CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityInteractive and Immersive Displays

Enhancing Android accessibility for users with hand tremor by reducing fine pointing and steady tapping

Open access
Zhong, Yu, Weber, Astrid, Burkhardt, Casey, Weaver, Phil, Bigham, Jeffrey P.·2015·Proceedings of the 12th International Web for All Conference
DOI 10.1145/2745555.2747277
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Smartphones and tablets with touchscreen have demonstrated potential to support the needs of individuals with motor impairments such as hand tremor. However, those users still face major challenges with conventional touchscreen gestures. These challenges are mostly caused by the fine precision requirement to disambiguate between targets on small screens. To reduce the difficulty caused by hand tremor in combination with small touch targets on the screen, we developed an experimental system-wide assistive service called Touch Guard. It enables enhanced area touch and a series of complementary features. This service provides the enhanced area touch feature through two possible disambiguation modes: magnification and descriptive targets list. In a laboratory study with motor-impaired users, we compared both modes to conventional tapping and tested Touch Guard with real-world applications. Targets list based disambiguation was more successful, reducing the error rate by 65% compared to conventional tapping. In addition, several challenges and design implications were discovered when presenting new touchscreen interaction techniques to users with motor impairments. As the experimental product of an intern research project at Google, Touch Guard demonstrates broad potential for solving accessibility issues for people with hand tremor using their familiar mobile devices, instead of high-cost hardware.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2745555.2747277

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

5 of 30 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Error rate on small targets can be higher than 40%.

    “Error rate on such small targets can be higher than 40% [10].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] 10. Guerreiro, T. and Nicolau, H. and Jorge, J. and Gonc ¸alves, D. Towards accessible touch interfaces. ASSETS 2010. source

      The Tapping results (section 4.1.1, p. 4) report significantly more task errors for small targets than for medium or large targets. The overview (section 4.2.1, p. 6) also reports technique differences at the smallest size, but the text in our copy does not give an error rate above 40%; the cited figures are represented only by image placeholders. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingown data

    Different disambiguation modes significantly affected user acceptance.

    “We found different disambiguation modes significantly affected user acceptance (Z = -2.384,p <.05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In a controlled laboratory study with eight participants with hand tremor, list-based disambiguation of enhanced area touch significantly reduced errors when selecting targets on a touchscreen by 65% compared to conventional tapping.

    “With the list based disambiguation, enhanced area touch sig nificantly reduced errors made when selecting targets on a touchscreen by 65%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Participants made fewer errors when using list-based disambiguation mode than tapping.

    “Pairwise comparison showed participants made fewer errors when using list based disam biguation mode than tapping (Z = -6.66,p <.001)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Touch type had a significant effect on error rate.

    “Overall, touch type had a significant effect on error rate (χ 2 (2) = 56.09,p <.001).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 29
  • May combine two claims. 31
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Guerreiro et al. compared tapping with crossing, exiting, etc. and found they did not have significant effects on error rate.

    “However, Guerreiro et al. [10] compared tapping with crossing, exiting, etc. and found they did not have significant effects on error rate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] 10. Guerreiro, T. and Nicolau, H. and Jorge, J. and Gonc ¸alves, D. Towards accessible touch interfaces. ASSETS 2010. source

      Section 4.2.1 (p. 6) reports a significant effect of interaction technique on task errors at every target size. Tapping and Crossing did not differ significantly from each other, but Exiting had significantly more errors than both at the medium and largest sizes, contrary to the claim about the techniques collectively. (LLM, conf=0.91)

      Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Scanning-based interaction is available on iOS for users with severe motor impairments but is very inefficient for users with gross or fine motor control.

    “For users with severe motor impairments, scanningbased interaction [7] is available on iOS but it is very in efficient for users with gross or fine motor control.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] 7. Felzer, T., Nordmann, R. and Rinderknecht, S. Scanning-based human-computer interaction using intentional muscle contractions. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Intelligent and Ubiquitous Interaction Environments, p. 509-518, 2009. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Guerreiro et al. concluded the minimum target size should be 12 mm.

