Supporting mobility for the blind a broad lit review

  • 742 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
742
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Supporting Mobility for the Blind -A literature review By Debaleena Chattopadhyay I624, Fall 2012
  • 2. Putting the user in context - a day in our user’s lifeEntertainment Daily errands watch videos  choosing what to wear play games before leaving home. browse the web  taking notes in class take pictures  Drawing [1], [3], [6], [29], [15]. [11], [28], [31]. Socializing Use the social network on the web/ phone. Navigation Talk to peers and family.  walk to places like school, library. [3], [8].  take public transits like bus, train. Learning/ Education  cross roads while walking.  find points-of-interest in  Improve Orientation and Mobility (OEM) locations nearby.  learn subjects like Mathematics. [6], [12], [16], [19], [18], [30].  learn how to program a software. [9], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].
  • 3. Ability-based Design -What can a blind user do? A blind user has an increased sense of hearing. Studies suggest that they can understand fast-paced, synthesized speech, significantly better than visually-abled users. [4] A blind user has the ability to use haptic cues like vibrations from gesture interaction or multi-finger touches. A blind user can make sense of tactile feedback, like differentiate between doors, textured walls, glass etc. A blind user can smell objects and infer contexts like kitchen, dining room, bakery etc. A blind user can taste.
  • 4. Off-the-shelf Technologies -What tools we have? RFID (Radio-frequency Identification tags) technology. [5] Computer Vision algorithms. [3, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17] Multi-touch screens available through smart-phones. [2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 17] Powerful text-to-speech algorithms using artificial intelligence (AI). [4, 21] Commodity computing power (Cheap add-on hardware systems like smartphones). [12, 13, 16] Crowdsourcing. Human collaboration in real time to assist in technical endeavors. [1, 13]
  • 5. Significant Research -What are we up-to? Creating navigational tools. Help users to navigate autonomously as much as possible in outdoors and indoors, to help them find points of interest and public transit options. [6], [12], [16], [19], [18], [30]. Create learning aids. Helping users to improve OEM (orientation and mobility) by games. Create tangible user interfaces to learn equations in mathematics or use fingertip vibration to recognize 3D surfaces like graphs. [9], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27].
  • 6. Significant Research -What are we up-to? Making the web more accessible. Though an age-old initiative, with the emerging trends in the web, researchers are coming up with new ways to make it most accessible to the visually impaired. Several guidelines are often evaluated and iterated for betterment. [2], [4], [15]. Crowdsourcing resources. A new trend has emerged to engage sighted users into providing meaningful information about the environment that can be readily consumed by visually impaired users. [13].
  • 7. The Timeline -How far did we come? 90s Assistive technologies like crossing aids for pedestrians. Universal design like accessibility guidelines for the web for visually impaired. Universal usability voice-over techniques in Apple iPod. Ability-based designs like haptic-based or auditory-based interfaces.Present
  • 8. An opportunity to contribute -What’s in store?Blind Software developers: Do we need the Daredevil?A lot of visually impaired users are as interested indeveloping and programming software applications assighted users. Surprisingly research efforts in makingaccessible developing tools like IDE or Visualprogramming languages seems to be scant. [21], [22],[23], [24], [25], [26], [27].An interesting research opportunity would behelping the blind programmers by understanding theirrequirements and building an effective programmingenvironment.Also how to make the domain of visual programmingaccessible to the blind user is worth pursuing.
  • 9. HCI Implications -What does this lead to?• Focus on the abilities of visually impaired users and increase the adaptivity and adaptibility of the software systems.• Make use of the commodity hardware and software systems to make technology affordable to users.• Iteratively define and refine requirements of blind users to increase their mobility.
  • 10. Research Challenges -Risky business.• Making accessible software systems need more man-hours and a different design approach. Can we afford it?• Visually impaired people are always trying to fit in. How to increase the adoption rate of new accessible technologies without hurting their self-esteem?• How much is the reliability of such systems?• How would we take care of subject variables (individual differences) in the visually impaired population?
