The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Blind people and mobile touch-based text-entry: acknowledging the need for different flavors
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Individual attributes and abilities have a significant impact on learning different text entry methods and on their performance [12], but so do previous experiences and technical aptitudes of users.”
From Designing a text entry multimodal keypad for blind users of touchscreen mobile phones (2014) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“Most work on non-visual text-entry for people with visual impairments has focused on the comparison of input techniques reporting on performance measures, such as accuracy and speed.”
From Typing Performance of Blind Users (2015) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“While the visual layout of the QWERTY keyboard is identical to that presented to sighted users, the text-entry rates are much slower for visually impaired users [19].”
From Typing Performance of Blind Users (2015) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“While researchers have been able to establish that non-visual input is slow and error prone, there is little understanding on how to improve it.”
From Typing Performance of Blind Users (2015) · cites this paper as [19]
Citations
Cites
The impact of aging on access to technology
Czaja, S. J., & Lee, C. C. (2007) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-006-0060-x · Cited by 560
Kane, S. K., Bigham, J. P., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2008) · Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/1414471.1414487 · Cited by 374 · cited 1×
“split-tapping [6]) or alternatively lifts up the first finger and then double-taps anywhere on the screen.”
BackgroundUsable gestures for blind people: understanding preference and performance
Kane, S. K., Wobbrock, J. O., & Ladner, R. E. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979001 · Cited by 314 · cited 1×
“While we acknowledge that progresses on assistive technologies have been made, users still face some several problems when interacting with touch interfaces [7].”
BackgroundNo-Look Notes: Accessible Eyes-Free Multi-touch Text Entry
Bonner, M. N., Brudvik, J. T., Abowd, G. D., & Edwards, W. K. (2010) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12654-3_24 · Cited by 154
Characterising user capabilities to support inclusive design evaluation
Persad, U., Langdon, P., & Clarkson, J. (2007) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-007-0083-y · Cited by 113
Adaptive blind interaction technique for touchscreens
Yfantidis, G., & Evreinov, G. (2006) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-004-0109-7 · Cited by 73 · cited 1×
“Yfantidis and Evreinov [14] proposed a new input method, which consists in a pie menu with eight alternatives and three levels.”
Method
Research works printed but not linked: 10
- 10.1145/564526.564550 · DOI
- 10.1109/MMUL.2008.88 · DOI
- 10.1145/1962300.1962309 · DOI
- Kurniawan S. 2007. Mobile Phone Design for older persons. Designing for seniors: innovations for graying times 24--25. Kurniawan S. 2007. Mobile Phone Design for older persons. Designing for seniors: innovations for graying times 24--25. · DOI
- Mackinnon , S. , Dellon , A. Two-point discrimination tester. Journal of Hand Surgery. 10A:906--7 , 1985 . Mackinnon, S., Dellon, A. Two-point discrimination tester. Journal of Hand Surgery. 10A:906--7, 1985.
- Tremblay , F. , Mireault , A.C. , Dessureault , L. , Manning , H. , Sveistrup , H. Experimental Brain Research : 155--164 , 2004 . Tremblay, F., Mireault, A.C., Dessureault, L., Manning, H., Sveistrup, H. Experimental Brain Research : 155--164, 2004.
- Wechsler , D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised . San Antonio, TX : Psychological Corporation ; 1981 . Wechsler, D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1981.
- 10.1145/1952383.1952384 · DOI
- Xydias , N. Tests pour l'orientation et la selection professionnelle des aveugles . Ed.Sc. et Psych , 1977 . Xydias, N. Tests pour l'orientation et la selection professionnelle des aveugles. Ed.Sc. et Psych, 1977.
- 10.1007/s10209-004-0089-7 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Exploring the use of speech input by blind people on mobile devices
Azenkot, S., & Lee, N. B. (2013) · Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/2513383.2513440 · Cited by 151
“Methods that were not based on Braille [9,25,34], including No-Look Notes [6] and NavTouch [22], did not achieve comparable performance to the former set.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialAn evaluation of BrailleTouch: mobile touchscreen text entry for the visually impaired
Southern, C., Clawson, J., Frey, B., Abowd, G., & Romero, M. (2012) · Proceedings of the 14th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services · doi:10.1145/2371574.2371623 · Cited by 125
Getting Smartphones to Talkback
Rodrigues, A., Montague, K., Nicolau, H., & Guerreiro, T. (2015) · International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/2700648.2809842 · Cited by 101
“One particular task that has been vastly explored is text input, where alternative gesture-based [7], multiple selection-[4] and Braille-based [3, 13, 14] methods have been devised.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationAccessible Touchscreen Technology for People with Visual Impairments: A Survey
Grussenmeyer, W., & Folmer, E. (2017) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3022701 · Cited by 86
Accessible smartphones for blind users: A case study for a wayfinding system
Rodriguez‐Sanchez, M. C., Moreno-Alvarez, M. A., Martín, E., Borromeo, S., & Hernandez-Tamames, J. A. (2014) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2014.05.031 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Oliveira, J., Guerreiro, T., Nicolau, H., Jorge, J., & Gonçalves, D.
- Affiliations
- Instituto de Engenharia de Sistemas e Computadores Investigação e Desenvolvimento (PT)
- Venue
- The proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2011-10-24
- Pages
- 179-186
- OpenAlex
- W2123382439
- Cited by
- 123
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 20.74
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Keywords
- blind users, mobile devices, assistive technology, screen readers, tactile cues, spatial ability, tactile sensitivity, individual differences, inclusive design, accessibility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
