessible site and I didnt like it. Although I didnt delete my account, I never

69

logged in again. I dont like the idea of having to stop using a site simply because I cant find my place. Im surprised to know that many BW users are still on Facebook, they are silly, haha! As the following passages will show, some users compared BW with Facebook in terms of privacy. Male, 18-year-old user: Another thing that I dont like on Facebook is that there is no complete control over privacy. Everything you post will only be seen by your friends, but when someone likes or comments on your publications, that persons friends can see them. Male, 44-year-old user: There are certain privacy features that are not present on BlindWorlds, but which I considered essential on Facebook, and since these features, as well as the Facebook platform, have become more and more difficult to use, I decided to leave that social network site. Female, 41-year-old user: I know there are many ways to limit access to your profile and publications on Facebook, but anyway I dont think its a safe site. Here, however, theres no need to limit access by now, and it will not change if we keep on being authentic and respecting each other. Thats why this is my favorite site! Some other users mention more personal reasons in order to explain their preference of BW over Facebook. This is shown in the following excerpts: Male, 52-year-old user: We want to build up a true friendship, which is not possible on Facebook because most people are only interested in viewing pictures, posting insignificant comments, or commenting on publications that are not uplifting. On Facebook there are not

70

many interesting publications, while here there are a lot. BW helps us be better people, whereas Facebook does not. Female, 41-year-old user: I think BW is a different site simply because there is a lot of respect, and especially because it is full of affection and friendship. There is not coldness here. You can find true friends and you can trust them. I also have a Facebook account, but here I feel more confident to accept friend requests than on Facebook because I have had a lot of bad experiences there. Male, 22-year-old user: It has happened to me that sighted people think that I can see just because I have a Facebook account. Many people also think that a blind person is able to have an interesting conversation only with another blind person, for they have common issues to talk about. People absurdly think that blind individuals can only talk about their disability. So whenever I talked to Facebook contacts who knew that Im blind, they neither talked much nor discussed any topics with me, and when I brought up a topic, they just started asking how I had been able to learn about it being blind. Male, 18-year-old user: In FB, for instance, I feel that sighted people constantly disapprove my status updates, or answer with stupid comments that have nothing to do with what I said, or even start fighting with me, and Im not the only one who has lived this. While here there is freedom of expression and I feel that people understand me. We do understand each other, people answer exactly what you expect, nobody censures others and we interact with each other respectfully. Male, 52-year-old user: I got pleasantly amazed for what I found and Im still pleased to be here. I have liked this site so much that I decided to permanently close my Facebook account last year.

71

Although the researcher agrees that Facebook is not fully accessible for blind people, she continues to be a very active user and making friends, both sighted and visually impaired. Nevertheless, consistent with previous research, she prefers to use mobile Facebook rather than the desktop version, since navigation is faster and easier. Like many Facebook users, the researcher has also experienced privacy concerns, but she has been able to adjust some privacy settings by using Facebook mobile. When it has not been possible, she has asked for sighted help in order to adjust those settings through the Facebook desktop site. As previous research has shown (Wentz, 2011), in the researchers experience, mobile Facebook continues to be more accessible and usable for blind people. Finally, the researcher does not share the negative views of Facebook expressed by some BW users. In general terms, her interaction with sighted friends on Facebook has been pretty positive, and she has not felt that they treat her differently for being blind. In fact, when promoting the discussion of social or political issues pertaining to people with disabilities, she has received positive feedback from both visually impaired and sighted Facebook contacts.

Regarding Twitter, a BW user said that she finds it pretty accessible, and that she essentially uses it to read what journalists and celebrities from her country publish. This opinion confirms that for some users, Twitter is rather a news source than an SNS (Kwak et al., 2010). Other BW users said that they neither know it nor know how it works. Since BlindWorlds gives users the possibility to connect their BW and their Twitter accounts, some people use Twitter just to share information they had previously published on BW. For the researcher, by contrast, Twitter has become more than simply a news source (she certainly uses it to follow important media and journalists from around the world, as well as to keep updated with her favorite rock/metal

72

bands). However, she also uses it to encourage conversation about social and political issues in general and disability-related issues in particular. Thus, as pointed out by Ellis and Kent (2010), Twitter can be used to promote social and political mobilization within the disability community. As on Facebook, her interaction with sighted contacts on Twitter has been successful, although she has fewer Twitter followers than Facebook friends (224 Twitter followers and 701 Facebook friends as of May 2013).

The last aspect to be considered in this analysis deals with how the four SNSs use Facebook and Twitter to share their content. As the interviews show, all SNSs creators/administrators agree that sharing content on popular SNSs helps their communities to grow. The following quote by Jose Ignacio Corral reflects this: We didnt want our users to feel like they belong to an isolated SNS, so from the very beginning, we favored BWs integration to popular SNSs, particularly Twitter and Facebook. We encourage the use and knowledge of popular SNSs and we consider them our friends. Despite the recognized advantages of sharing content on those popular SNSs, the Disabilinet and ILWAD creators/administrators expressed some concerns regarding the high information traffic on their Facebook page, as compared with the low traffic on their SNSs pages. For instance, Scott Susman said that ILWAD has more Facebook fans than registered members. In Disabilinets case, Tracey Proudlock is gradually trying to move content away from the Facebook page, as well as to persuade Facebook fans to share more content on the Disabilinet page. On Twitter, BlindWorlds, Anundis and Disabilinet share content more frequently than

73

ILWAD does. Table 3 contains the links to each SNSs Facebook and Twitter pages, as well as the number of fans and followers in each case (as of May 13, 2013).

Table 3. Numbers of fans and followers. Name of the Site

Anundis.com https://www.facebook.com/anundis

Facebook Page(s)

FB Fans
507

Twitter Profile

Twitter Followers

https://twitter.com/A nundis

598

ILiveWithADisa bility BlindWorlds

https://www.facebook.com/ilivewithadisa bility https://www.facebook.com/blindworlds https://www.facebook.com/pages/blindwo rlds/277330798961760

808

https://twitter.com/il ivwdisability

807

453 friends 191 fans 1,186

https://twitter.com/b lind_worlds

704

Disabilinet.com

https://www.facebook.com/Disabilinet

https://twitter.com/D isabilinet

878

74

DISCUSSION

As the results of this study have shown, disability-specific SNSs have been created in order to provide accessible spaces where people with disabilities can exchange information, find peer support, and meet people with whom they have shared interests. In all cases, the SNS creators personal experiences have played an important role, whether as individuals with disabilities themselves, or as people without disabilities whose contact with the disability community has made them aware of the needs of people with disabilities. The creation of disability-specific SNSs, therefore, goes beyond providing platforms that enable people with disabilities to share user-generated content, which they could easily do on popular SNSs such as Twitter and Facebook.

Previous research has shown that joining disability-specific websites lets individuals with disabilities find peer support and develop a sense of community (Obst and Stafurik, 2010; Williamson et al., 2001). This is also true for the SNSs included in the present study, particularly BlindWorlds, where strong friendships and courtships have been formed. Regarding this, it can be argued that blind and visually impaired people use recent SNSs in the same way they have used more traditional disability online communities such as forums and mailing lists. Furthermore, SNSs aimed at people with disabilities have the potential to foster the development of close relationships outside of the online boundaries, which is demonstrated by the stories of some BW users who have already met offline.

75

Although accessibility is not the only aspect to be considered when creating SNSs targeted to people with disabilities, it is definitely a crucial factor influencing their usage among blind and visually impaired individuals. As the results indicate, the disability-specific SNSs still present some accessibility issues that may prevent blind and visually impaired users from joining. The specific case of BlindWorlds indicates that participation of blind and visually impaired people increases when the platform is found to be readily accessible and usable. This applies not only to disability-specific platforms, but also to mainstream SNSs, which have the potential to raise awareness about disability-related issues (Ellis and Kent, 2011). As shown by BlindWorlds users responses to the discussions initiated by the researcher, the lack of accessibility on Facebook partly explains why they prefer to use BW. Although these results are not generalizable to all SNSs targeted to people with disabilities, they represent the first step toward an understanding of the reasons leading blind individuals to prefer those alternative platforms.