    “By studying the performance of 15 par ticipants with quadriplegia on touchscreens, Guerreiro et al. [10] concluded the minimum target size should be 12 mm.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] 10. Guerreiro, T. and Nicolau, H. and Jorge, J. and Gonc ¸alves, D. Towards accessible touch interfaces. ASSETS 2010. source

      The Participants section (p. 3) confirms that the study included 15 people with tetraplegia. The Conclusions (p. 8) call 12 mm the most appropriate target diameter, but do not establish it as a minimum: only three sizes were tested, and the best-size discussion (p. 7) notes an exception requiring larger targets for one technique. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Smaller size and higher density of touch targets leads to more errors and longer acquisition time.

    “Similar to clicking with the mouse on desktop, smaller size and higher density of targets leads to more errors and longer acquisition time [10,30].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] 10. Guerreiro, T. and Nicolau, H. and Jorge, J. and Gonc ¸alves, D. Towards accessible touch interfaces. ASSETS 2010. source

      Section 4.1.1 (p. 4) reports more task errors for the smallest touch targets than for medium or large targets. The paper does not establish that higher target density increases errors or that smaller targets take longer to acquire; Section 4.1.2 (p. 5) reports no effect of target size on time for crossing. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [30] 30. Sesto, M. E. and Irwin, C. B. and Chen, K. B. and Chourasia, A. O. and Wiegmann, D. A. Effect of touch screen button size and spacing on touch characteristics of users with and without disabilities. In Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54.3, pages 425-436, 2012. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Magnification-based area touch was slower than tapping and list-based area touch.

    “Pairwise comparison showed that magnification is slower than tapping (p <.01) and the list mode (p <.01).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    During the studies users found Touch Guard empowering and capable of preventing high cost errors such as accidental phone calls in the dialer.

    “Moreover, during the studies users found Touch Guard empowering and capable of preventing high cost errors such as accidental phone calls in the dialer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Participants did not have significantly different error rates when using magnification compared to tapping.

    “but did not have significantly different error rates when using mag nification.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Average target acquisition times were 1.7 seconds for tapping, 4.7 seconds for magnification-based area touch, and 3.7 seconds for list-based area touch.

    “Average target ac quisition times were 1.7 seconds for tapping, 4.7 seconds for magnification based area touch, and 3.7 seconds for list based area touch (see Figure 3).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a significant effect of touch type on error rates in nested and clustered interfaces, but not in the standard icon interface.

    “There was a significant effect of touch type on error rates when participant performed tasks in both nested (χ 2 (2) = 20.03,p <.001) and clustered (χ 2 (2) = 21.0,p <.001) interfaces, but not the standard icon interface in which targets have large size.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Average error rates were 7.0% for list-based area touch, 25.8% for magnification-based area touch, and 20.2% for tapping.

    “Average error rates were 7.0% for list based area touch, 25.8% for magnification based area touch and 20.2% for tap ping as shown in Figure 4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Participants found Touch Guard useful (mean = 3.38) and acceptable (mean = 3.5), but not easy to learn as a new interaction technique (mean = 2.63).

    “Overall, participants found Touch Guard useful (mean = 3.38) and acceptable (mean = 3.5), but not easy to learn as a new interaction technique (mean = 2.63).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The better performance of error reduction was noticed and the targets list mode was described as 'clear and simple' and made P5 'more sure.'

    “The better performance of error reduction was also noticed as the targets list mode was descried as”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Although Touch Guard prevents accidental activation of incorrect targets by the second finger, it was not able to recognize swiping gestures in those situations.

    “Al though Touch Guard prevents accidental activation of incor rect targets by the second finger, it was not able to recognize swiping gestures in those situations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    P6 did not have enough stability to keep his fingers away from the display during longer interactions, so he scrolled back and forth as he could not lift his finger.

    “Moreover, as P6 did not have enough stability to keep his fingers away from the dis play during longer interactions, he scrolled back and forth, as he could not lift his finger.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Two others initially believed the targets list mode was intended as an 'auto correction mode' (P5, P7) that was about to predict what was going to be entered rather than confirming the number they had selected.

    “Two others initially believed this same mode was intended as an”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Users unfamiliar with Android struggled with simple tasks or understanding certain features of Touch Guard.

    “We frequently observed that users unfamiliar with Android struggled with simple tasks or understanding certain features of Touch Guard.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    All complementary features were well received as 'tailored towards our needs and useful' (P1).

    “All complementary features were well received as”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Several apps used custom widgets and failed to provide meaningful content descriptions, which makes items in the targets list incomprehensible.

