Understanding Authentication Method Use on Mobile Devices by People with Vision Impairment

Briotto Faustino, Daniella; Girouard, Audrey

doi:10.1145/3234695.3236342

Cited by 19User Authentication and Security SystemsAdvanced Authentication Protocols SecurityDigital Accessibility for Disabilities

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 3 of the 21 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Understanding Authentication Method Use on Mobile Devices by People with Vision Impairment

Open access

Briotto Faustino, Daniella, Girouard, Audrey·2018·Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

DOI 10.1145/3234695.3236342

Open this paper in CoChat — free account Open PDF

Abstract

Passwords help people avoid unauthorized access to their personal devices but are not without challenges, like memorability and shoulder surfing attacks. Little is known about how people with vision impairment assure their digital security in mobile contexts. We conducted an online survey to understand their strategies to remember passwords, their perceptions of authentication methods and their self-assessed ability to keep their digital information safe. We collected answers from 325 people who are blind or have low vision from 12 countries and found: most use familiar names and numbers to create memorable passwords, the majority consider fingerprint to be the most secure and accessible user authentication method and PINs the least secure user authentication method. This paper presents our survey results and provides insights for designing better authentication methods for people with vision impairment.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This survey of 325 blind and low-vision adults across 12 countries examined password habits and perceptions of mobile authentication. It found fingerprint readers were widely viewed as both the most secure and most accessible method, while PINs were often seen as least secure, with notable differences between blind and low-vision respondents on least accessible methods.

Key findings

Among 325 complete responses (225 blind, 69.2%; 100 low vision, 30.8%), 96% rated passwords important or very important, and 69.5% worried about entering passwords in public, mainly due to shoulder surfing; blind participants were more concerned about aural eavesdropping than low-vision participants (M=0.27 vs. 0.11, p<.005).
For memorization, 33.5% used names of family members, pets, or personally meaningful numbers; 24.9% used a base password with site-specific variation; 30 participants admitted reusing passwords. Self-rated ability to protect digital information was associated with password importance (χ²(8, N=325)=32.99, p<.001), with 47.4% feeling able and 33.8% very able.
Fingerprint was chosen as most secure (N=184) and most accessible, while PIN was chosen as least secure (N=149), often because it was seen as easy to guess (33.6%) or vulnerable to shoulder surfing (30.2%). Least accessible methods differed: blind participants ranked pattern (24%) and iris/retina scan (21%) highest, while low-vision participants ranked alphanumeric passwords (25%) and PINs (23%) highest.
Of smartphone owners (91% of respondents), 75.3% used an authentication method, 73% used fingerprint, and 24.7% did not lock their phone. Younger participants were more likely to use authentication (M=43.2 vs. 51.2, p<.001). The authors rejected H1 and H3 and confirmed H2.

Methods

An online self-administered survey with 30 multiple-choice or text-entry questions in English and Portuguese via Qualtrics, open December 2017–February 2018 and distributed through vision-impairment organizations in 31 countries; 325 adults aged 18+ with vision impairment from 12 countries participated.
Quantitative analysis used R Studio with chi-square tests and t-tests, reporting only statistically significant results; qualitative text-entry analysis used NVivo and grounded theory coding.
The survey covered demographics, password use, views on mobile authentication methods, and mobile device protection, and was pretested with two HCI specialists and two blind users.

Limitations

Stated in the paper: this was a self-administered survey whose findings may change as authentication methods evolve; no back button was provided to avoid changing earlier answers; Qualtrics had accessibility problems with JAWS on Windows and older browsers, which may have prevented some participation.
Stated in the paper: the sample required internet and email access and was recruited through support organizations; nearly 70% were blind although global estimates suggest more people have low vision, so low-vision experiences may be underrepresented; the wording of ability and importance scales may have confused respondents.
Evident from the text: the design is cross-sectional and self-reported, with a non-probability sample heavily from the US (72.3%) and Canada (15.1%), limiting generalizability; some findings rely on participant explanations and may reflect recall or interpretation biases.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3234695.3236342

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

11 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

3 of 21 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Premisecitation
People with vision impairment are more vulnerable to shoulder surfing and aural eavesdropping when entering PINs.
“Also, people with vision impairment are more vulnerable to shoulder surfing and aural eavesdropping when entering PINs [20].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
- cites [20] 20. Kaczmirek, L. and Wolff, K. 2007. Survey Design for Visually Impaired and Blind People. Universal Acess in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity. 4554, (2007), 374-381. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73279- 2_41. source
  The Introduction (p. 1) discusses accessible reading methods, and the ATM example (p. 4) asks about menu preferences. Neither addresses PIN entry or increased vulnerability to shoulder surfing or aural eavesdropping. Searches for those terms, PINs, and related privacy risks found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Premisecitation
The number of people with vision impairment using smartphones is increasing.
“Thanks to the rise of accessibility features and applications for mainstream devices, the number of people with vision impairment using smartphones is increasing [14,20].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
- cites [14] 14. Csapó, Á., Wersényi, G., Nagy, H. and Stockman, T. 2015. A survey of assistive technologies and applications for blind users on mobile platforms: a review and foundation for research. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces. 9, 4 (2015), 275-286. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-015-0182-7. source
  Sections 4 and 5 report growing use of mobile phones and tablets among visually impaired people, and Section 4 describes accessible applications on Android and iOS. This supports the increase in use, but the paper does not establish that accessibility features and applications caused it. (LLM, conf=0.82)
  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- cites [20] 20. Kaczmirek, L. and Wolff, K. 2007. Survey Design for Visually Impaired and Blind People. Universal Acess in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity. 4554, (2007), 374-381. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73279- 2_41. source
Findingown data
The number of unique passwords used daily did not significantly differ between blind and low vision participants (M=5.0 vs. M=4.7).
“The number of unique passwords used daily did not significantly differ between blind and low vision participants (M=5.0 vs. M=4.7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Participants who became vision impaired earlier in life were more likely to use Braille displays (M=3.9 vs. M=11.5, t(321)=2.81, p<.005).
“Participants who became vision impaired earlier in life were more likely to use Braille displays (M=3.9 vs. M=11.5,t (321) = 2.81, p <.005).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Some participants (14.1%) chose fingerprint reader as the most secure method by mentioning accessibility issues that other authentication methods have.
“Interestingly, some participants (14.1%) said they chose fingerprint reader as the most secure method by mentioning accessibility issues that other authentication methods have.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

