"just let the cane hit it": how the blind and sighted see navigation differently
Abstract
Sighted people often have the best of intentions when they want to help a blind person navigate, but their well meaning is also often coupled with a lack of knowledge and understanding about how a person navigates without vision. As a result what sighted people think is the right feedback is too often the wrong feedback to give to a person with a visual impairment. Understanding how to provide feedback to blind navigators is crucial to the design of assistive technologies for navigation. In our research investigating the design of a personal pedestrian navigation device, we observed firsthand the ways that sighted people seemingly misunderstand how many blind people navigate when using a white cane mobility aid. Throughout our qualitative end user studies that included focus groups and observations (including couple-based observations with a close companion) we gathered data that explicitly shows how the language and understanding of sighted vs. blind pedestrians differs greatly and even how it can be dangerous when people interfere in the wrong way. From our findings we discuss why it is difficult for a blind person to navigate like a sighted person to ensure designers are aware of the difficulties and designing with new training in mind, not simply designing from their own point of view. We also want to encourage advocacy and empathy amongst the sighted community towards this activity of walking around independently.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Williams et al. (2014) compared sighted and blind navigation and found that both groups understand navigation differently, leading sighted people to struggle in guiding blind companions.
“For instance, Williams et al. (2014) compared sighted and blind navigation and found that both groups understand navigation differently, leading sighted people to struggle in guiding blind companions.”
From Towards a <i>Smart Bionic Eye</i> : AI-powered artificial vision for the treatment of incurable blindness (2022) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2014
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Interdependence as a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design
Bennett, C. L., Brady, E., & Branham, S. M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3234695.3236348 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Branham, S. M., & Kane, S. K. (2015) · Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility - ASSETS '15 · doi:10.1145/2700648.2809864 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Self-citationIndoor navigation by blind people: behaviors and challenges in unfamiliar spaces and buildings
Jeamwatthanachai, W., Wald, M., & Wills, G. (2019) · British Journal of Visual Impairment · doi:10.1177/0264619619833723 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Das, M., Gergle, D., & Piper, A. M. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359293 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Morrison, C., Cutrell, E., Dhareshwar, A., Doherty, K., Thieme, A., & Taylor, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3132525.3132530 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Mixed Abilities and Varied Experiences: a group autoethnography of a virtual summer internship
Mack, K., Das, M., Jain, D., Bragg, D., Tang, J., Begel, A., Beneteau, E., Davis, J. U., Glasser, A., Park, J. S., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3441852.3471199 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Understanding Accessibility and Collaboration in Programming for People with Visual Impairments
Pandey, M., Kameswaran, V., Rao, H. V., O'Modhrain, S., & Oney, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449203 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Vincenzi, B., Taylor, A. S., & Stumpf, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3449143 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Wahidin, H., Waycott, J., & Baker, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3292147.3292175 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Beyeler, M., & Sanchez-Garcia, M. (2022) · Journal of Neural Engineering · doi:10.1088/1741-2552/aca69d · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Kameswaran, V., J. Fiannaca, A., Kneisel, M., Karlson, A., Cutrell, E., & Ringel Morris, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3373625.3416995 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Das, M., Piper, A. M., & Gergle, D. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3480169 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Yildiz, Z., & Subasi, O. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3580937 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Cripping AI: Reimagining AI Through Lived Disability Experiences
Tang, X., Lin, T.-A., Li, J., & Wu, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3805689.3806744 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Williams, M. A., Galbraith, C., Kane, S. K., & Hurst, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 16th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers & accessibility - ASSETS '14
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2014
- Pages
- 217-224
- Cited by
- 121
- References
- 0
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