    “We encountered several apps that used custom widgets and failed to provide meaningful content descrip tions, which makes items in the targets list incomprehensi ble.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    Two participants expressed that they do not need magnification as they 'do not have any vision problems' (P3, P8).

    “Two participants expressed that they do not need magnification as they”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Two participants thought that the targets list mode showed a summary of an email thread rather than separate grouped conversations inside Gmail.

    “For example, two participants thought that the targets list mode showed a summary of an email thread rather than separate grouped conversations inside Gmail.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Two participants were convinced that magnification forced them to perform much more taps than the targets list mode while the numbers are comparable and both modes follow the same logic of labor division.

    “Another interesting discovery is that two participants were convinced that magnification forced them to perform much more taps than the targets list mode while the numbers are comparable and both modes follow the same logic of labor division.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Touch Guard is target aware, meaning the service knows the location and size of all interactive on-screen targets so that it can be deployed in the wild and supports users with hand tremor within any applications installed on their Android touchscreen devices.

    “Touch Guard is target aware, meaning the service knows the location and size of all interactive on-screen targets so that it can be deployed in the wild and supports users with hand tremor within any applications installed on their An droid touchscreen devices.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] 26. Raman, T. V. and Chen, C. L. and Tim, C. Leveraging Android accessibility APIs to create an accessible experience. Google I/O 2011.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Those physical features are no longer available on mainstream touchscreen devices.

    “Those physical features are no longer avail able on mainstream touchscreen devices.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Error corrections are expensive for motor-impaired users and often lead to frustration.

    “Naftali et al. [21] found error corrections are expensive for motorimpaired users and often lead to frustration.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [21] 21. Naftali, M. and Findlater, L. Accessibility in context: understanding the truly mobile experience of smartphone users with motor impairments. ASSETS 2014. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many users with motor impairments have problems performing swiping in certain directions, or constraining the swiping path within the bounds of targets.

    “Specifically, many of them have problems performing swiping in certain direc tion, or constraining the swiping path within the bounds of targets.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] 2. Anthony, L. and Kim, Y. and Findlater, L. Analyzing user-generated youtube videos to understand touchscreen use by people with motor impairments. CHI 2013. source
    • cites [21] 21. Naftali, M. and Findlater, L. Accessibility in context: understanding the truly mobile experience of smartphone users with motor impairments. ASSETS 2014. source
    • cites [33] 33. Trewin, S., Swart, C. and Pettick, D. Physical accessibility of touchscreen smartphones. ASSETS '13. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Users with motor impairments still express enthusiasm about touchscreen devices' potential to empower them with more independence in daily life.

    “Despite those challenges, users with motor impairments still express enthusiasm about touchscreen de vices' potential to empower them with more independence in daily life [2,15,33].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] 2. Anthony, L. and Kim, Y. and Findlater, L. Analyzing user-generated youtube videos to understand touchscreen use by people with motor impairments. CHI 2013. source
    • cites [15] 15. Kane, S. K. and Jayant, C. and Wobbrock, J. O and Ladner, R. E. Freedom to roam: a study of mobile device adoption and accessibility for people with visual and motor disabilities. ASSETS 2009. source
    • cites [33] 33. Trewin, S., Swart, C. and Pettick, D. Physical accessibility of touchscreen smartphones. ASSETS '13. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Touch Guard provides solid benefits to users with motor impairments, empowering them to utilize Android touchscreen devices in daily life.

    “Our findings show that Touch Guard provides solid benefits to users with motor im pairments, empowering them to utilize Android touchscreen devices in daily life.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The slowness of both disambiguation modes compared to tapping was due to unaccounted correction cost and additional steps introduced.

    “Although both dis ambiguation modes were slower than tapping because of un accounted correction cost and additional steps introduced.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Early solutions on styli-style devices such as PDAs utilized physical edges or raised bezel to guide users' input on the screen.

    “Early solutions on styli-style devices such as PDAs utilized physical edges or raised bezel to guide users' input on the screen [9,36].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [9] 9. Froehlich, J. and Wobbrock, J. O and Kane, S. Barrier pointing: using physical edges to assist target acquisition on mobile device touch screens. ASSETS 2007. source
    • cites [36] 36. Wobbrock, J. O. and Myers, B. A. and Kembel, J. A. EdgeWrite: a stylus-based text entry method designed for high accuracy and stability of motion. UIST 2003. source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Users with motor impairments are slower and have long dwell times when performing tapping tasks on touchscreen.