Findingown data
Thirty participants admitted reusing passwords.
“Additionally, thirty participants admitted reusing passwords.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Almost all participants (96%) said passwords are important or very important.
“Almost all participants (96%) said passwords are important or very important.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
69.5% of participants had concerns about entering passwords in public spaces.
“69.5% of participants had concerns about entering passwords in public spaces (no significant difference between the two vision impaired groups).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
There was no significant difference between blind and low vision participants in rating password importance.
“Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of the results between the two groups (blind and low vision), although we did not find significant difference.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
There was no significant difference between the self-assessment of the two vision impairment groups.
“We found no significant difference between the self-assessment of the two vision impairment groups.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Most participants use familiar names and numbers to create memorable passwords.
“most use familiar names and numbers to create memorable passwords”
- Also stated in: § Strategies to Memorize Passwords · plain
  “33.5% mentioned creating passwords by using names of family members, pets, numbers or facts that are important for them”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Among participants who rated themselves able or very able to protect their digital information, the main reasons included their methods to create passwords (29.9%) and to save passwords (22.7%).
“Among the participants who rated themselves as able or very able to protect their digital information (N=264), the main reasons included their methods to create passwords (29.9%) and to save passwords (22.7%)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
24.9% of participants mentioned creating a password model or structure and then slightly changing it to generate new passwords.
“The second strategy most mentioned was creating a password model or structure and then slightly changing it to generate new passwords (24.9%)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
33.5% of participants mentioned creating passwords by using names of family members, pets, numbers or facts important to them.
“33.5% mentioned creating passwords by using names of family members, pets, numbers or facts that are important for them”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Blind participants were more concerned with aural eavesdropping than participants with low vision (M=0.27 vs. M=0.11, t(224)=2.80, p<.005).
“Blind participants were more concerned with aural eavesdropping than participants with low vision (M=0.27 vs. M=0.11,t (224) = 2.80, p <.005).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Blind participants used screen readers and other assistive devices significantly more than participants with low vision.
“We found the use of the following assistive devices were significantly larger by blind participants than by participants with low vision: screen readers”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Findingreasoning
The sample included 225 blind participants (69.2%) and 100 with low vision (30.8%) after regrouping.
“The regrouping resulted in a total of 225 blind participants (69.2%) and 100 with low vision (30.8%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Only two participants declared not using passwords for any of the items asked about.
“Only two participants declared not using passwords for any of the items we asked them about.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Some participants (11.9%) commented on security issues with other biometric methods, including facial recognition tricked by pointing the smartphone to the owner's face, voice recognition confused by external sound, and iris or face recognition tricked by a replica.
“Also, some participants (11.9%) commented on security issues with other biometric methods, including facial recognition that could be tricked by pointing the smartphone to the owner's face to obtain access, voice recognition that could be confused by external sound, and iris or face recognition that could be tricked by a replica.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
VI-VA participants were more likely to use password management systems than other participants (M=0.19 vs. M=0.08, t(321)=2.81, p<.005).
“VI-VA used similar strategies to remember passwords as the others, but were more likely to use password management systems (M=0.19 vs. M=0.08,t (321) = 2.81, p <.005).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
The number of years owning a smartphone was not different between blind and low vision participants.
“The number of years owning a smartphone was not different between participants who are blind and those who have low vision.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
iOS (Apple) was the most used operating system by people with vision impairment (80.4%).
“Similarly to what was found by Leporini et al. [23] and Ye et al. [38], iOS (Apple) was the most used operating system (OS) by people with vision impairment (80.4%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
- cites Leporini et al. [23]
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Ye et al. [38]
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Findingown data
The operating system used differed between groups, as blind participants were more likely to use iPhones than those with low vision.
“The operating system used differ between groups ( 2 (3, N=296) = 27.92,p <.001), as blind were more likely to use iPhones than those who have low vision.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Blind people considered patterns and iris scans the least accessible methods, because they require some level of visual interaction.
“Blind people considered patterns and iris scans the least accessible methods, because they require some level of visual interaction; while people with low vision selected alphanumeric passwords and PINs, possibly due to difficulty of typing using a screen magnifier.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Findingown data
Shoulder surfing was the main concern among blind and low vision participants, as in previous research [2].
“Additionally, we found that shoulder surfing was the main concern among blind and low vision participants, as in previous research [2].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites [2] 2. Ahmed, T., Shaffer, P., Connelly, K., Crandall, D., Kapadia, A., Ahmed, T. and Connelly, K. 2016. Addressing Physical Safety , Security , and Privacy for People with Visual Impairments. Proceeding of the Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS). (2016), 341-354.
Findingown data
Younger participants were more likely to have a user authentication method than older ones (M=43.2 vs. M=51.2, t(294)=3.87, p<.001).
“However, younger participants were more likely to have a user authentication method than older ones (M=43.2 vs. M=51.2,t (294) = 3.87, p <.001).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
The use of password managers was associated with higher levels of confidence in protecting data.
“The use of password managers was also associated with higher levels of confidence.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Most participants use familiar names and numbers to memorize their passwords.
“We found that most use familiar names and numbers to memorize their passwords, that the majority consider fingerprints to be the most secure and most accessible user authentication methods, and that PIN was considered the least secure user authentication method.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Findingown data
A third of participants who did not have a method to protect their mobile devices (22 out of 67) said their reasons lie on the complexity and inconvenience of existing user authentication methods.
“We also found that a third of the participants, who did not have a method to protect their mobile devices (22 out of 67), said their reasons lie on the complexity and inconvenience of the existing user authentication methods.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Findingown data
73% of blind participants use assistive apps.
“to access assistive apps (used by 73% of the blind)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Fourteen participants said pattern is difficult for them to use due to its low accessibility.
“Additionally, 14 participants said this method is difficult for them to use, due to its low accessibility.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Pattern and iris or retina scan were the two least accessible methods for blind participants.
“Pattern and iris or retina scan were the two least accessible methods for the blind, while alphanumeric password and PIN were the two least accessible methods for the low vision participants.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Findingown data
Among participants who chose pattern as least secure, more than half said it is very easy for others to see the gestures drawn on the screen and replicate them afterwards.
“Among the participants who chose pattern as the least secure method, more than half of them said it is very easy for others to see the gestures drawn on the screen and replicate them afterwards.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
