Investigating the Effectiveness of Assistive Technologies on Situationally Impaired Users
This document investigates the effectiveness of assistive technologies for situationally impaired users in different contexts. It summarizes a user study with 23 participants that compared a QWERTY keyboard, VoiceOver, and NavTouch for text entry while seated, walking in a corridor, and navigating an obstacle course. The study found that text entry speed was slower in more visually demanding conditions and with assistive technologies. Error rates were higher with QWERTY keyboard entry. Walking speed decreased more during navigation with assistive technologies, possibly due to greater cognitive load. The document concludes that assistive technologies were less effective than QWERTY keyboards for text entry in visually demanding mobile situations.
More Related Content
More from Hugo Nicolau
More from Hugo Nicolau (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Investigating the Effectiveness of Assistive Technologies on Situationally Impaired Users
- 1. Investigating the Effectiveness of Assistive Technologies on Situationally Impaired Users David Lucas Hugo Nicolau Tiago Guerreiro Joaquim Jorge
- 2. Evolution …
- 3. On the move
- 5. @ Home
- 6. @ Work
- 7. Outdoors
- 8. In car
- 10. @ Subway
- 11. Many contexts CONTEXT
- 12. Leading to … SIID Situationally-Induced Impairments and Disabilities
- 13. Visual Attention
- 16. Not quite the same
- 18. Text-entry
- 19. Screen Readers
- 20. VoiceOver
- 21. NavTouch [Guerreiro, 2008]
- 22. User Evaluation
- 23. 23 Participants
- 24. 18 ~ 37 years old
- 27. Apparatus
- 28. Text-entry Methods QWERTY VoiceOver NavTouch
- 29. Visual Feedback NavTouch QWERTY
- 30. Mobility conditions seated corridor navigation
- 31. Five word sentences 97% correlation
- 32. Measurements and Design Words per Minute Error rate Minimum String Distance (MSD) Error Rate Preferred Walking speed
- 33. Text-entry speed 25 20 15 10 5 0 seated corridor navigation Qwerty VoiceOver NavTouch
- 34. Text-entry speed Text-entry sensitive to visually demanding conditions AT were inefficient regarding speed QWERTY the most sensitive (3.4 wpm)
- 35. Error Rate 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% seated corridor navigation Qwerty VoiceOver NavTouch
- 36. Error Rate More deletions with QWERTY Fewer errors with Assistive Technologies?
- 37. Quality of Text 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% seated corridor navigation Qwerty VoiceOver NavTouch
- 38. Quality of Text NavTouch the most erroneous Audio feedback improves quality of text QWERTY the most sensitive
- 39. Walking Speed 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% corridor navigation Qwerty VoiceOver NavTouch
- 40. Walking Speed Navigation course was more demanding Users decreased walking speed ATs were ineffective, possibly due to cognitive load
- 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. Future work More visually demanding conditions 1-step selection methods No visual feedback Play with visual attributes