In addition to accessibility and usability, factors such as these influence users decision to join and actively participate in SNSs targeted to people with disabilities: the topics being discussed, the sites local or global focus, the linguistic barriers faced by users, the relationship between the SNS creators and its members, and individuals with disabilities involvement in the development of the site. Blind and visually impaired individuals, for instance, may not feel attracted to register on SNSs focusing on people with physical disabilities (those having mobility impairments) because the topics being discussed do not pertain to them. Similarly, people with disabilities in general might not want to participate in SNSs with a very local focus as opposed to an international one. In order to attract a larger number of users with disabilities from different

76

countries, therefore, it is critical to promote the discussion of disability-related topics with a global focus.

The results also show that the creators/administrators of SNSs targeted to people with disabilities find it convenient to share content on more popular SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter, since it contributes to making their communities larger and more visible. However, it can also be a disadvantage, in that people may have access to the sites content on the Facebook page or the Twitter profile without actually registering on the SNS. In other words, the purpose of sharing content on Facebook and Twitter is to lead users to register on the disability-specific sites, so that they invite more users and the communities grow. This study also indicates that many blind people have Facebook accounts, whereas the use of Twitter seems not to have been so widespread among the blind and visually impaired, despite being found to be more accessible and usable than Facebook (Buzzi et al., 2011).

77

CONCLUSIONS

Previous research had already addressed the use of mainstream social network sites by people with disabilities. The present study sought to expand the literature by providing evidence about the reasons behind the creation and use of SNSs targeted to people with disabilities, focusing on blind and visually impaired individuals. There is no doubt that the sites creators/administrators have put a good amount of time and effort into making their communities grow. Nevertheless, the participation of people with disabilities in those alternative platforms is still low, if we consider that Anundis, being the oldest and the largest of the four SNSs, has gotten about 4,400 users with different types of disabilities. In addition, individuals with disabilities make up 10% of the worlds population (United Nations, n.d.). In order to make individuals with disabilities get more involved, the SNSs work teams should focus on implementing strategies that give the platforms a more diverse character, while making them readily accessible for blind and visually impaired individuals. It is also critical for the sites creators/administrators to network with people with disabilities, in order to know exactly what they expect or want from the SNSs.

Although discussions with the users could be carried out only in one SNS, and the number of participants is not representative of the entire Internet-connected blind population, the responses provide evidence of SNSs usage patterns among blind individuals, and help to explain their preferences for some SNSs over others. Undoubtedly, one of the most widely discussed issues has to do with the importance of accessibility and how it influences blind peoples attitudes toward SNSs. In the researchers view, the accessibility challenges found on SNSs targeted to

78

people with disabilities could be solved by making relatively minor modifications. Rather than creating more SNSs targeted to people with disabilities, therefore, the staff of the sites that already exist should work harder in order to make them fully accessible for blind and visually impaired people. Facebook, on the other hand, has still a long way to go in order to become fully accessible and usable. It will largely depend on the Facebook staffs real commitment in providing accessibility guidelines that facilitate the use of the platform by blind and visually impaired individuals.

It is critical to mention that making SNSs fully accessible would not only benefit blind and visually impaired people, but also users who have difficulties in using a keyboard or other devices due to their physical impairments, e.g., people who cannot move their hands. Furthermore, as pointed out by Jaeger and Xie (2009), the creation of accessible online communities would also be beneficial for older adults. Improving online accessibility, therefore, will provide opportunities for diverse populations to communicate and exchange information with their peers.

Finally, the researcher should acknowledge that her perception of SNSs targeted to people with disabilities changed dramatically after conducting this project. She previously saw those sites as ghettos where only disability-related issues were discussed. Also, she has always felt comfortable sharing content on Facebook and Twitter, despite the accessibility issues she has to face sometimes. Now, however, she considers disability-specific SNSs as legitimate alternative platforms to share content and interact with people with disabilities from around the world.