75.3% of smartphone owners said they use an authentication method to protect their devices.
“From the 296, 75.3% said they use an authentication method to protect their devices.”
- Also stated in: § Summary · plain
  “We found that 91% of survey participants own a smartphone, and 75.3% of those protect their smartphones with a user authentication method.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingcitation
More people with vision impairment owned a smartphone (91%) than sighted people (77%) [30].
“More people with vision impairment owned a smartphone (91%) than sighted people (77%) [30].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites [30] 30. The Lighthouse National Survey on Vision Loss: Experience, Attitudes, and Knowledge of Middle- Aged and Older Americans: 1995. http://li129- 107.members.linode.com/research/archived- studies/national-survey/. Accessed: 2018-03-20.
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Findingown data
Iris or retina scan and facial recognition did not significantly differ between blind and low vision groups in accessibility ratings.
“Iris or retina scan and facial recognition did not significantly differ between the two groups.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
Most participants chose PINs as the least secure authentication method.
“As the least secure method, most participants chose PINs (N=149), followed by pattern draw on the screen and voice recognition (Figure 8).”
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSION · plain
  “PIN was considered the least secure user authentication method.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Findingown data
Participants who attributed a higher importance to passwords also felt more confident about their own ability to protect their data.
“In addition, participants who attributed a higher importance to passwords also felt more confident about their own ability to protect their data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Findingown data
The proportion of survey participants who declared to use user authentication methods to protect their personal devices was higher than in previous research (75.3% vs 33.3% and 0%) [7,17].
“The proportion of survey participants who declared to use user authentication methods to protect their personal devices was higher than in previous research (75.3% vs 33.3% and 0%) [7,17].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
- cites [7] 7. Azenkot, S. and Rector, K. 2012. Passchords: secure multi-touch authentication for blind people. Assets '12 Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. (2012), 159-166. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2384916.2384945. source
- cites [17] 17. Equifax's Enormous Data Breach Just Got Even Bigger: 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickclements/2018/03/ Session 5: Data & Privacy ASSETS'18, October 22-24, 2018, Galway, Ireland 05/equifaxs-enormous-data-breach-just-got-even- bigger/#fb62c5753bc5. Accessed: 2018-03-26.
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Findingown data
A quarter of participants who own a smartphone did not use a user authentication method on it (24.7%).
“A quarter of participants who own a smartphone did not use a user authentication method on it (24.7%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Findingown data
Patterns were significantly considered worse for accessibility for blind than for low vision participants (M=0.23 vs. M=0.12, t(323)=2.42, p<.01).
“However, patterns were significantly considered worse for accessibility for blind than for low vision participants (M=0.23 vs. M=0.12,t (323) = 2.42, p <.01).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationcitation
The number of unique passwords used daily by participants is similar to the sighted population, which reported having 5 passwords on average.
“It is similar to the sighted population, which reported having 5 passwords on average [32].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites [32] 32. Wash, R., Rader, E., Berman, R. and Wellmer, Z. 2016. Understanding Password Choices : How Frequently Entered Passwords Are Re-used across Websites. Proceedings of the Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS). (2016), 175- 188.
Premisecitation
There is little information about security for people with vision impairment while interacting with mobile devices.
“Currently, there is little information about security for people with vision impairment while interacting with mobile devices [22].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites [22] 22. Leporini, B., Buzzi, M.C. and Buzzi, M. 2012. Interacting with Mobile Devices via VoiceOver : Usability and Accessibility Issues. Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. (2012), 339-348. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2414536.2414591. source
Interpretationown data
Vision-impaired people have concerns with using passwords in public because of the risk of shoulder surfing.
“Finally, vision-impaired people have concerns with using passwords in public because of the risk of shoulder surfing.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationown data
Those who complete financial operations online are more likely to see passwords as a very important step to protect their digital information.
“those who complete financial operations online are more likely to see passwords as a very important step to protect their digital information.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationcitation
The password memorization strategies mentioned by participants were similar to those found by Ahmed et al.
“The strategies mentioned by our survey participants were similar to those found by Ahmed et al. [2].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites [2] 2. Ahmed, T., Shaffer, P., Connelly, K., Crandall, D., Kapadia, A., Ahmed, T. and Connelly, K. 2016. Addressing Physical Safety , Security , and Privacy for People with Visual Impairments. Proceeding of the Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS). (2016), 341-354.
Interpretationown data
Vision-impaired people have a strong digital presence.
“We found that vision-impaired people have a strong digital presence”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Premisecitation
Previous research showed the majority of people with vision impairment did not use authentication methods to protect their smartphones because they considered PINs inaccessible or inconvenient.
“Previous research showed the majority of people with vision impairment did not use authentication methods to protect their smartphones because they considered the alternative available (PINs) either inaccessible or inconvenient [7,17].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
- cites [7] 7. Azenkot, S. and Rector, K. 2012. Passchords: secure multi-touch authentication for blind people. Assets '12 Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. (2012), 159-166. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2384916.2384945. source
- cites [17] 17. Equifax's Enormous Data Breach Just Got Even Bigger: 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickclements/2018/03/ Session 5: Data & Privacy ASSETS'18, October 22-24, 2018, Galway, Ireland 05/equifaxs-enormous-data-breach-just-got-even- bigger/#fb62c5753bc5. Accessed: 2018-03-26.
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Interpretationown data
Braille education is probably given to people who are blind since birth or since early childhood.
“This indicates Braille education is probably given to people who are blind since birth or since early childhood.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationown data
Participants' ability to protect their digital information is associated to the importance they give to passwords.
“Interestingly, participants' ability to protect their digital information is associated to the importance they give to passwords.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Interpretationown data
People with vision impairment have a strong digital presence.
“They also have a strong digital presence, which supports the importance of accessible websites for both companies and governments.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Study design and conductreasoning
The results may not reflect the full experience of people with low vision.
“Our results may not reflect the full experience of people with low vision.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationown data
Some participants seem not to notice that authentication methods can be broken in.
“However, some participants seem not to notice methods can be broken in:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationnone given
The main advantage of having a fingerprint set up is avoiding (most of the time) to type a password that might be seen by others.
“The main advantage of having a fingerprint set up is avoiding (most of the time) to type a password that might be seen by others.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Interpretationreasoning
Fingerprint and other biometric authentication methods are not more secure than typing a PIN, as they have PINs as an alternative.
“However, fingerprint and other biometric authentication methods are not more secure than typing a PIN, as they have PINs as an alternative.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Rests on an assumption: Fingerprint and other biometric authentication methods have PINs as an alternative.