  • 11. References1. Benoît Encelle, Magali Ollagnier-Beldame, Stéphanie Pouchot, and Yannick Prié. 2011. Annotation-based video enrichment for blind people: A pilot study on the use of earcons and speech synthesis. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 123-130.2. João Oliveira, Tiago Guerreiro, Hugo Nicolau, Joaquim Jorge, and Daniel Gonçalves. 2011. Blind people and mobile touch-based text- entry: Acknowledging the need for different flavors. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 179-186.3. Chandrika Jayant, Hanjie Ji, Samuel White, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2011. Supporting blind photography. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 203-210.4. Amanda Stent, Ann Syrdal, and Taniya Mishra. 2011. On the intelligibility of fast synthesized speech for individuals with early-onset blindness. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 211-218.5. Hugo Fernandes, José Faria, Hugo Paredes, and João Barroso. 2011. An integrated system for blind day-to-day life autonomy. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 225-226.6. Jaime Sánchez and Matías Espinoza. 2011. Audio haptic videogaming for navigation skills in learners who are blind. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 227-228.7. Takato Noguchi, Yusuke Fukushima, and Ikuko Eguchi Yairi. 2011. Evaluating information support system for visually impaired people with mobile touch screens and vibration. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 243-244.8. Douglas Astler, Harrison Chau, Kailin Hsu, Alvin Hua, Andrew Kannan, Lydia Lei, Melissa Nathanson, Esmaeel Paryavi, Michelle Rosen, Hayato Unno, Carol Wang, Khadija Zaidi, Xuemin Zhang, and Cha-Min Tang. 2011. Increased accessibility to nonverbal communication through facial and expression recognition technologies for blind/visually impaired subjects. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 259-260.9. Muhanad S. Manshad, Enrico Pontelli, and Shakir J. Manshad. 2011. MICOO (multimodal interactive cubes for object orientation): a tangible user interface for the blind and visually impaired. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 261-262.10. Joy Kim and Jonathan Ricaurte. 2011. TapBeats: accessible and mobile casual gaming. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 285-286.
  • 12. References11. Michele A. Burton. 2011. Fashion for the blind: a study of perspectives. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 315-316.12. Markus Guentert. 2011. Improving public transit accessibility for blind riders: a train station navigation assistant. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 317-318.13. Sanjana Prasain. 2011. StopFinder: improving the experience of blind public transit riders with crowdsourcing. In The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 323-324.14. Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Feng, Tim Brooks, Genna Melamed, Brian Wentz, Jon Holman, Abiodun Olalere, and Nnanna Ekedebe. 2012. The SoundsRight CAPTCHA: an improved approach to audio human interaction proofs for blind users. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2267-2276.15. Christopher Power, André Freire, Helen Petrie, and David Swallow. 2012. Guidelines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 433-442.16. Richard Guy and Khai Truong. 2012. CrossingGuard: exploring information content in navigation aids for visually impaired pedestrians. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 405- 414.17. Koji Yatani, Nikola Banovic, and Khai Truong. 2012. SpaceSense: representing geographical information to visually impaired people using spatial tactile feedback. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 415-424.18. Navid Fallah, Ilias Apostolopoulos, Kostas Bekris, and Eelke Folmer. 2012. The user as a sensor: navigating users with visual impairments in indoor spaces using tactile landmarks. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 425-432.19. Shaun K. Kane, Chandrika Jayant, Jacob O. Wobbrock, and Richard E. Ladner. 2009. Freedom to roam: a study of mobile device adoption and accessibility for people with visual and motor disabilities. In Proceedings of the 11th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (Assets 09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 115-122.20. Emma Murphy, Enda Bates, and Dónal Fitzpatrick. 2010. Designing auditory cues to enhance spoken mathematics for visually impaired users. In Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 75-82.
  • 13. References21. Robert M. Siegfried. 2006. Visual programming and the blind: the challenge and the opportunity. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE 06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 275-278.22. Jaime Sanchez and Fernando Aguayo. 2005. Blind learners programming through audio. In CHI 05 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (CHI EA 05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1769-1772.23. Stephen W. Mereu and Rick Kazman. 1996. Audio enhanced 3D interfaces for visually impaired users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground (CHI 96), Michael J. Tauber (Ed.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 72- 78.24. Jaime Montemayor. 2001. Physical programming: software you can touch. In CHI 01 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems (CHI EA 01). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 81-82.25. Waltraud Schweikhardt. 1982. A programming environment for blind APL-programmers. In Proceedings of the international conference on APL (APL 82). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 325-331.26. Kenneth G. Franqueiro and Robert M. Siegfried. 2006. Designing a scripting language to help the blind program visually. In Proceedings of the 8th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (Assets 06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 241-242.27. Robert F. Cohen, Arthur Meacham, and Joelle Skaff. 2006. Teaching graphs to visually impaired students using an active auditory interface. In Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (SIGCSE 06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 279-282.28. David S. Hayden, Liqing Zhou, Michael J. Astrauskas, and John A. Black, Jr.. 2010. Note-taker 2.0: the next step toward enabling students who are legally blind to take notes in class. In Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 131-138.29. Masatomo Kobayashi, Trisha OConnell, Bryan Gould, Hironobu Takagi, and Chieko Asakawa. 2010. Are synthesized video descriptions acceptable?. In Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 163-170.30. Jaime Sánchez and Natalia de la Torre. 2010. Autonomous navigation through the city for the blind. In Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 195-202.31. Patrick C. Headley and Dianne T. V. Pawluk. 2010. A multimodal, computer-based drawing system for persons who are blind and visually impaired. In Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS 10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 229-230.
  • 14. Thank YouQuestions?