SUS: A System Unusable for Twenty Percent of the Population
Summary
Did you know that the SUS creates biases in your research, affecting one in five people? That’s right! People with disabilities, especially those who use assistive technology, are not considered by most of the questions in the SUS. As a designer, this could lead to you making design decisions that don’t take into account 20 percent of the visitors to your website. When the SUS was invented, the author encouraged people to change it to suit different needs. In this talk, Samuel Proulx from Fable will discuss how Fable adapted the SUS to work for assistive technology users. Drawing from over five thousand hours of research and testing involving assistive technology users, we created the Accessible Usability Scale (AUS). This presentation will include trends in AUS responses since it was released in December of 2020.
Key Insights
-
•
Screen readers require highly structured and semantically correct web content to enable efficient navigation for blind users.
-
•
Screen reader users often customize speed and voice settings to consume information at 400-800 words per minute, much faster than typical speech.
-
•
Alternative navigation devices, such as head mice and switch systems, rely on precise physical control and can be hindered by environmental factors like vibrations.
-
•
Current think-aloud usability testing methods create cognitive overload for assistive technology users, as they must manage device output, researcher communication, and narration simultaneously.
-
•
Travel and physical accessibility barriers severely limit the participation of people with disabilities in traditional usability labs.
-
•
Assistive technologies are highly personalized, so standard lab setups often fail to support users’ customized configurations, reducing test validity.
-
•
Standard System Usability Scale (SUS) questions inadequately capture the unique needs and experiences of assistive technology users.
-
•
Fable’s Accessible Usability Scale (AUS) adapts SUS questions to reflect assistive technology usage, improving relevance and accuracy.
-
•
Preliminary AUS results show screen reader users rate usability lower than magnification users, reflecting the greater complexity and demands of screen reader use.
-
•
Inclusive research requires adapting methods to account for varied assistive technologies, emphasizing flexibility and one-size-does-not-fit-all approaches.
Notable Quotes
"What screen readers allow us to do is to jump directly to bits of content that we are interested in to replicate the visual experience of skimming a web page."
"Most screen reader users prefer robotic voices so they can speed up the speech and read much faster than typical people."
"Alternative navigation includes things like switch systems, voice dictation, and head mice to replace standard keyboard and mouse."
"Traveling to a research lab can take longer than the research session itself for people with physical disabilities due to specialty transit."
"Every piece of assistive technology is highly customized for the individual, so labs often fail to replicate users’ ideal setups."
"The standard SUS question about needing a technical person to use the system is frustrating because many assistive tech users are very technical themselves."
"The question who are most people is confusing when applied to assistive technology users in usability scales."
"John Rucklin said if your questionnaire isn’t relevant, you can devise your own — and that’s what we did with the Accessible Usability Scale."
"Screen reader users scored in the low to mid 50s on our scale while magnification users scored around 70 and alternative navigation users around 60."
"Inclusive design is about one size fits one, not one size fits all, especially in research methodologies."
Or choose a question:
More Videos
"The biggest problem was to solve the engagement problem first with the sponsor, then the team, then external stakeholders."
Carl TurnerYou Can Do This: Understand and Solve Organizational Problems to Jumpstart a Dead Project
March 28, 2023
"With selfie pay, you take a picture, blink to prove it’s you alive, and authenticate in-app seamlessly and securely."
Karen PascoeDeveloping Experience Teams and Talent in the Enterprise
June 8, 2016
"When you remove nonverbal cues from communication, messages get easily misinterpreted."
Jilanna WilsonDistributed Design Operations Management
October 23, 2019
"A government designer aims to reduce UX variation while a contractor may optimize only their single product, creating potential conflicts."
Shawna Hein Kevin HoffmanCreate a Cohesive Civic Design Practice Across Agency, Vendors, and Contracts
November 17, 2022
"Site visits with users don’t just give actionable insight; they give us raw, humbling inspiration to keep going."
Barb SpantonDoing Work That Matters: A Look Beyond The Idealistic Notion of 'Doing Meaningful Work'
June 10, 2022
"As the delivery driver, I connected the dots, got people briefs, and sometimes said no to lofty leadership requests."
Briana ThomasThe Quiet Force: Uncovering Hidden Leadership in High-Impact Design Teams
September 24, 2024
"Taking ugly notes together without worrying about making things pretty lowers barriers and increases engagement."
Gina MendoliaTherapists, Coaches, and Grandmas: Techniques for Service Design in Complex Systems
December 3, 2024
"Being fluent in multiple data languages and understanding behavioral and attitudinal data will be essential."
Lija Hogan Milan Mijatovic Sam Proulx Louis RosenfeldThree Years Out: Perspectives on the Near-Term Future of User Research
March 15, 2024
"DPM loneliness and siloing happen because of wearing too many hats and inheriting mismatched responsibilities."
John Calhoun Rachel PosmanTwo Sides of the DesignOps Coin: Teams Ops and Product Ops
January 8, 2024