It may state two separate claims as one. 43
Probably not a substantial claim. 18
The quote only partly states this claim. 7

It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Almost 70% of participants were blind, similar to an online survey by Azenkot and Lee [6], in which 84% of participants were blind.
“In addition, while it is estimated that there are six times more people with low vision than blind people in the world [12], almost 70% of our participants were blind, similar to an online survey by Azenkot and Lee [6], in which 84% of participants were blind.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
- cites [12] 12. Bourne, R.R.A. et al. 2018. Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 5, 9 (Feb. 2018), e888-e897. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214- 109X(17)30293-0. source
- cites Azenkot and Lee [6] 6. Azenkot, S. and Lee, N.B. 2013. Exploring the use of speech input by blind people on mobile devices. Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (2013), 1-8. source
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Most participants (47.4%) believed they were able to secure their digital information, followed by very able (33.8%) and neutral (14.8%).
“Most participants (47.4%) believed they were able to secure their digital information, followed by very able (33.8%) and neutral (14.8%)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingcitation
The user authentication method most questioned by participants was iris or retina scan, because of the absence of eyes in some people who are blind and the difficulty of keeping eyes in position to be scanned.
“The user authentication method most questioned by participants was iris or retina scan, first because of the absence of eyes in some people who are blind (as suggested by Lazar et al. [22]), and second because of the difficulty of keeping the eyes in position to be scanned for people with vision impairment.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Lazar et al. [22]
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Participants who chose fingerprints did so because they are unique to everyone (36.9%), or impossible/difficult to duplicate (17.4%).
“Participants who chose fingerprints did so because they are unique to everyone (36.9%), or impossible/difficult to duplicate (17.4%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Younger participants were more likely to use email, social media, and personal devices, while older participants were more likely to use home security systems and online shopping.
“Participants' digital presence significantly differ by age, as younger participants were more likely to use: email (M=44.3 vs. M=54.2,t (323) = 4.13, p <.001); social media (M=44.1 vs. M=50.5,t (323) = 3.26, p <.005); and personal devices (M=44.8 vs. M=50.8,t (323) = 2.53, p <.05).”
- Also stated in: § Digital Presence · plain
  “On the other hand, older participants were more likely to use: home security system (M=50.3vs. M=44.8,t (323) = 2.14, p <.05); and online shopping (M=47 vs. M=42, t (323) = 2.52, p <.05).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
The main concern of participants about entering passwords in public was the risk of visual eavesdropping or shoulder surfing (N=131), followed by security breaches due to unsecured Wi-Fi or key loggers (N=51) and aural eavesdropping (N=49).
“The main concern of participants was the risk of visual eavesdropping or shoulder surfing (N= 131, inclusively with the use of cameras), security breaches due to unsecured Wi-Fi networks or key logger programs (N=51), and the risk of aural eavesdropping, because screen readers read passwords aloud (N=49)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingown data
Most participants became vision impaired at a median age of 1 year old (M=8.29, SD=13.56).
“Most participants have been vision impaired for their entire adult life, as they reported becoming impaired at a median age of 1 year old (Mean (M) = 8.29, SD=13.56).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data
The survey collected 325 complete answers from adults with vision impairment from 12 countries.
“We collected answers from 325 people who are blind or have low vision from 12 countries”
- Also stated in: § Demographics · plain
  “We collected 325 complete answers from adults with vision impairment.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Among the most commonly used assistive technologies were screen readers (87.7%), assistive apps (67.4%) and Braille displays (42.5%).
“Among the most commonly used were: screen readers (87.7%), assistive apps (67.4%) and Braille displays (42.5%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingown data
Most participants resided in the US (72.3%) or Canada (15.1%).
“Most participants resided in the US (72.3%) or Canada (15.1%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data
PINs are considered the least secure user authentication method by participants.
“PINs the least secure user authentication method”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data
The majority of participants consider fingerprint the most secure and accessible user authentication method.
“the majority consider fingerprint to be the most secure and accessible user authentication method”
- Also stated in: § Fingerprint: Most Secure and Accessible Method · plain
  “The majority (N=184) selected fingerprint reader as the most secure”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Among participants who rated passwords as very important, important or neutral, most mentioned protecting personal information (57.6%), followed by assuring privacy and security (26%).
“Among participants who rated passwords as very important, important or neutral, most mentioned acknowledging the importance of passwords for protecting personal information (57.6%), followed by assuring their privacy and security (26%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
The majority (N=184) selected fingerprint reader as the most secure method to unlock smartphones, followed by alphanumeric passwords and facial recognition.
“The majority (N=184) selected fingerprint reader as the most secure, followed by alphanumeric passwords, and facial recognition (Figure 8).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingown data
Some participants mentioned that fingerprints, although quickest and most accessible, do not give enough time for a person with vision impairment to adjust the finger on the scanner, resulting in false negative authentication.
“A few participants mentioned that fingerprints, although the quickest and most accessible method, does not give enough time for the person who have vision impairment to adjust the finger on the scanner, resulting in false negative authentication.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
The main reasons for not feeling fully able to protect digital information were risk of attacks from hackers and malicious people (20%) and potential insecurity of services used (13%).
“The main reasons for not feeling fully able to protect their digital information were: the risk of attacks from hackers and malicious people (20%), the potential insecurity of services they use (13%)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Some participants (22.1%) said PINs are easy to hack by computer programs and contain a small number of possible combinations.
“Others said PINs are easy to hack by computer programs (22.1%) and contain a small number of possible combinations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingcitation
This number is slightly lower than what was found among sighted participants (24.7% vs 28% [30]), but the choice of protecting the smartphones did not differ between the two groups.
“This number is slightly lower than what was found among sighted participants (24.7% vs 28% [30]), but the choice of protecting the smartphones did not differ between the two groups.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites [30] 30. The Lighthouse National Survey on Vision Loss: Experience, Attitudes, and Knowledge of Middle- Aged and Older Americans: 1995. http://li129- 107.members.linode.com/research/archived- studies/national-survey/. Accessed: 2018-03-20.
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Fingerprint reader is considered the most secure and most accessible authentication method for people who are blind or have low vision.
“Fingerprint reader is considered the most secure and most accessible method for people who are blind or have low vision, as fingerprints are unique for everyone, and are quick and easy for people with vision impairment to use.”
- Also stated in: § Secure and Accessible Authentication Methods · plain
  “Most participants chose fingerprints as the most secure and accessible method to unlock mobile devices, because it is fast to authenticate and easy to use, confirming our second hypothesis (H2).”
- Also stated in: § CONCLUSION · plain
  “the majority consider fingerprints to be the most secure and most accessible user authentication methods”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data
When selecting an authentication method, most smartphone users use fingerprints (73%).
“When selecting an authentication method, most smartphone users use fingerprints (73%) (Figure 8).”
- Also stated in: § Summary · plain
  “Most of them use fingerprint for unlocking their devices because they consider this method secure and fast.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Participants who use PIN to unlock their smartphone (N=38) choose it because of its ease to use (N=10), availability (N=9), security (N=5), convenience (N=5), easiness to remember (N=4), and speed (N=4).
“Participants who use PIN to unlock their smartphone (N=38) choose it because of its ease to use (N=10), availability (N=9), security (N=5), convenience (N=5), easiness to remember (N=4), and speed (N=4).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Both alphanumeric password and PIN were significantly worse for low vision than blind participants (alphanumeric: M=0.25 vs. M=0.16, t(323)=1.92, p<.05; PIN: M=0.23 vs. M=0.12, t(323)=2.68, p<.01).
“On the contrary, both alphanumeric password and PIN were significantly worse for low vision than blind participants (M=0.25 vs. M=0.16,t (323) = 1.92, p <.05; and M=0.23 vs. M=0.12),t (323) = 2.68, p <.01).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
16.9% used Android, 2.4% used a Windows device and one person used another OS.
“16.9% used Android, 2.4% used a Windows device and one person used another OS.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingown data
iOS users were more likely to use a user authentication method in their smartphones (81.5% vs. 71.4% of Windows users and 62% of Android users, not significant).
“We found iOS users were more likely to use a user authentication method in their smartphones (81.5% vs. 71.4% of Windows users and 62% of Android users, not significant (n.s.)).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingreasoning
People with low vision selected alphanumeric passwords and PINs as the least accessible methods, possibly due to difficulty of typing using a screen magnifier.
“while people with low vision selected alphanumeric passwords and PINs, possibly due to difficulty of typing using a screen magnifier.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Blind participants more likely used fingerprint readers as their main user authentication method (75%) compared to participants with low vision (68%), who were slightly more likely to use PINs (21% vs 15%, n.s.).
“As with the selection of most secure method, blind participants more likely used fingerprint readers as their main user authentication method (75%) when compared to participants with low vision (68%), who were slightly more likely to use PINs (21% vs 15%, n.s.).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Most behaviours and preferences were equal between blind and low vision participants, such as online presence, use of smartphones, authentication method used, and opinion on the most secure and accessible method.
“Most behaviours and preferences were equal between participants who were blind and those with low vision, such as online presence, use of smartphones, authentication method used, and opinion on the most secure and accessible method.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown data
Only two participants mentioned the accessibility of PIN as a reason for using it.
“Only two participants mentioned the accessibility of the method.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingown data
The participants who use authentication were balanced between the blind and low vision groups.
