Observed Navigation Strategies Without NavAccess

In casestudy_n_1, the observation sessions showed that blind participants did not simply give up when a site was inaccessible. Instead, they developed practical strategies to reach task-relevant parts of websites while avoiding barriers and irrelevant content.

Why these strategies were needed

The study asked participants to use websites they already visited and complete familiar tasks while researchers observed them. This made it possible to see both the problems they encountered and the ways they worked around those problems, before testing NavAccess. The observations revealed that inaccessible forms, confusing page structures, and large amounts of irrelevant content often forced participants to invent their own navigation methods (casestudy_n_1).

1. Taking detours around inaccessible features

One participant could not use the login form on a site because the input fields were not described correctly by the screen reader. Instead of stopping, he used a detour that he had discovered on an earlier visit. He followed a different path through “special deals” and selected a discounted product, which eventually rerouted him to a page where he could continue toward logging in. This example from casestudy_n_1 shows that participants sometimes avoided broken parts of a site by finding alternative routes.

• They recognized barriers such as inaccessible forms.
• They used an indirect path instead of the intended one.
• Success depended on prior experience with that specific site.

2. Following memorized routes

casestudy_n_1 describes a participant who navigated a predefined route during the task. He already knew which obstacles to avoid and which steps were necessary to reach his goal. This meant he was not exploring the site freely; he was replaying a route from memory.

This strategy was effective only because the participant had extensive experience with the website. The source also notes an important limitation: if the site’s content or structure changed, the memorized route could fail, requiring a new “orientation phase” to learn the site again.

3. Counting rows and columns

The same observed example in casestudy_n_1 explains that the participant memorized necessary steps such as counting rows and columns. This suggests a highly structured way of navigation: rather than relying on clear labels or accessible page design, the participant remembered the position of needed items within a layout.

• Row and column counting acted as a positional guide.
• It helped the participant stay on a known path.
• It increased efficiency on familiar pages but was fragile if layouts changed.

4. Using headings and in-page search to skip irrelevant content

The case study reports that, without NavAccess, all participants used techniques to filter out irrelevant information. These included skipping content through heading navigation and performing in-page searches based on a memorized key string (casestudy_n_1). These methods reduced the need to listen to full pages from top to bottom.

This is important because many pages contained menus, banners, and extra text before the useful content. By jumping via headings or searching within the page, participants could move more directly to the section that mattered for the task.

5. Remembering landmarks on the page

One participant in casestudy_n_1 was frustrated by a search-results page because he had to listen through too much irrelevant material before reaching the results. Over time, he noticed that the actual results always started after the words “search in this city’s surroundings.” That phrase became a remembered landmark. On later visits, he could jump directly to that point instead of reviewing the whole page again.

This shows that remembered landmarks helped participants identify reliable cues embedded in page content. These cues functioned like anchors that marked where relevant information began.

How these strategies helped filter irrelevant content

Across the observations in casestudy_n_1, the common goal of these strategies was to avoid spending time and mental effort on content that was not useful for the task. Participants:

• avoided inaccessible components by taking detours,
• reused memorized routes on familiar sites,
• used row and column counting to maintain orientation,
• skipped ahead with heading navigation,
• searched within pages using memorized strings, and
• relied on remembered landmarks to jump to relevant sections.

Key lesson

The observations in casestudy_n_1 show that participants were highly resourceful when websites were inaccessible. Without NavAccess, they developed their own efficient but often fragile methods for navigating. These methods worked by narrowing attention to task-relevant areas and filtering out irrelevant content, but they often depended on repeated experience and could break when a website changed.