Blind People and MobileTouch-based Text-EntryAcknowledging the Need for Different FlavorsTiago Guerreirotjvg@vimmi.inesc-i...
‘‘ If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make                 ’’ the world safe for diversity        ...
Mobile DevicesAre Great
Diversitymatters
Difficult to select targets
Loss of physical stability
Match individualcharacteristics withinterface demands
Differentdemands!
15 blind users
24 to 68years old
All but twotext regularly
Only one had    previous  experience  with touch     screens     mobiles
One session per method4 Methods
Five 5 wordsentences
97% correlation
Erase wasunavailable
Practice phase10 to 15 minutes2 users were notable to write withQWERTY andMultiTap
Words per  Minute
2.52.01.51.00.50.0      QWERTY   MultiTap   NavTouch   BrailleType
MSDError Rate
25.020.015.010.0 5.0 0.0       QWERTY   MultiTap   NavTouch BrailleType
25.020.015.010.0 5.0 0.0       QWERTY   MultiTap   NavTouch BrailleType
UserSatisfaction
Easy toMethod              understand QWERTY         4.0 (2) MultiTap       4.0 (2)NavTouch        5.0 (1)BrailleType     ...
Easy to   EasyMethod              understand to use QWERTY         4.0 (2)   4.0 (2) MultiTap       4.0 (2)   4.0 (1)NavTo...
Allows to                Easy to   EasyMethod                          input text              understand to use          ...
Allows to     I would                Easy to   EasyMethod                          input text    use this              und...
Barriers &Difficulties
Method        Main Difficulties         Targets too close and smallQWERTY         Split-tapping edge targets.
Method          Main Difficulties           Targets too close and smallQWERTY           Split-tapping edge targets.MultiTa...
Method          Main Difficulties           Targets too close and smallQWERTY           Split-tapping edge targets.MultiTa...
Method            Main Difficulties              Targets too close and small QWERTY              Split-tapping edge target...
Individual abilities
BrailleType
BrailleType
BrailleType
No significant relation.
No significant relation.
Significant impact.
Allow faster writing.More complex and erroneous.
Simpler.Less erroneous.
Large number of targets is highlydemanding.Users with better spatial abilitiesare able to overcome this demand.
More demanding inregards to Memory andAtention.Users with better Verbal IQare able to overcome thisdemand.
Different method, different demands.Different users, diverse abilities.
Spatial ability, pressure sensitivityand verbal IQ play an importantrole in the blind user’s ability touse a touch screen.
The FutureDifferent devicesLow-level demandsLong term studies
tjvguerreiro@gmail.comtiago.guerreiro@tjvguerreiro
Tiago Guerreiro             João Oliveira         Hugo Nicolau    Joaquim JorgeDaniel Gonçalves
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

"Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011

2,331 views

Published on

My presentation at ASSETS 2011, in Dundee Scotland. We won the Best StudentPaper Award.

Abstract: The emergence of touch-based mobile devices brought fresh and exciting possibilities. These came at the cost of a considerable number of novel challenges. They are particularly apparent with the blind population, as these devices lack tactile cues and are extremely visually demanding. Existing solutions resort to assistive screen reading software to compensate the lack of sight, still not all the information reaches the blind user. Good spatial ability is still required to have notion of the device and its interface, as well as the need to memorize buttons‟ position on screen. These abilities, as many other individual attributes as age, age of blindness onset or tactile sensibility are often forgotten, as the blind population is presented with the same methods ignoring capabilities and needs. Herein, we present a study with 13 blind people consisting of a touch screen text-entry task with four different methods. Results show that different capability levels have significant impact on performance and that this impact is related with the different methods‟ demands. These variances acknowledge the need of accounting for individual characteristics and giving space for difference, towards inclusive design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9JMtC3SMhA