“These participants were balanced between the two groups.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Alphanumeric password and PIN were the two least accessible methods for low vision participants.
“Pattern and iris or retina scan were the two least accessible methods for the blind, while alphanumeric password and PIN were the two least accessible methods for the low vision participants.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Most participants felt able or very able to protect their digital information, so the first hypothesis (H1) was rejected.
“Most participants felt able or very able to protect their digital information, so we reject our first hypothesis (H1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Findingown data
Fourteen participants said people generally choose simple PINs, which makes them easier to guess.
“Fourteen participants said people generally choose simple PINs, which makes them easier to guess.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Other reasons for using fingerprints include convenience (14.5%), accuracy or reliability (9.1%), and the fact that it is the alternative available (6.7%).
“Other reasons include the convenience to use (14.5%), accuracy or reliability (9.1%), and the fact that is the alternative available (6.7%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
The median PIN was 4 digits (M=5.3) and the median alphanumeric passwords had 12 characters (M=15.8).
“The median PIN was 4 digits (M=5.3) and the median alphanumeric passwords had 12 characters (M=15.8).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Among 165 participants who use fingerprints, the most mentioned reasons for using it are security (47.3%), quick unlocking process (43.6%), and easiness to use (38.8%).
“From 165 participants who use fingerprints, the most mentioned reasons for using it are: its security (47.3%, e.g. against duplication and against aural eavesdropping), its quick unlocking process (43.6%), its easiness to use (38.8%, also noted by Dosono et al. [17]).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Dosono et al. [17]
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Participants who did not use authentication indicated reasons including not having personal information stored in the smartphone (N=13), not considering it necessary (N=12), not wanting to slow down access (N=8), complexity of methods (N=7), annoyance of methods (N=7), and considering the smartphone protected because it is kept close by (N=7).
“These participants indicated not having personal information stored in the smartphone (N=13), not considering necessary to have a method (N=12), not wanting to slow down the access to the phone (N=8), complexity of methods (N=7), annoyance of methods (N=7), and considering the smartphone protected because it is kept close by (N=7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
296 respondents reported owning a smartphone (91%), for a median of 6 years (M=10).
“296 respondents reported owning a smartphone (91%), for a median of 6 years (M = 10).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
The least accessible authentication methods are patterns drawn on the screen (20%) and iris or retina scan (20%), followed by alphanumeric password (18.8%), PIN (15.1%) and facial recognition (11.1%).
“Tied in first place, the least accessible authentication methods are patterns drawn on the screen (20%) and iris or retina scan (20%), followed by alphanumeric password (18.8%),PIN (15.1%) and facial recognition (11.1%) (Figure 8).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
14 participants dislike the security provided by PINs, because they can be shoulder surfed (N=5), guessed (N=4), or heard by others when read by screen readers (N=3).
“Also, 14 participants dislike the security provided by PINs, because they can be shoulder surfed (N=5), guessed (N=4), or heard by others when read by screen readers (N=3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
Most participants rely on fingerprints to unlock their devices because they are fast (when it works) and do not force them to repetitively type PINs.
“In addition, most participants rely on fingerprints to unlock their devices, because they are fast (when it works) and do not force them to repetitively type PINs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
18 participants mentioned they dislike the inconvenience of using PIN, as it is repetitive (N=4), slow (N=4), and requires them to remember another password (N=3).
“18 mentioned they dislike the inconvenience of using it, as it is a repetitive method (N=4), slow (N=4), and requires them to remember another password (N=3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingcitation
Among participants who selected PIN as least secure, most said PINs are not secure because they are easy to guess (33.6%) and more vulnerable to shoulder surfing (30.2%).
“From the 149 participants who selected PIN, most explained it was not secure because PINs are easy to guess (33.6%), and are more vulnerable to shoulder surf (30.2%) (as found by Haque et al. [20]).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites Haque et al. [20]
  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Findingown data
From the 165 fingerprint users, 23.6% said they did not have reasons to dislike the method, while 67.3% mentioned having some inconvenience, such as the fingerprint reader not recognizing them because of wet, recently dried or oily fingers (N=39), cold fingers (N=20), malposition of the fingers (N=9), or when wearing gloves (N=7).
“From the 165 participants, 23.6% said they did not have reasons to dislike the method, while 67.3% mentioned having some inconvenience while unlocking their smartphones using their fingerprints, such as the fingerprint reader not recognizing them because of wet, recently dried or oily fingers (N=39) or cold fingers (N=20), malposition of the fingers (N=9) or when wearing gloves (N=7).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
Interpretationown data
As the most common strategy participants use to remember passwords is creating them using familiar names and numbers, most are at risk of using easily guessable passwords.
“In addition, as the most common strategy participants use to remember passwords is creating them using familiar names and numbers, most are at risk of using easily guessable passwords.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Rests on an assumption: Familiar names and numbers are easily guessable passwords.
Probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductcitation
The study applied guidelines proposed by Kaczmirek and Wolff to create an effective self-administered survey for vision impaired participants.
“We applied the guidelines proposed by Kaczmirek and Wolff [21] to create an effective self-administered survey for vision impaired participants.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
- cites [21] 21. Lazar, J., Wentz, B. and Winckler, M. 2017. Information Privacy and Security as a Human Right for People with Disabilities. Disability, Human Rights, and Information Technology. J. Lazar and M. Stein, eds. University of Pennsylvania Press. 199- 211. source
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
The association between ability to protect digital information and password importance may be a function of a higher interest in learning how to better protect themselves, which in turn increases their self-confidence.
“This may be a function of a higher interest in learning how to better protect themselves, which in turn increases their self-confidence.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Study design and conductown data
The survey was tested with two HCI specialists to evaluate appropriateness and sequencing to avoid bias.
“Before distributing the survey, we tested it with two humancomputer interaction specialists to evaluate the appropriateness of the questions and their sequencing to avoid introducing bias.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Study design and conductown data
The survey was tested with two blind people using both a smartphone and a computer to identify accessibility issues.
“We also tested it with two people who are blind, using both a smartphone and a computer, to identify accessibility issues or other problems that might impact completion or ease of use.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
Older participants are more likely to use online shopping, meaning they might be at higher risk of having their data compromised.
“However, older participants are more likely to use online shopping, meaning they might be at higher risk of having their data compromised.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
Biometrics such as fingerprints are faster than PINs and are considered more accessible.
“Still, as biometrics such as fingerprints are faster than PINs, they are also considered more accessible”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Rests on an assumption: Biometrics such as fingerprints are faster than PINs.
The quote only partly states this claim.
Interpretationnone given
Younger individuals are more likely to protect their personal devices with passwords.
“Younger individuals are more likely to protect their personal devices with passwords.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationown data
People with vision impairment are aware of the importance of protecting their personal information and privacy, including knowledge about the risks of breaches.
“Our results show that people with vision impairment are aware of the importance of protecting their personal information and privacy, including knowledge about the risks of breaches.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
A truly accessible solution for vision-impaired people should not require precise manipulation of visual items, the use of the users' eyes, or the use of keyboards with screen magnifiers.
“This shows us a truly accessible solution for vision-impaired people should not require precise manipulation of visual items, the use of the users' eyes or the use of keyboards with screen magnifiers.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Study design and conductreasoning
To avoid participants changing their answers based on later questions, the survey did not provide a previous button.
“To avoid participants changing their answers based on later questions, we did not provide a previous button.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
It may state two separate claims as one.
Study design and conductreasoning
By the nature of an online survey, the sample had to have access to the internet and most likely have an email.
“By the nature of an online survey, our sample had to have access to the internet and most likely have an email, as this is how the survey was mainly distributed.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
Interpretationreasoning
Participants seem to neglect that PINs are still their main barrier against unauthorized access to their phones, possibly implying they use easier to guess PINs.
“However, they seem to neglect that PINs are still their main barrier against unauthorized access to their phones, possibly implying they use easier to guess PINs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
- Rests on an assumption: PINs are still the main barrier against unauthorized access to smartphones for people with vision impairment.
Probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoning
The survey asked questions about smartphone and authentication use at the end to avoid influencing earlier answers on accessibility and security.
“We asked those questions at the end of the survey to avoid influencing their earlier answers on accessibility and security, as they might have considered only methods available in their own phones in their answers.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Interpretationreasoning
This distribution might be a function of the recruiting method targeted to organizations providing support to people with vision impairment, which might also count with more blind clients.
“In our case, this distribution might be a function of our recruiting method targeted to organizations providing support to people with vision impairment, which might also count with more blind clients.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Study design and conductnone given
The survey was self-conducted and its findings may change with time due to improvements in existing authentication methods and the rise of new ones.
“This was a self-conducted survey and its findings may change with time due to improvements in existing user authentication methods and the rise of new ones.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

