Cited by 31Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesTactile and Sensory InteractionsAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Accessible on-line floor plans.

Open access
Goncu, Cagatay, Madugalla, Anuradha, Marinai, Simone, Marriott, Kim·2015·Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web

Abstract

Better access to on-line information graphics is a pressing need for people who are blind or have severe vision impairment. We present a new model for accessible presentation of on-line information graphics and demonstrate its use for presenting floor plans. While floor plans are increasingly provided on-line, people who are blind are at best provided with only a high-level textual description. This makes it difficult for them to understand the spatial arrangement of the objects on the floor plan. Our new approach provides users with significantly better access to such plans. The users can automatically generate an accessible version of a floor plan from an on-line floor plan image quickly and independently by using a web service. This generates a simplified graphic showing the rooms, walls, doors and windows in the original floor plan as well as a textual overview. The accessible floor plan is presented on an iPad using audio feedback. As the users touch graphic elements on the screen, the element they are touching is described by speech and non-speech audio in order to help them navigate the graphic.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2736277.2741660

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • People with blindness or visual impairment have highlighted the need for an assistive interface to pinpoint elements on tactile surfaces.

    “People with BVI have highlighted the need for an assistive interface to pinpoint elements on tactile surfaces (9, 20–24).”

    From SONOICE! a Sonar–Voice dynamic user interface for assisting individuals with blindness and visual impairment in pinpointing elements in 2D tactile readers (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Results (page unavailable) report a blind participant’s suggestion to query where rooms are relative to their finger, supporting the need for help locating elements. But the interface studied presents floor plans on an iPad touchscreen with audio feedback, not on a tactile surface; the Introduction explicitly says it does not require printed tactile graphics. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The design choices for the three user interfaces were based on the widespread adoption of sonification and speech-based user interfaces in assistive technology.

    “The design choices were based on the widespread adoption of sonification and speech-based UIs in assistive technology, facilitating enhanced access to tactile graphics as supported by relevant studies (9, 22, 34, 50, 61, 62).”

    From SONOICE! a Sonar–Voice dynamic user interface for assisting individuals with blindness and visual impairment in pinpointing elements in 2D tactile readers (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

    The Presentation Technologies for Accessible Graphics section describes sonification and speech-based descriptions as approaches to accessible graphics. Section 3, FLOOR PLAN PRESENTATION, describes GraViewer’s use of VoiceOver and non-speech audio. The paper does not say that widespread adoption motivated the design of three user interfaces; it instead explains its audio-only choice in terms of avoiding a data glove and enabling deployment on an iPad. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Assistive technology typically relies on either voice or sonification approaches, making a combination of these two methods less common.

    “Another factor that could have contributed to this may stem from the fact that assistive technology typically relies on either voice or sonification approaches (9, 34, 50, 61, 84), making a combination of these two methods less common and potentially leading to unfamiliarity or hesitation among users.”

    From SONOICE! a Sonar–Voice dynamic user interface for assisting individuals with blindness and visual impairment in pinpointing elements in 2D tactile readers (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

    The “Presentation Technologies for Accessible Graphics” section describes audio-only presentations as based on either textual description or sonification, supporting that distinction for accessible graphics. It does not establish that combining voice and sonification is uncommon across assistive technology; in fact, “Floor Plan Presentation” describes its own system using both spoken descriptions and non-speech audio. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 31

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 10.5555/2042053.2042060 · DOI
  2. N. Kaklanis , K. Votis , and D. Tzovaras . Touching openstreetmap data in mobile context for the visually impaired . In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Mobile Accessibility-ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2013 . N. Kaklanis, K. Votis, and D. Tzovaras. Touching openstreetmap data in mobile context for the visually impaired. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Mobile Accessibility-ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2013.
  3. Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities Inc. , Australia & New Zealand. Guidelines on Conveying Visual Information ( 2005 ), 2005. Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities Inc., Australia & New Zealand. Guidelines on Conveying Visual Information (2005), 2005.

Metadata

Authors
Goncu, C., Madugalla, A., Marinai, S., & Marriott, K.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Data61 (AU)
  • University of Florence (IT)
Venue
Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web
Published
2015-05-18
Pages
388-398
OpenAlex
W2139486723
Cited by
31
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2
FWCI
4.94
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Monash University Research Portal (Monash University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • NICTA Victoria
  • ARC (LP110200469)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
floor plans, blind users, visual impairment, web accessibility, audio feedback, speech synthesis, tactile feedback, iPad, web services, spatial description

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