79

LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The low participation of blind and visually impaired individuals in three of the four platforms did not allow the researcher to get generalizable results on how they use disability-specific SNSs. One possible explanation of this low participation is that blind and visually impaired people might think of those sites as ghettos, but further research would help to determine if this is true or not. It might also provide strategies to be used by SNS creators in order to attract larger numbers of blind and visually impaired users.

Because the researcher was interested in analyzing disability-specific SNSs offering features that are similar to those we find on Facebook and Twitter, some audio-based SNSs aimed at blind and visually impaired people were excluded from the present study. Further research might analyze those audio-based sites in terms of accessibility and user participation. Also, a comparison between BlindWorlds and those audio-based SNSs could be carried out, in order to determine if the latter, due to their distinctive features, are able to attract larger numbers of blind and visually impaired users.

Although the researcher was able to identify some accessibility challenges on the analyzed sites, the present study did not provide specific suggestions on how those issues could be solved. Further research would help to determine which accessibility guidelines could be used in each

80

case, or if the Web Content Accessibility guidelines provided by the W3C would suffice in order to make the disability-specific SNSs fully accessible for blind and visually impaired users, which in turn would also benefit other populations.

Throughout her interaction with the users of the four SNSs, the researcher found the Spanishspeaking users to be more friendly and outgoing than English-speaking users. Further research might focus on this cultural difference by analyzing and comparing the English-based with the Spanish-based SNSs. It might also examine how linguistic barriers affect user participation on SNSs targeted to people with disabilities. The analysis of these cultural differences would certainly expand the scope of the literature, since no previous research has addressed them.

Due to time restrictions, this study focused only on the use of disability-specific SNSs by blind and visually impaired individuals. Further research might also include users with other types of disabilities such as hearing impairments, physical disabilities, mental disorders and intellectual disabilities. These analyses, along with the present study, will contribute to provide an overview of how people with disabilities in general use disability-specific SNSs, while addressing the different motivations leading people to join those sites, depending on the type of disability they have.

81

REFERENCES

Anderberg, P., & Jnsson, B. (2005). Being there. Disability & Society, 20(7), 719-733. Anundis.com: Discapacidad: Red social (n.d.). Sobre Anundis.com. Retrieved April 12, 2013, from http://www.anundis.com/ Asakawa, C. (2005, May). Whats the Web like if you cant see it? International Cross Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A), (May 23-26, 2005). Edinburgh, UK, (pp. 1-8). Aysenbach, G., Powell, J., Englesakis, M., Rizo, C., & Stern, A. (2004). Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: Systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. British Medical Journal, 328, 1166-1170. Bedinghaus, T. (2007). What does it mean to be color blind? Retrieved February 2, 2013, from http://vision.about.com/od/sportsvision/p/Color_blindness.htm BlindWorlds (n.d.). Qu es BlindWorlds. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from http://www.blindworlds.com/contenido/que-es-blindworlds boyd, d., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010, January). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2010, pp. 1-10. Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.

82

Brady, E., Shong, Y., Morris, M. R., & Bigham, J. P. (2013). Investigating the appropriateness of social network question asking as a resource for blind users. In Proceedings of CSCW 13, February 2327, 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA, (pp. 1225-1236). Brandtzg, P. B., Lders, M., & Skjetne, J. H. (2010). Too many Facebook friends? Content Sharing and sociability versus the need for privacy in social network sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 1006-1030. Brandtzg, P. B., & Heim, J. (2009, July). Why people use social networking sites. In A. Ozok and P. Zaphiris (Eds.), Proceedings of the HCI International, San Diego, (pp. 143-152). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Brewer, J. (2004, May 18). Web accessibility highlights and trends. In Proceedings of the 2004 International Cross Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility. Paper presented at ACM International Conference Proceeding Series - AICPS W4A, (76), New York, N.Y. (pp. 51-55). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. ACM 1581139039/04/0005. Buzzi, M.C., Buzzi, M., & Leporini, B. (2011). Web 2.0: Twitter and the blind. In P. Marti, A. Soro, L. Gamberini, and S. Bagnara (Eds.), Italian Chapter International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Facing Complexity. Paper presented at CHItaly 2011 Facing Complexity, Alghero, Italy, September 13-16, 2011. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. Buzzi, M. C., Buzzi, M., Leporini, B., & Akhter, F. (2010, June). Is Facebook really open to all? In Technology and Society (ISTAS). Paper presented at ISTAS 2010 - IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia, June 7-9, 2010 (pp. 327 336). Australia: IEEE.