59 of 59

The paper relies on this without support.
Familiar names and numbers are easily guessable passwords.
“most are at risk of using easily guessable passwords”
The paper relies on this without support.
Biometrics such as fingerprints are faster than PINs.
“as biometrics such as fingerprints are faster than PINs”
The paper relies on this without support.
No previous work investigated differences in preference and opinions regarding authentication methods between people who are blind and people who have low vision.
“As to the best of our knowledge no previous work investigated differences in preference and opinions regarding authentication methods between people who are blind and people who have low vision”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is no information about which existing authentication methods people with vision impairment consider more secure, more accessible or preferable.
“However, even though more user authentication methods are now available (e.g.fingerprint and facial recognition), we do not have information about which of the existing methods people with vision impairment consider more secure, more accessible or preferable.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The online survey sample is representative of people with vision impairment broadly.
“We collected answers from 325 people who are blind or have low vision from 12 countries”
The paper relies on this without support.
PINs are still the main barrier against unauthorized access to smartphones for people with vision impairment.
“However, they seem to neglect that PINs are still their main barrier against unauthorized access to their phones, possibly implying they use easier to guess PINs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Fingerprint and other biometric authentication methods have PINs as an alternative.
“However, fingerprint and other biometric authentication methods are not more secure than typing a PIN, as they have PINs as an alternative.”

7 of 7

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: t (224) = 2.80, p < .005
Minor
The paper reports p < .005 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .006 (two-tailed). The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.
Reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .006
p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: t (321) = 2.81, p < .005
Minor
The paper reports p < .005 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .005 (two-tailed). The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.
Reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .005
p-value fits an unstated one-tailed test: t (323) = 2.42, p < .01
Minor
The paper reports p < .01 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .016 (two-tailed). The reported value is what a one-tailed test gives, but the paper does not say near this result that a one-tailed test was used.
Reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .016

3 of 3

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.

Doesn’t add upt(321) = 2.81reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .005
“t (321) = 2.81, p < .005”
Doesn’t add upt(224) = 2.8reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .006
“t (224) = 2.80, p < .005”
Doesn’t add upt(323) = 2.42reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .016
“t (323) = 2.42, p < .01”
Not confirmedt(323) = 1.92reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .056
“t (323) = 1.92, p < .05”
Consistentt(323) = 4.13reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t (323) = 4.13, p < .001”
Consistentt(323) = 3.26reported p < .005 · recomputed p = .001
“t (323) = 3.26, p < .005”
Consistentt(323) = 2.53reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .012
“t (323) = 2.53, p < .05”
Consistentt(323) = 2.14reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .033
“t (323) = 2.14, p < .05”
Consistentt(323) = 2.52reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .012
“t (323) = 2.52, p < .05”
Consistentt(323) = 2.68reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .008
“t (323) = 2.68, p < .01”
Consistentt(294) = 3.87reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“t (294) = 3.87, p < .001”

11 of 11

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

The R Studio citation points to a different reference
Minor
The methods cite reference 29 for R Studio, while the reference list identifies R Studio as entry 26 and assigns entry 29 to a password study.
Results marked nonsignificant are reported despite an stated exclusion rule
Minor
The analysis section says only statistically significant results are reported, but the results include comparisons explicitly marked nonsignificant.