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,331
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
753
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Good morning everyone! My name is Tiago and I come from Portugal.
  • My co-authors are João Oliveira, Daniel Gonçalves, Joaquim Jorge and….Hugo Nicolau who is also here. He is the one with the girly hair band!
  • As JFK once said:If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversityOur paper is about Individual Differences among blind people and how they are revealed when faced with different interface demands.
  • So, we all acknowledge the power and benefits of mobile devices: they are great.
  • And going straight to our focus group, blind people are now able to use mobile devices efficiently.
  • Well not everyone….some better than others and some dramatically are not able to do so
  • The population is diverse and in the absence of vision other senses and abilities are required…
  • This happens with tact. And for example, a reasonable part of population acquires blindness in a late stage in life when tactile sensitivity is not the best. Further, blind people with diabetes may also experience a loss of sensitivity in their fingers.
  • Or even, the moment in life where a person loses sight is likely to produce different spatial abilities so different ways to create a mental idea of space and relations between objects.
  • Or even age and memory.
  • So there are several individual differences among the population.
  • And this diversity matters as in the absence of vision these abilities are stressed and the users depend on them way more deeply than a sighted person.
  • These differences in individual abilities have na impact in the way the users deal with technology
  • And in particular with more demanding devices. In this paper we focus on touch screens.
  • But also a lot of challenges
  • Our goal here
  • Was to assert the relation between some abilities and demands and try to match them to foster more inclusive design
  • All solutions using voice feedback …
  • Fifteen blind users
  • With ages between twenty four and sixty eight. We covered a large spectrum of the blind population, between early and late blind users.
  • All but two texted frequently
  • All knew the braille alphabet (some experienced and some with low reading and writing abilities)
  • Two never learned to use a computer
  • Look, I got a dot. Lem me breath. Learning from the best!
  • The text-entry part of our study was composed of 4 sessions with each user, one per method.
  • Duringthetesterasewasunavailable as wewanted to seethequalityofthetranscribedtextwithoutcorrections
  • Regarding the methods and particularly input speed we looked at Words per Minute
  • And we found significant differences between both QWERTY and MULTITAP and NAvTouch and BrailleType.
  • Regarding accuracy, so the similarity between the desired and transcribed sentences we used Minimum String Distance Error Rate.
  • And Braille Type showed to be less erroneous than the faster methods
  • While NavTouch showed to be less erroneous than MultiTap
  • As to a method being Easy to Understand NavTouch and BrailleType showed to be easier than the remaining 2
  • And they were also considered easier to use
  • And as expected the faster methods were considered as such by the participants
  • Surprinsigly, users said they would use MultiTap or BrailleType, some because they wanted a fast method, some because they wanted a simpler one.
  • In our observation we also looked at the most prominent barriers and difficulties
  • Regarding QWERTY most of the problems arise from the number and size of the targets: they are too close and small and that turns the task demanding for a novice user. Further the users were not used to composed gestures like spliut-tapping and had problems particularly near the edges.
  • Following this idea, most on the errors with MultiTap arose from multi split-tapping
  • As to NavTouch the users did several involuntary touches and as each selection is lengthy sometimes they would lose track of text
  • BrailleType had issues with the timeout we applied (timeouts are hazardous) and users also did lose track of text sometimes
  • Looking at individual abilities and how they relate with different device demands…
  • We saw that people with lower verbal IQ (memory and attention), performed worse in all methods but this only happens until a particular level showing that the methods’ demands are surpassed after a certain ability threshold.
  • As to Spatial Ability, differences were found between users with different abilities at QWERTY and MultiTap so users with the best spatial abilities performed better at these methods than the others. This does not happen with NavTouch and BrailleType
  • Another individual feature that showed relevance was pressure sensitivity, a measure of tactile sensitivity, in methods where split-tapping was used. It is visible at MultiTap.
  • As to more functional abilities:
  • No relation was found between the proficiency using a physical keyboard and QWERTY
  • Nor between using a keypad MultiTap and the touch screen version of it
  • We found an impact on the level of Braille reading proficiency and using BrailleType.
  • Squeezing it all up, methods with several targets, fixed layout and scanning techniques allow for faster writing but they are more complex and erroneous
  • While NavTouch and BrailleType are simples and less erroneous
  • "Blind People and Mobile Touch-based Text-Entry: Acknowledging the Need for Different Flavors" @ ASSETS 2011

