Opinions and Preferences of Blind and Low Vision Consumers Regarding Self-Driving Vehicles: Results of Focus Group Discussions
Abstract
Fully autonomous vehicles, commonly referred to as self-driving vehicles, are an emerging technology that may hold tremendous mobility potential for individuals who are blind or visually impaired who have been previously disadvantaged by an inability to operate conventional motor vehicles. This study explores the opinions of 38 participants who are blind and low vision, through the use of focus group methodology, regarding this emerging self-driving vehicle technology. Participants were overwhelmingly optimistic about the potential for independence and mobility that self-driving vehicles may provide but were concerned that the needs of individuals with visual impairments were not being adequately considered in the development of the technology. Participants also raised questions about how the technology would satisfy their need for situational awareness, how the technology would enable blind or visually impaired operators to verify their arrival at their desired location and a host of issues related to parking, vehicle location and roadside assistance. Participants also expressed a preference for smartphone and speech input capabilities as a primary means of system interaction. These findings suggest that at a minimum more needs to be done to engage individuals with visual impairments in the development of self-driving vehicle technology and to increase awareness of manufacturer efforts.
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?
Prior work demonstrates the importance of BLV user control in AVs.
“This aligns with prior work demonstrating the importance of BLV user control in AVs [2, 4].”
From Get In Touch with Your Seat: Accessible Seat Localization for Blind and Low Vision Travelers in Autonomous Shuttles (2026) · cites this paper as [4]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Participation at What Cost? Teaching Accessibility Using Participatory Design: An Experience Report
Brinkley, J. (2020) · Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education · doi:10.1145/3328778.3366931 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citationD. S. Fink, P., R Brown, J., M Movalia, R., J James, K., E Kastelein, M., Bond, J., E Andrulis, M., & A Giudice, N. (2026) · Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798714
- Authors
- Brinkley, J., Posadas, B., Woodward, J., & Gilbert, J. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2017-10-19
- Pages
- 290-299
- OpenAlex
- W2766534010
- Cited by
- 65
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 15.03
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Keywords
- autonomous vehicles, blind people, low vision, visual impairment, mobility (physical function), independence, situational awareness, accessibility, user preferences, speech input, smartphone interaction
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