83

Carter, J., & Merkel, M. (2001, December). Web accessibility for people with disabilities: An introduction for Web developers. In IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 44(4). IEEE Professional Communication Society. IEEE PII S 0361-1434(31)10135-9. (pp. 225-233). Constantinides, E., & Fountain, S. J. (2008). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and marketing issues. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9, 231-244. Correa, T., Willard, A., Hinsley, H., & Gil de Zuniga, G. (2010). Who interacts on the Web? The intersections of users personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 247-253. Craven, J. (2008, August). Web accessibility: What we have achieved and challenges ahead. World Library and Information Congress: 74TH IFLA General Conference and Council, August 2008, Qubec, Canada, (pp. 10-14). Disabilinet Chat Friends Campaigns and Disability Forums. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved April 25, 2013, from http://www.disabilinet.com/page/aboutus Dougherty, D. (2001). LAMP: The open source Web platform. O'Reilly Media. Retrieved May 30, 2013, from http://www.onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2001/01/25/lamp.html Dwyer, C., Passerini, K., & Hiltz, S. R. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, 123(4), Keystone, Colorado, August 9-12, 2007 (pp. 339-350).

84

Easy Chirp: Web accessibility for the Twitter.com website application. (n.d). Retrieved February 23, 2013, from http://www.easychirp.com/ Ellis, K., & Kent, M. (2011). Disability and New Media. New York: Routledge. Ellis, K. & Kent, M. (2010). Tweeters take responsibility for an accessible web 2.0. Fast Capitalism. Retrieved from http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/7_1/elliskent7_1.html Fuglerud, K. S., Gunnarson, B. R., Tjostheim, I., & Tollefsen, M. (2012). Use of social media by people with visual impairments: Usage levels, attitudes and barriers. In K. Miesenberger et al. (Eds.): ICCHP 2012, Part I, LNCS 7382, pp. 565572. Fulton, C. (2011). Web accessibility, libraries, and the law. Information technology and libraries, March, (2011), 30(1), 34-43. Gangadharbatla, H. (2008). Facebook Me: Collective self-esteem, need to belong, and Internet self-efficacy as predictors of the I Generations attitudes toward social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.jiad.org/article100 Guo, B., Bricout, J. C., & Huang, J. (2005). A common open space or a digital divide? A social model perspective on the online disability community in China. Disability and Society, 20(1), 49-66. Hackett, S., Parmanto, B., & Zeng, X. (2004). Accessibility of Internet websites through time. In Proceedings of the 6th international ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 3239.

85

Harper, S., & Yesilada, Y. (2008). Web accessibility and guidelines. In S. Harper and Y. Yesilada (Eds.), Web Accessibility: A Foundation for Research (pp. 61-78). Springer. Hay-Gibson, N. V. (2009). Interviews via VoIP: Benefits and disadvantages within a PHD study of MSEs. Library and Information Research, 33 (205), 39-49. Hollier, S. (2012). Social media accessibility review version 2.0. Media Access Australia. Retrieved January 22, 2013, from http://www.mediaaccess.org.au/online-media/socialmedia Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2009 IEEE. 978-0-7695-3450-3/09, pp. 1-10. Huang, J., & Guo, B. (2005). Building social capital: A study of the online disability community. Disability Studies Quarterly, 25(2). Retrieved February 23, 2013, from http://dsqsds.org/article/view/554/731 Huberman, B. A., Romero, D. M., & Wu, F. (2008). Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope. First Monday, 14 (1 5). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/2317/2063 ILiveWithADisability (n.d.). What is ILWAD? Retrieved April 15, 2013, from http://ilivewithadisability.com/about-ilwad/ Jaeger, P. T., & Xie, B. (2009). Developing online community accessibility guidelines for persons with disabilities and older adults. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(1), 5563.