    1. 1. Blind People and MobileTouch-based Text-EntryAcknowledging the Need for Different FlavorsTiago Guerreirotjvg@vimmi.inesc-id.pt
    2. 2. ‘‘ If we cannot now end our differences, at least we can help make ’’ the world safe for diversity — John Fitzgerald Kennedy
    3. 3. Mobile DevicesAre Great
    4. 4. Diversitymatters
    5. 5. Difficult to select targets
    6. 6. Loss of physical stability
    7. 7. Match individualcharacteristics withinterface demands
    8. 8. Differentdemands!
    9. 9. 15 blind users
    10. 10. 24 to 68years old
    11. 11. All but twotext regularly
    12. 12. Only one had previous experience with touch screens mobiles
    13. 13. One session per method4 Methods
    14. 14. Five 5 wordsentences
    15. 15. 97% correlation
    16. 16. Erase wasunavailable
    17. 17. Practice phase10 to 15 minutes2 users were notable to write withQWERTY andMultiTap
    18. 18. Words per Minute
    19. 19. 2.52.01.51.00.50.0 QWERTY MultiTap NavTouch BrailleType
    20. 20. MSDError Rate
    21. 21. 25.020.015.010.0 5.0 0.0 QWERTY MultiTap NavTouch BrailleType
    22. 22. 25.020.015.010.0 5.0 0.0 QWERTY MultiTap NavTouch BrailleType
    23. 23. UserSatisfaction
    24. 24. Easy toMethod understand QWERTY 4.0 (2) MultiTap 4.0 (2)NavTouch 5.0 (1)BrailleType 5.0 (1)
    25. 25. Easy to EasyMethod understand to use QWERTY 4.0 (2) 4.0 (2) MultiTap 4.0 (2) 4.0 (1)NavTouch 5.0 (1) 4.5 (2)BrailleType 5.0 (1) 5.0 (1)
    26. 26. Allows to Easy to EasyMethod input text understand to use quickly QWERTY 4.0 (2) 4.0 (2) 4.0 (3) MultiTap 4.0 (2) 4.0 (1) 3.5 (2)NavTouch 5.0 (1) 4.5 (2) 3.0 (3)BrailleType 5.0 (1) 5.0 (1) 3.0 (1)
    27. 27. Allows to I would Easy to EasyMethod input text use this understand to use quickly method QWERTY 4.0 (2) 4.0 (2) 4.0 (3) 3.0 (3) MultiTap 4.0 (2) 4.0 (1) 3.5 (2) 4.0 (3)NavTouch 5.0 (1) 4.5 (2) 3.0 (3) 3.0 (1)BrailleType 5.0 (1) 5.0 (1) 3.0 (1) 3.5 (1)
    28. 28. Barriers &Difficulties
    29. 29. Method Main Difficulties Targets too close and smallQWERTY Split-tapping edge targets.
    30. 30. Method Main Difficulties Targets too close and smallQWERTY Split-tapping edge targets.MultiTap Multiple split-tapping
    31. 31. Method Main Difficulties Targets too close and smallQWERTY Split-tapping edge targets.MultiTap Multiple split-tapping Involuntary touchesNavTouch Losing track of text
    32. 32. Method Main Difficulties Targets too close and small QWERTY Split-tapping edge targets. MultiTap Multiple split-tapping Involuntary touchesNavTouch Losing track of text TimeoutsBrailleType Losing track of text
    33. 33. Individual abilities
    34. 34. BrailleType
    35. 35. BrailleType
    36. 36. BrailleType
    37. 37. No significant relation.
    38. 38. No significant relation.
    39. 39. Significant impact.
    40. 40. Allow faster writing.More complex and erroneous.
    41. 41. Simpler.Less erroneous.
    42. 42. Large number of targets is highlydemanding.Users with better spatial abilitiesare able to overcome this demand.
    43. 43. More demanding inregards to Memory andAtention.Users with better Verbal IQare able to overcome thisdemand.
    44. 44. Different method, different demands.Different users, diverse abilities.
    45. 45. Spatial ability, pressure sensitivityand verbal IQ play an importantrole in the blind user’s ability touse a touch screen.
    46. 46. The FutureDifferent devicesLow-level demandsLong term studies
    47. 47. tjvguerreiro@gmail.comtiago.guerreiro@tjvguerreiro
    48. 48. Tiago Guerreiro João Oliveira Hugo Nicolau Joaquim JorgeDaniel Gonçalves

    ×