    “When performing tapping tasks on touchscreen, users with motor impairments are slower and have long dwell times [14].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [14] 14. Irwin, C. B and Sesto, M. E. Performance and touch characteristics of disabled and non-disabled participants during a reciprocal tapping task using touch screen technology. In Applied ergonomics, 43.6, pages 1038-1043, 2012. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Small targets may be nested in a bigger button which can be easily activated by error.

    “Even worse, small targets may be nested in a bigger button which can be easily activated by error.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Apple's Zoom, Assistive Touch and Speak Selection features on iOS are hard to activate and operate because of a mismatch between the required abilities to operate those features and the actual abilities of the participants.

    “Apple has de ployed Zoom, Assistive Touch and Speak Selection features on iOS, but all of them are hard to activate and to operate be cause of a mismatch between the required abilities to operate those features, and the actual abilities of the participants [33].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [33] 33. Trewin, S., Swart, C. and Pettick, D. Physical accessibility of touchscreen smartphones. ASSETS '13. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Steady Clicks reduces errors by freezing the cursor at button down location, but does not improve target acquisition time.

    “Steady Clicks reduces errors by freezing the cursor at button down location, but does not improve target acquisition time [32].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [32] 32. Trewin, S. and Keates, S. and Moffatt, K. Developing steady clicks:: a method of cursor assistance for people with motor impairments. ASSETS 2006. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Touch Guard can be used on any standard Android phone and works with any application installed.

    “Touch Guard can be used on any standard Android phone and works with any application installed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Area Cursors reduces the need for fine pointing when using a mouse by magnifying the visual and motor space, and has been proved beneficial for elderly and motor impaired people.

    “For example, Area Cursors reduces the need for fine point ing when using a mouse by magnifying the visual and motor space.This has been proved to be beneficial for elderly [37] and motor impaired [8] people.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [37] 37. Worden, A. and Walker, N. and Bharat, K. and Hudson, S. Making computers easier for older adults to use: area cursors and sticky icons. CHI 1997. source
    • cites [8] 8. Findlater, L., Jansen, A., Shinohara, K., Dixon, M., Kamb, P., Rakita, J. and Wobbrock, J. O. Enhanced area cursors: reducing fine pointing demands for people with motor impairments. UIST 2010. source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    Supporting different orientations is important for users with motor impairments.

    “supporting different orienta tions is important for users with motor impairments”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    This experimental project shows the potential of using software based solutions to make readily available devices more usable for people with motor impairments, reducing the impact of cost barriers on touchscreen device adoption.

    “This experimental project shows the poten tial of using software based solutions to make readily avail able devices more usable for people with motor impairments, reducing the impact of cost barriers on touchscreen device adoption.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The targets list mode is more successful and significantly reduced errors when selecting small and dense targets, while magnification surprisingly failed to improve speed and accuracy.

    “The targets list mode is more successful and sig nificantly reduced errors when selecting small and dense tar gets, while magnification surprisingly failed to improve speed and accuracy.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Overall, magnification might not be the solution on touchscreen, or at least has to be carefully designed to cope with characteristics of touchscreen devices.

    “Overall, magnification, although is an approach proven successful on desktop, might not be the solution on touchscreen, or at least has to be carefully designed to cope with characteristics of touchscreen devices.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study had a relatively small group (N = 8), all participants were 50 years of age or older, and all had very limited experience with Android.

    “We had a relatively small group (N = 8), all participants were 50 years of age or older, and all had very limited experience with Android.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    There is a low awareness of accessibility products for users with motor impairments and an urgent need for more work in the space.

    “indicated a low awareness of accessibility products for users with motor impairments and an urgent need for more work in the space.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    All post-hoc pairwise comparisons used a Bonferroni adjustment.

    “All post-hoc pairwise compar isons used a Bonferroni adjustment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The study used a modified System Usability Scale (SUS) model [5] to collect Likert scale ratings.

    “Finally, Likert scale rating was collected with a modified System Usability Scale (SUS) model [5].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] 5. Brooke, J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. In Usability evaluation in industry 189 page 194, 1996.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Target acquisition time data were logarithmically transformed to correct for violations of normality.