2 of 2

Magnitude, temporal trends, and projections of the global prevalence of blindness and distance and near vision impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bourne, R. R. A., Flaxman, S. R., Braithwaite, T., Cicinelli, M. V., Das, A., Jonas, J. B., Keeffe, J., Kempen, J. H., Leasher, J., Limburg, H., et al. (2017) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(17)30293-0 · Cited by 2,213 · cited 2×
“In addition, while it is estimated that there are six times more people with low vision than blind people in the world [12], almost 70% of our participants were blind, similar to an online survey by Azenkot and Lee [6], in which 84% of participants were blind.”
BackgroundResult
A survey of assistive technologies and applications for blind users on mobile platforms: a review and foundation for research
Csapó, Á., Wersényi, G., Nagy, H., & Stockman, T. (2015) · Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces · doi:10.1007/s12193-015-0182-7 · Cited by 181 · cited 1×
“Thanks to the rise of accessibility features and applications for mainstream devices, the number of people with vision impairment using smartphones is increasing [14, 20].”
Background
The Password Life Cycle: User Behaviour in Managing Passwords
Stobert, E., & Biddle, R. (2014) · Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security · Cited by 160
Exploring the use of speech input by blind people on mobile devices
Azenkot, S., & Lee, N. B. (2013) · Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/2513383.2513440 · Cited by 151 · cited 2×
“Blind individuals can explore the UI elements on their touch screen with the support of embedded screen readers, even though this is a slow and error-prone process [6].”
BackgroundResult
Current and future mobile and wearable device use by people with visual impairments
Ye, H., Malu, M., Oh, U., & Findlater, L. (2014) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557085 · Cited by 148 · cited 2×
“[38], iOS (Apple) was the most used operating system (OS) by people with vision impairment (80.”
BackgroundMethod
Back-of-device authentication on smartphones
Luca, A. D., von Zezschwitz, E., Nguyen, N. D. H., Maurer, M.-E., Rubegni, E., Scipioni, M. P., & Langheinrich, M. (2013) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2470654.2481330 · Cited by 129 · cited 1×
“For instance, researchers have created tactile methods for unlocking devices, such as Haptic Keypad [10], BoD Shapes [24] and Bend Passwords [25].”
Method
Untitled work
(2016) · Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security · Cited by 123
PassChords: secure multi-touch authentication for blind people
Azenkot, S., Rector, K., Ladner, R., & Wobbrock, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility · doi:10.1145/2384916.2384945 · Cited by 116 · cited 5×
“Another reason mentioned by some participants was the inconvenience of unlocking the device using PINs [7], potentially due to the penalty in time [36].”
BackgroundInfluential
Interacting with mobile devices via VoiceOver: usability and accessibility issues
Leporini, B., Buzzi, M. C., & Buzzi, M. (2012) · Proceedings of the 24th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference · doi:10.1145/2414536.2414591 · Cited by 116 · cited 1×
“Similarly to what was found by Leporini et al. [23] and Ye et al. [38], iOS (Apple) was the most used operating system (OS) by people with vision impairment (80.4%).”
MethodInfluential
Beurteilerübereinstimmung einer deutschen Version der International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps (ICIDH) der Weltgesundheitsbehorde
Behrens, E., & Brambring, M. (1987) · International Journal of Rehabilitation Research · doi:10.1097/00004356-198712000-00004 · Cited by 114
Is Bigger Better? Comparing User-Generated Passwords on 3x3 vs. 4x4 Grid Sizes for Android's Pattern Unlock
Aviv, A. J., Budzitowski, D., & Kuber, R. (2015) · Proceedings of the 31st Annual Computer Security Applications Conference · doi:10.1145/2818000.2818014 · Cited by 68 · cited 1×
“Besides from being the most ubiquitous option, PINs are considerably more secure than patterns, as even a 2-digit PIN is most secure than a pattern of dots connected by drawing on the screen, because people tend to create very simple patterns [4].”
Background
Memory retrieval and graphical passwords
Stobert, E., & Biddle, R. (2013) · Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security · doi:10.1145/2501604.2501619 · Cited by 66
The secure haptic keypad
Bianchi, A., Oakley, I., & Kwon, D. S. (2010) · doi:10.1145/1753326.1753488 · Cited by 64 · cited 1×
“For instance, researchers have created tactile methods for unlocking devices, such as Haptic Keypad [10], BoD Shapes [24] and Bend Passwords [25].”
Method
Towards Baselines for Shoulder Surfing on Mobile Authentication
Aviv, A. J., Davin, J. T., Wolf, F., & Kuber, R. (2017) · Maryland Shared Open Access Repository (USMAI Consortium) · doi:10.13016/m2r72d-udi6 · Cited by 57
Accessible privacy and security: a universally usable human-interaction proof tool
Sauer, G., Holman, J., Lazar, J., Hochheiser, H., & Feng, J. (2010) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-009-0171-2 · Cited by 54
Towards Baselines for Shoulder Surfing on Mobile Authentication
Aviv, A. J., Davin, J. T., Wolf, F., & Kuber, R. (2017) · Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Computer Security Applications Conference · doi:10.1145/3134600.3134609 · Cited by 45
UniPass: design and evaluation of a smart device-based password manager for visually impaired users
Barbosa, N. M., Hayes, J., & Wang, Y. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1145/2971648.2971722 · Cited by 40 · cited 1×
“In addition, trying to type in a password is considered one of the most difficult things for people with vision impairment to do in a smartphone while using the internet [9].”
Background
Fingerprint: A Unique and Reliable Method for Identification
Bose, P. K., & Kabir, M. J. (2017) · Journal of Enam Medical College · doi:10.3329/jemc.v7i1.30748 · Cited by 38 · cited 1×
“Fingerprints, for instance, allow for a reliable individual identification [11], though they have issues, such as high false rejection rates, and the impossibility of replacing one’s fingerprint in case the information is compromised [25].”
Background
Survey Design for Visually Impaired and Blind People
Kaczmirek, L., & Wolff, K. G. (2007) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73279-2_41 · Cited by 38
“I’m Stuck!”: A Contextual Inquiry of People with Visual Impairments in Authentication
Dosono, B., Hayes, J., & Wang, Y. (2015) · Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security · Cited by 36
Untitled work
(2016) · Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security · Cited by 35
Ensuring accessibility of electronic information resources for visually impaired people: The need to clarify concepts such as visually impaired
Andreas Kleynhans, S., & Fourie, I. (2014) · Library Hi Tech · doi:10.1108/lht-11-2013-0148 · Cited by 28
Bend Passwords: using gestures to authenticate on flexible devices
Maqsood, S., Chiasson, S., & Girouard, A. (2016) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-016-0928-6 · Cited by 24
Self-citation
An empirical study examining the perceptions and behaviours of security-conscious users of mobile authentication
Wolf, F., Kuber, R., & Aviv, A. J. (2018) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2018.1436591 · Cited by 22
Secure techniques and methods for authenticating visually impaired mobile phone users
Haque, M. M., Zawoad, S., & Hasan, R. (2013) · 2013 IEEE International Conference on Technologies for Homeland Security (HST) · doi:10.1109/ths.2013.6699095 · Cited by 21 · cited 4×
“Similarly, the use of screen magnifiers by those with low vision also increases the susceptibility for visual eavesdropping [20].”
BackgroundInfluential
A haptic ATM interface to assist visually impaired users
Cassidy, B., Cockton, G., & Coventry, L. (2013) · Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/2513383.2513433 · Cited by 21 · cited 1×
“In addition, researchers found accessibility issues in authentication with ATMs [13], CAPTCHAs [31], and patterns drawn on the screen [8].”
Background
Chapter 12. Information Privacy and Security as a Human Right for People with Disabilities
Lazar, J., Wentz, B., & Winckler, M. (2017) · Disability, Human Rights, and Information Technology · doi:10.9783/9780812294095-014 · Cited by 10 · cited 8×
“…authentication method most questioned by participants was iris or retina scan, first because of the absence of eyes in some people who are blind (as suggested by Lazar et al. [22]), and second because of the difficulty of keeping the eyes in position to be scanned for people with vision impairment.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Wireless Smartphone Keyboard for Visually Challenged Users
D'silva, C., Parthasarathy, V., & Rao, S. N. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Workshop on Wearable Systems and Applications · doi:10.1145/2935643.2935648 · Cited by 9 · cited 1×
“Smartphones are powerful devices, offering a myriad of functions and access to different social spheres, but for the blind or vision-impaired user, they are limited by the ubiquity of touch screen interfaces [15].”
Background
Towards accessible mobile pattern authentication for persons with visual impairments
Balaji, V., & Kuppusamy, K. S. (2017) · 2017 International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Data Science(ICCIDS) · doi:10.1109/iccids.2017.8272662 · Cited by 7 · cited 2×
“In addition, researchers found accessibility issues in authentication with ATMs [13], CAPTCHAs [31], and patterns drawn on the screen [8].”
Background

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

The Lighthouse National Survey on Vision Loss : Experience, Attitudes, and Knowledge of Middle-Aged and Older Americans : 1995 . http://li129--107.members.linode.com/research/archived-studies/national-survey/. Accessed : 2018-03--20. The Lighthouse National Survey on Vision Loss: Experience, Attitudes, and Knowledge of Middle-Aged and Older Americans: 1995. http://li129--107.members.linode.com/research/archived-studies/national-survey/. Accessed: 2018-03--20.