86

Java, A., Finin, T., Song, X., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop 07, August 12, 2007, San Jose, California, (pp. 56-65). ACM. Jeng, A., Tseng, C. C., Tseng, D. F., & Wang, J. C. (2010). A study of CAPTCHA and its application to user authentication. Proceedings of ICCCI2, Computational Collective Intelligence. Technologies and Applications, volume 6422 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2010 (pp. 433-440). Jerber, E. (2003). The benefits of and barriers to computer use for individuals who are visually impaired. Journal of Blindness and Visual Impairment, 97(9), 536-550. Joinson, A. M. (2008). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people? Motives and uses of Facebook. Proceedings of CHI (2008), 1027-1036. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53, 59-68. Katsanos, C., Tselios, N., Tsakoumis, A., & Avouris, N. (2012). Learning about Web accessibility: A project based tool-mediated approach. Education and Information Technologies, 17(1), 79-94. Kazmer, M. M., & Xie, B. (2008). Qualitative interviewing in Internet studies: Playing with the media, playing with the method. Information, Communication and Society, 11(2), 257278.

87

Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J., Petrie, H., Lauke, P., & Ball, S., (2007, May). Accessibility 2.0: People, policies and processes. Technical Paper (W4A2007). 16th International World Wide Web Conference, Banff, Canada, 138-147. Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365372. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon. S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media? Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web, WWW 2010, April 26-30, 2010, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA, (pp. 591-600). ACM. Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A Face(book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In Proceedings of ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, ACM Press, 167-170. Lazar, J., Dudley-Sponaugle, A., & Greenidge, K. D. (2004). Improving Web accessibility: A study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior, 20, 269-288. Lazar, J., Allen, A., Kleinman, J., & Malarkey, C. (2007). What frustrates screen reader users on the Web: A study of 100 blind users. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 22(3), 247-269. Leech, B. L. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. Political Science and Politics, 35(4), 665-668.

88

Leporini, B., & Patern, F. (2008). Applying Web usability criteria for vision-impaired users: Does it really improve task performance? International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(1), 17-47. Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: An empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152-1161. Marcos accessibility blog (2012). If you use the WAI-ARIA role application, please do so wisely. Retrieved May 7, 2013, from http://www.marcozehe.de/2012/02/06/if-you-usethe-wai-aria-role-application-please-do-so-wisely/ Meiselwitz, G., & Lazar, J. (2009). Accessibility of registration mechanisms in social networking sites. In A. A. Ozok and P. Zaphiris (Eds.): Online Communities and Social Computing, LNCS 5621, 8290. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2011). Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease fact sheet. Retrieved April 12, 2013, from http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/charcot_marie_tooth/detail_charcot_marie_tooth.htm Obst, P., & Stafurik, J. (2010). Online we are all able bodied: Online psychological sense of community and social support found through membership of disability-specific websites promotes well-being for people living with a physical disability. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 20, 525-531. Pascolini, D., & Mariotti, S. P. (2012). Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 96, 614618.

89

Pettit, N. (2012). Beginners guide to responsive Web design. Treehouse Blog. Retrieved May 30, 2013, from http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/beginners-guide-to-responsive-web-design Pribeanu, C., Marinescu, R. D., Fogarassy-Neszly, P., & Gheorghe-Moisii, M. (2012). Web accessibility in Romania: The conformance of municipal Web sites to Web content accessibility guidelines. Informatica, 16, 28-37. Raacke, J., & Bonds-Raacke, J. (2008). MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2), 169-174. Reid, L. G. , & Snow-Weaver, A. . (2008). WCAG 2.0: a web accessibility standard for the evolving web. W4A 08 Proceedings of the 2008 international crossdisciplinary conference on Web accessibility W4A (pp. 109-115). ACM. Resnikoff, S., Pascolini, D., Etyaale, D., Kocur, I., Pararajasegaram, R., Pokharel, G. P., & Mariotti, S. P. (2004). Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82(11), 844-851. Romen, D., & Svans, D. (2011). Validating WCAG versions 1.0 and 2.0 through usability testing with disabled people. In Universal Access in the Information Society, 1(11), Springer. Paper presented at Unitech2010, The International Conference on Universal Technologies, Oslo University College, Oslo, Norway, May 19-20, 2010 (pp. 168-189). Schwerdtfeger, R. (2011). HTML5 accessibility coming soon are you ready? IBM. Retrieved March 2, 2013, from http://www-03.ibm.com/able/news/html5.html Slatin, J., & Rush, S. (2003). Maximum accessibility. New York: Addison-Wesley.