    “Target acquisition time data were logarithmically transformed to correct for violations of normality as common practice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Those situations are also problematic for users with other impairments, for example, screen readers also rely on those descriptions to support blind users.

    “Those situations are also problematic for users with other impairments.For exam ple, screen readers also rely on those descriptions to sup port blind users.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The findings may not generalize across gender, age, culture, interaction methods, and experience.

    “Although these participants could represent a difficult user group to design for, our findings may not generalize across gender, age, cul ture, interaction methods, and experience.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    When increasing the magnification factor, the visible area of screen contents quickly decreases and this is especially problematic on small screens.

    “However, when increasing the factor, the visible area of screen contents quickly decreases and this is espe cially problematic on small screens.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    A steep learning curve is a major barrier for users with motor impairments, especially for those whose mental capability is also affected by disease or aging.

    “A steep learning curve is a major barrier for users with mo tor impairments, especially for those whose mental capa bility is also affected by disease or aging.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    There is a conceptual link between visual impairments and any kind of screen magnification.

    “indicating there is a conceptual link between visual impairments and any kind of screen magnification.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The descriptive targets list mode outperformed magnification mode with both performance and users' preference.

    “we found it surprising that the descriptive targets list mode outperformed magnification mode with both perfor mance and users' preference.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The prolonged interaction time with enhanced area touch has two reasons: participants developed a strategy of repeated tapping in the area of the target until hitting it because the trial app involved no cost for correction, and that strategy is not applicable to enhanced area touch since the interface is updated in the disambiguation phase.

    “There are two reasons for the prolonged interaction time.The first is that because the trial app involve no cost for correction, participants developed a strategy of re peated tapping in the area of the target until hitting it.That strategy is not applicable to enhanced area touch since inter face is updated in disambiguation phase.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The higher perceived ease of use scores of targets list mode over magnification could be partly attributed to the list being a standard Android UI component also used in other applications.

    “The higher perceived ease of use scores of tar gets list mode over magnification could also be partly at tributed to the list being a standard Android UI component also used in other applications.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The list mode is a standard Android UI component also used in other applications.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Meaningful customization options are important for Touch Guard and similar services.

    “This leads to the conclusion that meaningful customization options are important for Touch Guard and similar services.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
53 of 53

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little work has been done to address the challenges motor-impaired users face everyday when using their touchscreen mobile devices, or to study what users with motor impairments value when presented with new interaction techniques.

    “Little work has been done to address the challenges motorimpaired users face everyday when using their touchscreen mobile devices, or to study what users with motor impair ments value when presented with new interaction techniques.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Touch Guard is the first general-purpose service that improves accessibility for users with motor impairments and supports interaction with any application running on a touchscreen system.

    “The design of Touch Guard includes the first general-purpose service that improves ac cessibility for users with motor impairments and supports the interaction with any application running on a touchscreen system.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The majority of games developed with graphic frameworks such as OpenGL do not properly implement the Android Accessibility API.

    “the majority of games developed with graphic frameworks such as OpenGL do not properly implement the Android Accessibility API”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Users with motor impairments have higher error rates and corrective operations are more expensive.

    “as they have higher er ror rates and corrective operations are more expensive.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The list mode is a standard Android UI component also used in other applications.

    “the list being a standard Android UI component also used in other applications.”
5 of 5

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentz = -6.66reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “(Z = -6.66,p < .001”

  • Consistentz = -2.384reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .017

    “(Z = -2.384,p < .05”

2 of 2

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Brooke J., 1996, Usability evaluation in industry 189 page 194
  2. Raman T. V., 2011, C. Leveraging Android accessibility APIs to create an accessible experience. Google I/O
  3. Schuster C., Adolescent Research, 1, 205
  4. Smith A., 2013, Smartphone ownership--2013 update

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zhong, Y., Weber, A., Burkhardt, C., Weaver, P., & Bigham, J. P.
Affiliations
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • University of Rochester (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 12th International Web for All Conference
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-05-18
Pages
1-10
DOI
10.1145/2745555.2747277
OpenAlex
W2013557887
Cited by
42
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4
FWCI
11.11
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
International Web for All Conference (W4A) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (IIS-1149709)
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  • Google
  • National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (H133A130057)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
Keywords
hand tremor, motor impairment, touchscreen interaction, assistive technology, magnification, fine pointing

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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