Cited by 18Tactile and Sensory InteractionsUsability and User Interface DesignDigital Accessibility for Disabilities

Modeling Touch-based Menu Selection Performance of Blind Users via Reinforcement Learning

Open access
Li, Zhi, Ko, Yu-Jung, Putkonen, Aini, Feiz, Shirin, Ashok, Vikas, Ramakrishnan, Iv, Oulasvirta, Antti, Bi, Xiaojun·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Although menu selection has been extensively studied in HCI, most existing studies have focused on sighted users, leaving blind users’ menu selection under-studied. In this paper, we propose a computational model that can simulate blind users’ menu selection performance and strategies, including the way they use techniques like swiping, gliding, and direct touch. We assume that selection behavior emerges as an adaptation to the user’s memory of item positions based on experience and feedback from the screen reader. A key aspect of our model is a model of long-term memory, predicting how a user recalls and forgets item position based on previous menu selections. We compare simulation results predicted by our model against data obtained in an empirical study with ten blind users. The model correctly simulated the effect of the menu length and menu arrangement on selection time, the action composition, and the menu selection strategy of the users.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3544548.3580640

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. [6]6. Gilles Bailly, Antti Oulasvirta, Timo Kötzing, and Sabrina Hoppe. 2013. Menuopti- mizer: Interactive optimization of menu systems. In Proceedings of the 26th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM, St. Andrews, UK, 331-342.
  2. [8]8. Richard E Bellman and Lotf Asker Zadeh. 1970. Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management science 17, 4 (1970), B-141.
  3. [16]16. Alistair DN Edwards. 1989. Modelling blind users' interactions with an auditory computer interface. International journal of man-Machine studies 30, 5 (1989), 575-589.
  4. [19]19. Paul M Fitts. 1954. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of experimental psychology 47, 6 (1954), 381.
  5. [20]20. Krzysztof Gajos and Daniel S Weld. 2004. SUPPLE: automatically generating user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces. ACM, Funchal, Portugal, 93-100.
  6. [22]22. Samuel J Gershman, Eric J Horvitz, and Joshua B Tenenbaum. 2015. Computa- tional rationality: A converging paradigm for intelligence in brains, minds, and machines. Science 349, 6245 (2015), 273-278.
  7. [29]29. Andrew Howes, Richard L Lewis, and Alonso Vera. 2009. Rational adaptation un- der task and processing constraints: implications for testing theories of cognition and action. Psychological review 116, 4 (2009), 717.
  8. [31]31. Edwin T Jaynes. 1957. Information theory and statistical mechanics. Physical review 106, 4 (1957), 620.
  9. [33]33. Jussi PP Jokinen and Tuomo Kujala. 2021. Modelling Drivers' Adaptation to Assistance Systems. In 13th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, Leeds, UK, 12-19.
  10. [34]34. Jussi PP Jokinen, Tuomo Kujala, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2021. Multitasking in driving as optimal adaptation under uncertainty. Human factors 63, 8 (2021), 1324-1341.
  11. [36]36. Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Michael L Littman, and Anthony R Cassandra. 1998. Plan- ning and acting in partially observable stochastic domains. Artifcial intelligence 101, 1-2 (1998), 99-134.
  12. [37]37. Shaun K. Kane, Jefrey P. Bigham, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2008. Slide Rule: Making Mobile Touch Screens Accessible to Blind People Using Multi-Touch Interaction Techniques. In Proceedings of the 10th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada) (Assets '08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 73-80.
  13. [43]43. Richard L Lewis, Andrew Howes, and Satinder Singh. 2014. Computational ratio- nality: Linking mechanism and behavior through bounded utility maximization. Topics in cognitive science 6, 2 (2014), 279-311.
  14. [44]44. Frank Chun Yat Li, David Dearman, and Khai N Truong. 2010. Leveraging proprioception to make mobile phones more accessible to users with visual impairments. In Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. ACM, Orlando, FL, USA, 187-194.
  15. [47]47. Wanyu Liu, Gilles Bailly, and Andrew Howes. 2017. Efects of frequency distri- bution on linear menu performance. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Denver, CO, USA, 1307-1312.
  16. [48]48. I Scott MacKenzie. 1992. Fitts' law as a research and design tool in human- computer interaction. Human-computer interaction 7, 1 (1992), 91-139.
  17. [54]54. Rajesh PN Rao. 2010. Decision making under uncertainty: a neural model based on partially observable markov decision processes. Frontiers in computational neuroscience 4 (2010), 146.
  18. [55]55. Stuart J Russell and Devika Subramanian. 1994. Provably bounded-optimal agents. Journal of Artifcial Intelligence Research 2 (1994), 575-609.
  19. [59]59. Benjamin L Somberg. 1986. A comparison of rule-based and positionally constant arrangements of computer menu items. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 17, SI (1986), 255- 260.
  20. [60]60. Matthijs TJ Spaan. 2012. Partially observable Markov decision processes. In Reinforcement Learning. Springer, 387-414.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Li, Z., Ko, Y.-J., Putkonen, A., Feiz, S., Ashok, V., Ramakrishnan, IV, Oulasvirta, A., & Bi, X.
Affiliations
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • Aalto University (FI)
  • Old Dominion University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-04-19
Pages
1-18
OpenAlex
W4366588290
Cited by
18
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7
FWCI
9.26
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • DOD award (AL210015)
  • NIH award (R01EY030085)
  • NSF award (2113485)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Keywords
blind users, menu selection, touch interaction, screen readers, long-term memory, reinforcement learning, computational modeling, selection strategies, accessibility, selection time

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