Usability of Accessible Bar Charts

  • Cagatay Goncu
  • Kim Marriott
  • John Hurst
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6170)


Bar charts are one of the most commonly used diagram types. Tactile diagrams are a widely used technique for presenting graphics to people who are blind. We explored how to present bar charts using a tactile presentation. Our user study used blind participants and evaluated both user preferences and performance. We found that providing grid lines and values in a tactile diagram was preferred to a direct transcription. In addition, presenting the data as a tactile table was preferred to a tactile chart. Both of these approaches reduced the error rate, and presentation as a table had performance benefits. We also investigated the comparative usability of: a tactile presentation, an audio description of the bar chart, and a tactile/audio presentation in which a tactile diagram is overlaid on a touch-sensitive device which provides audio feedback on demand. We found that tactile was the most preferred while audio was the least.


User Study Grid Line Blind People Presentation Medium Audio Feedback 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Challis, B., Edwards, A.: Design Principles for Tactile Interaction. In: Brewster, S., Murray-Smith, R. (eds.) Haptic HCI 2000. LNCS, vol. 2058, pp. 17–24. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities Inc: Guidelines on conveying visual information (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The N.S.W. Tactual and Bold Print Mapping Committee: A guide for the production of tactual and bold print maps (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meyer, J., Shinar, D., Leiser, D.: Multiple factors that determine performance with tables and graphs. Human Factors 39(2) (1997)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gardner, J., Bulatov, V.: Scientific Diagrams Made Easy with IVEO. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W.L., Karshmer, A.I. (eds.) ICCHP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4061, pp. 1243–1250. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Landau, S., Gourgey, K.: Development of a talking tactile tablet. Information Technology and Disabilities 7(2), 4 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bentzen, B., Peck, A.: Factors Affecting Traceability of Lines for Tactile Graphics. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 73(7), 264–269 (1979)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lambert, L., Lederman, S.: An Evaluation of the Legibility and Meaningfuiness of Potential Map Symbols. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 397 (1989)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Millar, S.: The perception of complex patterns by touch. Perception 14(3), 293 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lederman, S., Kinch, D.: Texture in Tactual Maps and Graphics for the Visually Handicapped. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 73(6), 217–227 (1979)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lederman, S., Campbell, J.: Tangible Line Graphs: An Evaluation and Some Systematic Strategies for Exploration. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 77(3), 108–112 (1983)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aldrich, F.K., Parkin, A.J.: Tangible line graphs: an experimental investigation of three formats using capsule paper. Human Factors 29(3), 301–309 (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu, W., Brewster, S.: Comparing two haptic interfaces for multimodal graph rendering. In: Proceedings of Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, HAPTICS 2002, pp. 3–9 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yu, W., Brewster, S.: Evaluation of multimodal graphs for blind people. Universal Access in the Information Society 2(2), 105–124 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wall, S., Brewster, S.: Feeling what you hear: tactile feedback for navigation of audio graphs. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1123–1132. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Landau, S., Russell, M., Gourgey, K., Erin, J., Cowan, J.: Use of the Talking Tactile Tablet in mathematics testing. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 97(2), 85–96 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hatwell, Y.: Images and non-visual spatial representations in the blind. John Libbey Eurotext, 13–35 (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goncu, C., Marriott, K.: Tactile chart generation tool. In: Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS 2008, pp. 255–256 (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Card, S., Mackinlay, J., Shneiderman, B.: Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cleveland, W., McGill, R.: Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association 79(387), 531–554 (1984)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kosslyn, S.: Graph design for the eye and mind, pp. 30–36. Oxford University Press, USA (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Walker, W., Kwok, P., Lamere, P.: FreeTTS Open Source Speech Synthesis. Sun Microsystems Laboratories, Speech Integration Group (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cagatay Goncu
    • 1
  • Kim Marriott
    • 1
  • John Hurst
    • 1
  1. 1.Clayton School of ITMonash UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations