TY - GEN
T1 - Design of and subjective response to on-body input for people with visual impairments
AU - Oh, Uran
AU - Findlater, Leah
PY - 2014/10/20
Y1 - 2014/10/20
N2 - For users with visual impairments, who do not necessarily need the visual display of a mobile device, non-visual on-body interaction (e.g., Imaginary Interfaces) could provide accessible input in a mobile context. Such interaction provides the potential advantages of an always-available input surface, and increased tactile and proprioceptive feedback compared to a smooth touchscreen. To investigate preferences for and design of accessible on-body interaction, we conducted a study with 12 visually impaired participants. Participants evaluated five locations for on-body input and compared on-phone to on-hand interaction with one versus two hands. Our findings show that the least preferred areas were the face/neck and the forearm, while locations on the hands were considered to be more discreet and natural. The findings also suggest that participants may prioritize social acceptability over ease of use and physical comfort when assessing the feasibility of input at different locations of the body. Finally, tradeoffs were seen in preferences for touchscreen versus on-body input, with on-body input considered useful for contexts where one hand is busy (e.g., holding a cane or dog leash). We provide implications for the design of accessible on-body input.
AB - For users with visual impairments, who do not necessarily need the visual display of a mobile device, non-visual on-body interaction (e.g., Imaginary Interfaces) could provide accessible input in a mobile context. Such interaction provides the potential advantages of an always-available input surface, and increased tactile and proprioceptive feedback compared to a smooth touchscreen. To investigate preferences for and design of accessible on-body interaction, we conducted a study with 12 visually impaired participants. Participants evaluated five locations for on-body input and compared on-phone to on-hand interaction with one versus two hands. Our findings show that the least preferred areas were the face/neck and the forearm, while locations on the hands were considered to be more discreet and natural. The findings also suggest that participants may prioritize social acceptability over ease of use and physical comfort when assessing the feasibility of input at different locations of the body. Finally, tradeoffs were seen in preferences for touchscreen versus on-body input, with on-body input considered useful for contexts where one hand is busy (e.g., holding a cane or dog leash). We provide implications for the design of accessible on-body input.
KW - Design recommendations
KW - Eyes-free interaction
KW - Gestural interfaces
KW - Mobile
KW - On-body input
KW - Visual impairments
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84911431539&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1145/2661334.2661376
DO - 10.1145/2661334.2661376
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:84911431539
T3 - ASSETS14 - Proceedings of the 16th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
SP - 115
EP - 122
BT - ASSETS14 - Proceedings of the 16th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
PB - Association for Computing Machinery
T2 - 16th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS 2014
Y2 - 20 October 2014 through 22 October 2014
ER -