skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3173772acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Accessible Maps for the Blind: Comparing 3D Printed Models with Tactile Graphics

Published:19 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Tactile maps are widely used in Orientation and Mobility (O&M) training for people with blindness and severe vision impairment. Commodity 3D printers now offer an alternative way to present accessible graphics, however it is unclear if 3D models offer advantages over tactile equivalents for 2D graphics such as maps. In a controlled study with 16 touch readers, we found that 3D models were preferred, enabled the use of more easily understood icons, facilitated better short term recall and allowed relative height of map elements to be more easily understood. Analysis of hand movements revealed the use of novel strategies for systematic scanning of the 3D model and gaining an overview of the map. Finally, we explored how 3D printed maps can be augmented with interactive audio labels, replacing less practical braille labels. Our findings suggest that 3D printed maps do indeed offer advantages for O&M training.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn2230-file5.mp4

mp4

8.4 MB

pn2230.mp4

mp4

231.7 MB

References

  1. Ayna Agarwal, Shaheen Jeeawoody, and Maya Yamane. 2014. 3D-Printed Teaching Aids for Students with Visual Impairments. (2014). Available from http://diagramcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ E110-Final-Report-Team-Walrus.docx.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Catherine M. Baker, Lauren R. Milne, Ryan Drapeau, Jeffrey ScoField, Cynthia L Bennett, and Richard E. Ladner. 2016. Tactile Graphics with a Voice. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) 8, 1 (2016), 3. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Edward Berla. 1973. Strategies in scanning a tactual pseudomap. Education of the Visually Handicapped 5 (1973), 8--19.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. I Bin and Chuen-Jiang Shiu. 2010. Examining Explanations for Differences in Two-Dimensional Graphic Spatial Representation of Cubes Among Totally Blind Subjects. Visual Arts Research 36, 1 (2010), 12--22.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Mark Blades, Simon Ungar, and Christopher Spencer. 1999. Map use by adults with visual impairments. The Professional Geographer 51, 4 (1999), 539--553.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jonas Braier, Katharina Lattenkamp, Benjamin Räthel, Sandra Schering, Michael Wojatzki, and Benjamin Weyers. 2014. Haptic 3D surface representation of table-based data for people With visual impairments. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing 6, 1, Article 1 (Dec. 2014), 35 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Braille Authority of North America. 2010. Guidelines and Standards for Tactile Graphics. The Braille Authority of North America. http: //www.brailleauthority.org/tg/web-manual/index.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Caio Brito, Gutenberg Barros, Walter Correia, Veronica Teichrieb, and João Marcelo Teixeira. 2016. Multimodal augmentation of surfaces using conductive 3D printing. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2016 Posters. ACM, 15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Craig Brown and Amy Hurst. 2012. VizTouch: automatically generated tactile visualizations of coordinate spaces. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 131--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Lorna M. Brown, Stephen A. Brewster, Ramesh Ramloll, Mike Burton, and Beate Riedel. 2003. Design guidelines for audio presentation of graphs and tables. International Conference on Auditory Display.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Emeline Brulé, Gilles Bailly, Anke M Brock, Frédéric Valentin, Grégoire Denis, and Christophe Jouffrais. 2016. MapSense: Multi-Sensory Interactive Maps for Children Living with Visual Impairments. In ACM CHI 2016-chi4good. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Erin Buehler, Niara Comrie, Megan Hofmann, Samantha McDonald, and Amy Hurst. 2016. Investigating the implications of 3D printing in special education. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) 8, 3 (2016), 11. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Matthew Butler, Leona Holloway, Kim Marriott, and Cagatay Goncu. 2016. Understanding the graphical challenges faced by vision-impaired students in Australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development (2016), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Gabriela Celani and Luis Fernando Milan. 2007. Tactile scale models: three-dimensional info-graphics for space orientation of the blind and visually impaired. Virtual and rapid manufacturing: Advanced research in virtual and rapid prototyping (2007), 801--805.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Marjorie Anne Darrah. 2013. Computer haptics: A new way of increasing access and understanding of math and science for students who are blind and visually impaired. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research 3, 2 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Polly K. Edman. 1992. Tactile graphics. American Foundation for the Blind Press, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Stéphanie Giraud, Anke M. Brock, Marc J.-M. MacÃl', and Christophe Jouffrais. 2017. Map Learning with a 3D Printed Interactive Small-Scale Model: Improvement of Space and Text Memorization in Visually Impaired Students. Frontiers in Psychology 8 (2017), 930.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Cagatay Goncu and Kim Marriott. 2011. GraVVITAS: Generic multi-touch presentation of accessible graphics. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Springer, 30--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Noreen Grice, Carol Christian, Antonella Nota, and Perry Greenfield. 2015. 3D printing technology: A unique way of making Hubble Space Telescope images accessible to non-visual learners. Journal of Blindness Innovation & Research 5, 1 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Jaume Gual, Marina Puyuelo, and Joaquim Lloveras. 2011. Universal design and visual impairment: tactile products for heritage access. In DS 68--5: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Impacting Society through Engineering Design, Vol. 5: Design for X/Design to X, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 15.-19.08. 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaume Gual, Marina Puyuelo, and Joaquim Lloveras. 2014. Three-dimensional tactile symbols produced by 3D Printing: Improving the process of memorizing a tactile map key. British Journal of Visual Impairment 32, 3 (2014), 263--278.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Jaume Gual, Marina Puyuelo, and Joaquim Lloveras. 2015. The effect of volumetric (3D) tactile symbols within inclusive tactile maps. Applied Ergonomics 48 (2015), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Jaume Gual, Marina Puyuelo, Joaquim Lloverás, and Lola Merino. 2012. Visual Impairment and urban orientation. Pilot study with tactile maps produced through 3D Printing. Psyecology 3, 2 (2012), 239--250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Morton A. Heller and Edouard Gentaz. 2013. Psychology of Touch and Blindness. Psychology Press Ltd, Hove, United Kingdom.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Michele Hu. 2015. Exploring New Paradigms for Accessible 3D Printed Graphs. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. ACM, 365--366. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Shaun K. Kane and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2014. Tracking@ stemxcomet: teaching programming to blind students via 3D printing, crisis management, and twitter. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. ACM, 247--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Jill Keeffe. 2005. Psychosocial Impact of Vision Impairment. International Congress Series 1282 (2005), 167--173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Jeeeun Kim and Tom Yeh. 2015. Toward 3D-printed movable tactile pictures for children with visual impairments. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2815--2824. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Roberta L. Klatzky, Susan J. Lederman, and Victoria A Metzger. 1985. Identifying objects by touch: An ?expert system". Perception & Psychophysics 37, 4 (1985), 299--302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Michael A. Kolitsky. 2014. 3D printed tactile learning objects: proof of concept. Journal of Blindness Innovation & Research 4, 1 (2014), 4--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Steven Landau and Karen Gourgey. 2001. Development of a talking tactile tablet. Information Technology and Disabilities 7, 2 (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Susan J. Lederman and Robera L. Klatzky. 1987. Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology 19 (1987), 342--368.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Susan J. Lederman, Roberta L. Klatzky, Cynthia Chataway, and Craig D. Summers. 1990. Visual mediation and the haptic recognition of two-dimensional pictures of common objects. Perception & Psychophysics 47, 1 (1990), 54--64.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Alan M. MacEachren. 1995. How Maps Work:Representation, Visualization, and Design (paperback ed.). Guilford Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Samantha McDonald, Joshua Dutterer, Ali Abdolrahmani, Shaun K. Kane, and Amy Hurst. 2014. Tactile aids for visually impaired graphical design education. In Proceedings of the 16th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. ACM, 275--276. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Susanna Millar. 1997. Reading by Touch. Routledge, London, England.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Round Table on Information Access for People with Print Disabilities Inc. 2005. Guidelines on Conveying Visual Information. (2005). Available from http://printdisability.org/guidelines/ guidelines-on-conveying-visual-information-2005/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Liam O'Sullivan, Lorenzo Picinali, Andrea Gerino, and Douglas Cawthorne. 