90

Takagi, H., Asakawa, C., Fukuda, K., & Maeda, J. (2004, October 18-20). Accessibility designer: Visualizing usability for the blind. Atlanta, Georgia, USA: ASSETS'04, 177184. Terril, T. (2009). Musings on ARIA role=application. Retrieved May 10, 2013, from http://terrillthompson.com/blog/20 Tollefsen, M., Dale, ., Berg, M., & Nordby, R. (2011). Connected! A paper about the disabled and the use of social media. MediaLT, Media Lunde Tollefsen AS, April 01, 2011. (pp. 151). Retrieved from http://medialt.no/pub/info_pdf/status_social_media_2010_english.pdf Tollefsen, M., Kalvenes, C., & Begnum, M. N. (2010). Demands for screen reader user qualifications. MediaLT. Retrieved March 11, 2013, from http://www.medialt.no/demands-for-screen-reader-user-qualifications/827.aspx Thoreau, E. (2006). Ouch! An examination of the self-representation of disabled people on the Internet. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 11, 442-468. United Nations (n.d.). Fact sheet on persons with disabilities. Retrieved May 14, 2013, from http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=18 Viswanath, B., Mislove, A., Cha, M., & Gummadi, K. (2009). On the evolution of user interaction in Facebook. WOSN09: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM workshop on Online social networks. August 17, 2009, Barcelona, Spain (pp. 37-42). New York: ACM. WAI-ARIA overview. (n.d). Retrieved March 2,2013, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/aria

91

Wentz, B. (2011). Are separate interfaces inherently unequal? An evaluation with blind users of the usability of two interfaces for a social networking platform. iConference '11: Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, 2011, February 8-11, 2011, Seattle, Washington, USA (pp. 91-97). Wentz, B., & Lazar, J. (2011). Usability evaluation of email applications by blind users. Journal of Usability Studies, 6(2), 75-89. Williamson, K., Wright, S., Schauder, D., & Bow, A. (2001). The Internet for the blind and visually impaired. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 7(1). Retrieved February 23, 2013, from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue1/williamson.html WPMUDev (n.d.). What is BuddyPress? Retrieved May 13, 2013, from http://premium.wpmudev.org/manuals/the-buddypress-manual-2/what-is-buddypress/

92

APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SNSs CREATORS

1. Which were your main motivations for creating this social network site? 2. Were people with disabilities involved in the creation of the site? 3. Was the site initially targeted to individuals with a specific disability? Which one? 4. Which accessibility guidelines were used when creating the site? 5. Which challenges did you find when creating the site? 6. How is your site different from popular social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter? 7. What have you and your work team done in order to attract users from other countries? 8. Has the sites number of users fulfilled your expectations? 9. I have realized that blind and visually impaired people do not participate on your site as much as people with physical disabilities. How could you explain that? 10. Do you think your site contributes to empower people with disabilities, particularly blind and visually impaired individuals? If so, how? 11. Do people without disabilities participate in your SNS as well? 12. Do you visualize your site as a strong competitor of SNSs such as Twitter and Facebook? 13. How convenient is it for your site to share content on Facebook and Twitter? 14. Do you or your team readily respond to users feedback? 15. Will new features be added soon, and if so, which ones?

93

APPENDIX B: LIST OF DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Which motivations led you to use this site? 2. Does this site facilitate the discussion of disability-related issues or sensitive topics, and if so, how? 3. How similar or different is this site from popular SNSs such as Facebook and Twitter?

94