CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 88Assistive Technology in Communication and MobilityDigital Accessibility for DisabilitiesTactile and Sensory Interactions

Finding a store, searching for a product: a study of daily challenges of low vision people

Szpiro, Sarit, Zhao, Yuhang, Azenkot, Shiri·2016·Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing
DOI 10.1145/2971648.2971723
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Visual impairments encompass a range of visual abilities. People with low vision have functional vision and thus their experiences are likely to be different from people with no vision. We sought to answer two research questions: (1) what challenges do low vision people face when performing daily activities and (2) what aids (high- and low-tech) do low vision people use to alleviate these challenges? Our goal was to reveal gaps in current technologies that can be addressed by the UbiComp community. Using contextual inquiry, we observed 11 low vision people perform a wayfinding and shopping task in an unfamiliar environment. The task involved wayfinding and searching and purchasing a product. We found that, although there are low vision aids on the market, participants mostly used their smartphones, despite interface accessibility challenges. While smartphones helped them outdoors, participants were overwhelmed and frustrated when shopping in a store. We discuss the inadequacies of existing aids and highlight the need for systems that enhance visual information, rather than convert it to audio or tactile.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2971648.2971723

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Prior work briefly described some positive experiences people with low vision had with SCOs in the broader context of studying shopping experiences, but our work, which also included blind people, went deeper into understanding SCO use and the challenges that arise when visual cues cannot be relied on.

    “Prior work briefly described some positive experiences people with low vision had with SCOs in the broader context of studying shopping experiences [89], but our work, which also included blind people, went deeper into understanding SCO use and the challenges that arise when visual cues cannot be relied on.”

    From Experiences and Perceptions of Blind and Low-Vision (BLV) People with Retail Self-Checkout Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [89]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Szpiro, S., Zhao, Y., & Azenkot, S.
Affiliations
  • Cornell Tech (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-09-12
Pages
61-72
DOI
10.1145/2971648.2971723
OpenAlex
W2513573146
Cited by
88
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 1
FWCI
23.36
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
low vision, wayfinding, shopping, product search, assistive technology, smartphone accessibility, ubiquitous computing, visual impairment, daily activities

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