Blind People and Mobile Keypads: Accounting for Individual Differences

  • Tiago Guerreiro
  • João Oliveira
  • João Benedito
  • Hugo Nicolau
  • Joaquim Jorge
  • Daniel Gonçalves
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6946)


No two persons are alike. We usually ignore this diversity as we have the capability to adapt and, without noticing, become experts in interfaces that were probably misadjusted to begin with. This adaptation is not always at the user’s reach. One neglected group is the blind. Age of blindness onset, age, cognitive, and sensory abilities are some characteristics that diverge between users. Regardless, all are presented with the same methods ignoring their capabilities and needs. Interaction with mobile devices is highly visually demanding which widens the gap between blind people. Herein, we present studies performed with 13 blind people consisting on key acquisition tasks with 10 mobile devices. Results show that different capability levels have significant impact on user performance and that this impact is related with the device and its demands. It is paramount to understand mobile interaction demands and relate them with the users’ capabilities, towards inclusive design.


Individual Differences Mobile Accessibility Blind Mobile Device User Assessments 


  1. 1.
    Manduchi, R., Coughlan, J.: Portable and mobile systems in assistive technology. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W.L., Karshmer, A.I. (eds.) ICCHP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5105, pp. 1078–1080. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Levesque, V.: Blindness, technology and haptics. Center for Intelligent Machines. Technical Report (2005) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harper, S.: Standardizing electronic travel aid interaction for visually impaired people. UMIST, Technical Report (1998) Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leonard, R.: Statistics on Vision Impairment a Resource Manual. Lighthouse International, Technical Report (2001) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hollins, M., Leung, E.: Understanding blindness: An integrative approach. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adams, A.: Electronic Travel Aids: New Directions for Research. Working Group on Mobility Aids for the Visually Impaired and Blind, Committee on Vision, NRC (1986) Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guerreiro, T., Jorge, J., Gonçalves, D.: Identifying the individual ingredients for a (in)successful non-visual mobile experience. In: Proceedings of the European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, ECCE, Delft, The Netherlands (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Persad, U., et al.: Characterising user capabilities to support inclusive design evaluation. Universal Access in the Information Society 6(2), 119–135 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guerreiro, T., et al.: NavTap: a long term study with excluded blind users. In: Assets 2009: Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, pp. 99–106. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kane, S.K., et al.: 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, pp. 115–122. ACM, New York (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Plos, O., Buisine, S.: Universal design for mobile phones: a case study. In: CHI 2006: CHI 2006 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, pp. 1229–1234 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shinohara, K., Tenenberg, J.: A blind person’s interactions with technology. Commun. ACM 52(8), 58–66 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    MacKenzie, I., Tanaka-Ishii, K.: Text entry systems: Mobility, accessibility, universality. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burton, D.: You Get to Choose: An Overview of Accessible Cell Phones. Access Issues 6(2) (2005) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guerreiro, T., Lagoá, P., Santana, P., Gonçalves, D., Jorge, J. NavTap and BrailleTap: Non-Visual Texting Interfaces. In: Proceedings of RESNA (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kane, S., Bigham, J., Wobbrock, J.: Slide Rule: Making Mobile Touch Screens Accessible to Blind People using Multi-Touch Interaction Techniques. In: Proceedings of ASSETS, pp. 73–80 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yfantidis, G., Evreinov, G.: Adaptive Blind Interaction Technique for Touchscreens. Universal Access in the Information Society 4(4), 328–337 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bonner, M., Brudvik, J., Abowd, G., Edwards, W.: No-Look Notes: Accessible Eyes-Free Multitouch Text-Entry. Pervasive Computers, 409–426 (2010) Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gregor, P., Newell, A.F.: Designing for dynamic diversity: making accessible interfaces for older people. In: WUAUC 2001: Proceedings of the 2001 EC/NSF Workshop on Universal Accessibility of Ubiquitous Computing, pp. 90–92. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zajicek, M.: Design principles to support older adult, pp. 111–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurniawan, S., Mahmud, M., Nugroho, Y. A Study of the Use of Mobile Phones by older Persons. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 989–994 (2006) Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurniawan, S.: Mobile Phone Design for older persons. In: Designing for Seniors: Innovations for Graying Times, pp. 24–25 (2007) Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Czaja, S., Lee, C.: The impact of aging on access to technology. Universal Access in the Information Society 5(4), 341–349 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tremblay, F., Mireault, A.C., Dessureault, L., Manning, H., Sveistrup. H. Experimental Brain Research, 155–164 (2004) Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mackinnon, S., Dellon, A.: Two-point discrimination tester. Journal of Hand Surgery 10A, 906–907 (1985)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baddeley, A.D., Hitch, G.J.: Working memory. In: Psychology of Learning and Motivation, pp. 47–89. Academic Press, London (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aiken, L.R.: Assessment of Intellectual Functioning. Perspectives on Individual Differences Series. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wechsler, D.: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised. Psychological Corporation, San Antonio (1981)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xydias, N.: Tests pour l’orientation et la selection professionnelle des aveugles. Editions Scientifiques et Psychologiques (1977)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiago Guerreiro
    • 1
  • João Oliveira
    • 1
  • João Benedito
    • 1
  • Hugo Nicolau
    • 1
  • Joaquim Jorge
    • 1
  • Daniel Gonçalves
    • 1
  1. 1.INESC-IDTechnical University of LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations