Advantages and Drawbacks of Smartphones and Tablets for Visually Impaired People —— Analysis of ICT User Survey Results ——
Open accessAbstract
A survey was conducted on the use of ICT by visually impaired people. Among 304 respondents, 81 used smartphones and 44, tablets. Blind people used feature phones at a higher rate and smartphones and tablets at lower rates than people with low vision. The most popular smartphone model was iPhone and the most popular tablet model was iPad. While almost all blind users used the speech output accessibility feature and only a few of them used visual features, low vision users used both visual features such as Zoom, Large text, and Invert colors and speech output at high rates both on smartphones and tablets. The most popular text entry methods were different between smartphones and tablets. For smartphones flick and numeric keypad input were popular among low vision users while voice input was the most popular among blind users. For tablets a software QWERTY keyboard was the most popular among both blind and low vision users. The advantages of smartphones were access to geographical information, quick Web browsing, voice input, and extensibility for both blind and low vision users, object recognition for blind users, and readability for low vision users. Tablets also work as a vision aid for people with low vision. The drawbacks of smartphones and tablets were text entry and touch operation difficulties and inaccessible apps for both blind and low vision users, problems in speech output for blind users, and problems in readability for low vision users. Researchers and makers of operating systems (OS) and apps should assume responsibility for solving these problems.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
For visually impaired users, it is helpful to be able to change the size of text, zoom in and magnify when necessary without losing information, including both apps and websites.
“For visually impaired users, it is helpful to be able to change the size of text, zoom in and magnify [45] when necessary without losing information (this includes both apps and websites).”
From The accessibility of digital technologies for people with visual impairment and blindness: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [45]
Section 6.2 reports that low-vision smartphone users used Large Text and Zoom, and section 6.4.1 quotes a user who could magnify characters and images as needed. The paper does not establish that magnification preserves all information in both apps and websites; those qualifications go beyond the cited evidence. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFrom 2013 to 2017, the usage rate of smartphones doubled for both blind and low vision people.
“When compared with the 2013 survey results 2) , the usage rate of smartphones doubled for both blind and low vision people.”
From [Paper] Touchscreen Text Entry Methods Used by Blind and Low Vision Users (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
Section 5, “Usage of ICT Devices in General” (page unavailable), reports smartphone use among blind and low-vision respondents, including an overall rate of 26.6%. It provides no 2017 usage rates or comparison showing that rates doubled for either group; searches for the 2013–2017 comparison found none. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFrom 2013 to 2017, the usage rate of tablets doubled for low vision people but grew by only 1.4 times for blind people.
“The usage rate of tablets doubled for low vision people but grew by only 1.4 times for blind people.”
From [Paper] Touchscreen Text Entry Methods Used by Blind and Low Vision Users (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
Section 7.8.3 reports that tablet usage among people with low vision was twice that among blind people, and Section 5 also reports higher usage among the low-vision group. That is a comparison between groups, not a doubling over time. Our copy does not support growth from 2013 to 2017 or the claimed 1.4-fold growth among blind people. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFrom 2013 to 2017, the usage rate of PCs by blind people remained nearly 100%, while that by low vision people dropped by 7.4%.
“The usage rate of PCs by blind people kept as high as nearly 100%, whereas that by low vision people dropped by 7.4%.”
From [Paper] Touchscreen Text Entry Methods Used by Blind and Low Vision Users (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
Section 5 (page unavailable) reports that 95.4% of respondents used personal computers and compares usage between blind and low-vision respondents. It does not report a 7.4% decline among low-vision people or a trend through 2017; the survey described in the paper was conducted in 2013. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredFrom 2013 to 2017, the usage rate of feature phones decreased by 20% for both blind and low vision people.
“In contrast, the usage rate of feature phones decreased by 20% for both blind and low vision people.”
From [Paper] Touchscreen Text Entry Methods Used by Blind and Low Vision Users (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
The survey dates passage places data collection in 2013, and Section 5 reports feature-phone use among blind and low-vision respondents. The paper provides no 2017 usage rate or comparison showing a 20% decrease for either group. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Text entry on touchscreens without tactile cues is the biggest challenge for blind and visually impaired people.
“Text entry on touchscreens without tactile cues is the biggest challenge for blind and visually impaired people 2) .”
From [Paper] Touchscreen Text Entry Methods Used by Blind and Low Vision Users (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
Section 6.6.3 calls difficulty in text entry the topmost problem for both blind and low-vision smartphone users. Section 7.8.1 says text entry without tactile cues is slow and inaccurate, but calls it one of the major issues with touch devices—not the biggest across smartphones and tablets. The paper identifies other difficulties as most severe for blind tablet users (Section 7.4). Page numbers were not provided. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe number of valid respondents was smaller than that of the 2013 user survey by just one.
“This number was smaller than that of the 2013 user survey by just one 2) .”
From [Paper] Touchscreen Text Entry Methods Used by Blind and Low Vision Users (2019) · cites this paper as [2]
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
BrailleTouch: Mobile Texting for the Visually Impaired
Frey, B., Southern, C., & Romero, M. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21666-4_3 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Touchplates: low-cost tactile overlays for visually impaired touch screen users
Kane, S. K., Morris, M. R., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2013) · Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/2513383.2513442 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Tablet and Smartphone Accessibility Features in the Low Vision Rehabilitation
Irvine, D., Zemke, A., Pusateri, G., Gerlach, L., Chun, R., & Jay, W. M. (2014) · Neuro-Ophthalmology · doi:10.3109/01658107.2013.874448 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
A Survey on the Use of Mobile Phones by Visually Impaired Persons in Japan
Watanabe, T., Miyagi, M., Minatani, K., & Nagaoka, H. (2008) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70540-6_162 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Self-citationMiura, T., Matsuzaka, H., Sakajiri, M., & Ono, T. (2012) · Conference proceedings/Conference proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/icsmc.2012.6378239 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Development of IPPITSU IME for Smartphones
Sekine, Y., Ushida, K., & Hasegawa, S. (2013) · IEICE technical report. Image engineering · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- [5]5. The Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness -American foun- dation for the Blind, http://www.afb.org/info/publications/jvib/
- [6]6. British Journal of Visual Impairment, http://jvi.sagepub.com/
- [20]20. H. Matsuzaka, M. Sakajiri, T. Miura, H. Tatsumi, and T. Ono, "In- structions on manipulation methods of touchscreen computers to vi- sually impaired people -Through the workshops for people with total visual impairments -," Proc. Human Communication Group Symposium 2012, pp.468-471, 2012.
- [28]28. Workshop for people with low vision, harmony.i, http://www. harmony-i.org/lowvision/
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bauer, M., Glenn, T., Geddes, J., Gitlin, M., Grof, P., Kessing, L. V., Monteith, S., Faurholt-Jepsen, M., Severus, E., & Whybrow, P. C. (2020) · International Journal of Bipolar Disorders · doi:10.1186/s40345-019-0164-x · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Mobile device accessibility for the visually impaired: problems mapping and recommendations
Damaceno, R. J. P., Braga, J. C., & Mena-Chalco, J. P. (2018) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-017-0540-1 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Alajarmeh, N. (2022) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-020-00785-w · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Hamideh Kerdar, S., Bächler, L., & Kirchhoff, B. M. (2024) · Discover Computing · doi:10.1007/s10791-024-09460-7 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
“For visually impaired users, it is helpful to be able to change the size of text, zoom in and magnify [45] when necessary without losing information (this includes both apps and websites).”
Influential[Paper] Touchscreen Text Entry Methods Used by Blind and Low Vision Users
Watanabe, T., Kaga, H., Kobayashi, M., & Minatani, K. (2019) · ITE Transactions on Media Technology and Applications · doi:10.3169/mta.7.134 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationBuchs, G., Maidenbaum, S., Levy-Tzedek, S., & Amedi, A. (2015) · Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience · doi:10.3233/rnn-150592 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Effects of Touchscreen Device Size on Non-Visual Icon Search
YAMAZAKI, R., & WATANABE, T. (2017) · IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems · doi:10.1587/transinf.2017edl8062 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- WATANABE, T., YAMAGUCHI, T., & MINATANI, K.
- Affiliations
- Niigata University (JP)
- National Center for University Entrance Examinations (JP)
- Venue
- IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems
- Published
- 2015
- Volume
- E98.D
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 922-929
- ISSN
- 0916-8532 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-1361
- OpenAlex
- W1978396878
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 12.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems (publishedVersion)
- Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Telecommunications Advancement Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Keywords
- smartphones, tablets, visually impaired users, blind users, low vision users, assistive technology, speech output, speech input, object recognition, readability
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