Sorted by citations

“It Feels Like Being Locked in A Cage”: Understanding Blind or Low Vision Streamers’ Perceptions of Content Curation Algorithms
Rong, E. Z., Zhou, M. M., Lu, Z., & Fan, M. (2022) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3532106.3533514 · Cited by 34
A Review of Literature on Accessibility and Authentication Techniques
Andrew, S., Watson, S. L., Oh, T. T., & Tigwell, G. W. (2020) · International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/3373625.3418005 · Cited by 28
Visual Content Considered Private by People Who are Blind
Stangl, A. J., Shiroma, K., Xie, B., Fleischmann, K. R., & Gurari, D. (2020) · International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/3373625.3417014 · Cited by 24
“…private and share them with VIDS, knowingly or unknowingly [36], (B) people who are blind are concerned about their privacy in their everyday environments and when using technology [1, 6, 7, 12–14, 22, 24, 27, 38, 43, 48, 52, 67], and (C) privacy is a core value implicated in system design [31].”
Background
Accessibility-Related Publication Distribution in HCI Based on a Meta-Analysis
Colley, M., Kränzle, T., & Rukzio, E. (2022) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3491101.3519701 · Cited by 16
Bend Passwords on BendyPass
Faustino, D. B., & Girouard, A. (2018) · International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/3234695.3241032 · Cited by 14
“In a recent survey, more than two thirds of people with vision impairment, who are blind or have low vision, expressed concerns with typing passwords in public spaces [3].”
BackgroundSelf-citation
OneButtonPIN: A Single Button Authentication Method for Blind or Low Vision Users to Improve Accessibility and Prevent Eavesdropping
Kamarushi, M. V., Watson, S., Tigwell, G. W., & Peiris, R. (2022) · Proc. ACM Hum. Comput. Interact. · doi:10.1145/3546747 · Cited by 12
“Several research studies have focused on understanding the habits and perceptions of BLV users in terms of security, privacy and access issues [1, 3, 19, 53].”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
LifeInsight: Design and Evaluation of an AI-Powered Assistive Wearable for Blind and Low Vision People Across Multiple Everyday Life Scenarios
Mathis, F., & Schöning, J. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713486 · Cited by 17
“As Usual, I Needed Assistance of a Seeing Person”: Experiences and Challenges of People with Disabilities and Authentication Methods
Erinola, A., Buckmann, A., Friedauer, J., Yardım, A., & Sasse, M. A. (2023) · IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW) · doi:10.1109/eurospw59978.2023.00070 · Cited by 11
“Faustino & Girouard [23] found their participants tended to preferably use family names or numbers as passwords because they are easier and faster to enter.”
Background
Haptic2FA: Haptics-Based Accessible Two-Factor Authentication for Blind and Low Vision People
Bhole, P. V., Li, Z., Bokolia, S., Oh, T. T., Tigwell, G. W., & Peiris, R. L. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3676509 · Cited by 7
Bend or PIN: Studying Bend Password Authentication with People with Vision Impairment
Faustino, D. B., Nabil, S., & Girouard, A. (2020) · Proceedings · doi:10.20380/gi2020.19 · Cited by 6
Self-citation
Exploring Low-Cost Materials to Make Pattern-Based Lock-Screens Accessible for Users with Visual Impairments or Deafblindness
Buchweitz, L., Theil, A., Gay, J., et al. (2020) · doi:10.1145/3373625.3418020 · Cited by 4
“pattern, which poses security risks [2].”
BackgroundInfluential
Accessibility barriers with authentication methods for blind and partially sighted people in the Spanish-speaking world
Moreno, L. D. L. R., Petrie, H., & Schmeelk, S. (2023) · Electronic workshops in computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/bcshci2023.22 · Cited by 5
Vibration-Based Pattern Password Approach for Visually Impaired People
Alsuhibany, S. A. (2021) · Computer Systems Science and Engineering · doi:10.32604/csse.2022.018563 · Cited by 3
“[26] about understanding the authentication methods used on mobile devices by people with visual impairments found that pattern passwords were Table 1: The Satisfaction rates for of each vibration type”
Method
Bend Passwords for People with Vision Impairment
Faustino, D. B. (2018) · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-13237 · Cited by 3
Self-citation
Inclusive by design: Developing Barrier-Free Authentication for Blind and Low Vision Users through the ALIAS Project
Toussaint, C., Chateau, B., Gourio-Jewell, P.-G., Bonnefoy, É., & Louveton, N. (2025) · European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics · doi:10.1145/3746175.3746210 · Cited by 2
Password Managers Use Among Individuals Who Are Visually Impaired: Awareness, Adoption, and Rejection
Alajarmeh, N., & Ladner, R. (2024) · International journal of human computer interactions · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2376356 · Cited by 2
“Many participants confirmed reusing one password among multiple accounts (Briotto Faustino & Girouard, 2018; Napoli, 2018).”
Influential
Revealed or Reinforced: How Assistive Technologies Shape the Experience with Dark Patterns for Blind and Low-Vision Users
Stanczyk, A., Tran, M., Saka, T., Zou, Y., & Moonsamy, V. (2026) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3800645.3812887
“…paid increasing attention to the security and privacy concerns, needs, and practices among BLV users [53] with regard to authentication methods [4, 12, 20, 46], privacy management when using camera-based assistive applications [5, 6, 67], generative AI [60], and privacy advice through Q&A…”
The Accessibility, Security, and Privacy Nexus: Trends and Opportunities
Mack, K., Chen, Y.-J., Zhang, L., Gurari, D., Sharma, T., Wang, Y., & Findlater, L. (2025) · International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/3663547.3759688 · Cited by 1

Bend Passwords for People with Vision Impairment
Faustino, D. B. (2018) · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-13237 · Cited by 3
Bend or PIN: Studying Bend Password Authentication with People with Vision Impairment
Faustino, D. B., Nabil, S., & Girouard, A. (2020) · Proceedings · doi:10.20380/gi2020.19 · Cited by 6
Self-citation
Perceptions of Mobile Device Authentication Mechanisms by Individuals who are Blind
Wolf, F., Kuber, R., & Aviv, A. J. (2017) · International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/3132525.3134793 · Cited by 10
“I’m Stuck!”: A Contextual Inquiry of People with Visual Impairments in Authentication
Dosono, B., Hayes, J., & Wang, Y. (2015) · Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security · Cited by 36
Toward Accessible Authentication: Learning from People with Visual Impairments
Dosono, B., Hayes, J., & Wang, Y. (2018) · IEEE Internet Computing · doi:10.1109/mic.2018.112101619 · Cited by 6

Authors: Briotto Faustino, D., & Girouard, A.
Affiliations: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Carleton University (CA)
ORCID: Girouard, Audrey
Venue: Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
Publisher: ACM
Published: 2018-10-08
Pages: 217-228
DOI: 10.1145/3234695.3236342
OpenAlex: W2897312888
Cited by: 19
References: 28
Citations by year: 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI: 1.37
Type: conference paper
Language: en
Open access: bronze
doi.org
Licence: www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations: International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
Carleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (2017-06300 & 465639-2015)
Topics: Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Authentication Protocols Security
Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Keywords: visual impairment, blind users, low vision, mobile authentication, password memorability, fingerprint authentication, pin, shoulder surfing, digital security

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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

Understanding Authentication Method Use on Mobile Devices by People with Vision Impairment

Abstract

Overview

AI snapshot

TL;DR

Key findings

Methods

Limitations

Integrity signals

Verification

Claims the paper makes

Statistics that don’t add up

Statistics recomputed

Self-check

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Related

Metadata

Record

About these checks