2015. A prototype audio-tactile map system with an advanced auditory display. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction (IJMHCI) 7, 4 (2015), 53--75.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Helen Petrie, Christoph Schlieder, Paul Blenkhorn, Gareth Evans, Alasdair King, Anne-Marie O'Neill, George Ioannidis, Blaithin Gallagher, David Crombie, Rolf Mager, and others. 2002. Tedub: A system for presenting and exploring technical drawings for blind people. Computers Helping People with Special Needs (2002), 47--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Delphine Picard and Samuel Lebaz. 2012. Identifying raised-line drawings by touch: A hard but not impossible task. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 106, 7 (2012), 427--431.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Benjamin Poppinga, Charlotte Magnusson, Martin Pielot, and Kirsten Rassmus-Gröhn. 2011. TouchOver map: audio-tactile exploration of interactive maps. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. ACM, 545--550. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Jonathan Rowell and Simon Ungar. 2003. The world of touch: an international survey of tactile maps. Part 1: production. British Journal of Visual Impairment 21, 3 (2003), 98--104.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Jonathan Rowell and Simon Ungar. 2005. Feeling our way: Tactile map user requirements--a survey. In International Cartographic Conference, La Coruna.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Rebecca Sheffield. 2016. International Approaches to Rehabilitation Programs for Adults who are Blind or Visually Impaired: Delivery Models, Services, Challenges and Trends. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Lei Shi, Idan Zelzer, Catherine Feng, and Shiri Azenkot. 2016. Tickers and Talker: An accessible labeling toolkit for 3D printed models. In Proceedings of the 34rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'16). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Abigale Stangl, Chia-Lo Hsu, and Tom Yeh. 2015. Transcribing across the senses: Community efforts to create 3D printable accessible tactile pictures for young children with visual impairments. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. ACM, 127--137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Abigale Stangl, Jeeeun Kim, and Tom Yeh. 2014. 3D printed tactile picture books for children with visual impairments: A design probe. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, 321--324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Brandon T. Taylor, Anind K. Dey, Dan P. Siewiorek, and Asim Smailagic. 2015. TactileMaps.net: A web interface for generating customized 3D-printable tactile maps. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. ACM, 427--428. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Simon Ungar, Mark Blades, and Christopher Spencer. 1993. The role of tactile maps in mobility training. British Journal of Visual Impairment 11, 2 (1993), 59--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Andreas Voigt and Bob Martens. 2006. Development of 3D tactile models for the partially sighted to facilitate spatial orientation. In Education and Research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe (eCAADe 24). 366--370.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Bruce N. Walker and Lisa M. Mauney. 2010. Universal design of auditory graphs: A comparison of sonification mappings for visually impaired and sighted listeners. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) 2, 3 (2010), 12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Thomas P. Way and Kenneth E. Barner. 1997. Automatic visual to tactile translation Part I: Human factors, access methods, and image manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering 5, 1 (1997), 81--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Henry B. Wedler, Sarah R. Cohen, Rebecca L. Davis, Jason G. Harrison, Matthew R. Siebert, Dan Willenbring, Christian S. Hamann, Jared T. Shaw, and Dean J. Tantillo. 2012. Applied computational chemistry for the blind and visually impaired. Journal of Chemical Education 89, 11 (2012), 1400--1404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Tessa Wright, Beth Harris, and Eric Sticken. 2010. A best-evidence synthesis of research on orientation and mobility involving tactile maps and models. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 104, 2 (2010), 95--106.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Limin Zeng and Gerhard Weber. 2011. Accessible maps for the visually impaired. In Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT 2011 Workshop on ADDW, CEUR, Vol. 792. 54--60.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Accessible Maps for the Blind: Comparing 3D Printed Models with Tactile Graphics

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2018
      8489 pages
      ISBN:9781450356206
      DOI:10.1145/3173574

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 19 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader