Investigating the Effectiveness of Assistive Technologies on Situationally Impaired Users

553 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
553
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Investigating the Effectiveness of Assistive Technologies on Situationally Impaired Users

  1. 1. Investigating the Effectivenessof Assistive Technologies onSituationally Impaired UsersDavid LucasHugo NicolauTiago GuerreiroJoaquim Jorge
  2. 2. Evolution …
  3. 3. On the move
  4. 4. Always near us
  5. 5. @ Home
  6. 6. @ Work
  7. 7. Outdoors
  8. 8. In car
  9. 9. @ Coffee shop
  10. 10. @ Subway
  11. 11. Many contexts CONTEXT
  12. 12. Leading to … SIID Situationally-Induced Impairments and Disabilities
  13. 13. VisualAttention
  14. 14. “Functionally Blind”
  15. 15. Technology transfer
  16. 16. Not quite the same
  17. 17. Yet, very similar
  18. 18. Text-entry
  19. 19. Screen Readers
  20. 20. VoiceOver
  21. 21. NavTouch [Guerreiro, 2008]
  22. 22. User Evaluation
  23. 23. 23 Participants
  24. 24. 18 ~ 37 years old
  25. 25. Touchscreen experience
  26. 26. Texting experience
  27. 27. Apparatus
  28. 28. Text-entry Methods QWERTY VoiceOver NavTouch
  29. 29. Visual Feedback NavTouchQWERTY
  30. 30. Mobility conditions seated corridor navigation
  31. 31. Five word sentences 97% correlation
  32. 32. Measurements and Design Words per Minute Error rate Minimum String Distance (MSD) Error Rate Preferred Walking speed
  33. 33. Text-entry speed 25 20 15 10 5 0 seated corridor navigation Qwerty VoiceOver NavTouch
  34. 34. Text-entry speed Text-entry sensitive to visually demanding conditions AT were inefficient regarding speed QWERTY the most sensitive (3.4 wpm)
  35. 35. Error Rate 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% seated corridor navigation Qwerty VoiceOver NavTouch
  36. 36. Error Rate More deletions with QWERTY Fewer errors with Assistive Technologies?
  37. 37. Quality of Text 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% seated corridor navigation Qwerty VoiceOver NavTouch
  38. 38. Quality of Text NavTouch the most erroneous Audio feedback improves quality of text QWERTY the most sensitive
  39. 39. Walking Speed 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% corridor navigation Qwerty VoiceOver NavTouch
  40. 40. Walking Speed Navigation course was more demanding Users decreased walking speed ATs were ineffective, possibly due to cognitive load
  41. 41. Conclusion Users reduce walking speed due to visual demand QWERTY outperformed ATs ATs are cognitively demanding Audio is overlooked when visual feedback is available
  42. 42. Future workMore visually demandingconditions1-step selection methodsNo visual feedbackPlay with visual attributes
  43. 43. THE END.Tiago Guerreirotjvg@vimmi.inesc-id.pt

×