skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3173810acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Taking into Account Sensory Knowledge: The Case of Geo-techologies for Children with Visual Impairments

Published:21 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper argues for designing geo-technologies supporting non-visual sensory knowledge. Sensory knowledge refers to the implicit and explicit knowledge guiding our uses of our senses to understand the world. To support our argument, we build on an 18 months field-study on geography classes for primary school children with visual impairments. Our findings show (1) a paradox in the use of non-visual sensory knowledge: described as fundamental to the geography curriculum, it is mostly kept out of school; (2) that accessible geo-technologies in the literature mainly focus on substituting vision with another modality, rather than enabling teachers to build on children's experiences; (3) the importance of the hearing sense in learning about space. We then introduce a probe, a wrist-worn device enabling children to record audio cues during field-trips. By giving importance to children's hearing skills, it modified existing practices and actors' opinions on non-visual sensory knowledge. We conclude by reflecting on design implications, and the role of technologies in valuing diverse ways of understanding the world.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

References

  1. Alissa N. Antle. 2013. Research opportunities: Embodied child-computer interaction. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 1, 1 (2013), 30--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Marc Antrop. 2000. Geography and landscape science. Belgeo. Revue belge de g´ eographie 1--2--3--4 (2000), 9--36.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Jean Franc ¸ois Augoyard. 2014. Sonic experience: a guide to everyday sounds. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP, Montr´ eal, QB, Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ann E. Bartos. 2013. Children sensing place. Emotion, Space and Society 9 (Nov. 2013), 89--98.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Marc Behrendt and Teresa Franklin. 2014. A Review of Research on School Field Trips and Their Value in Education. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 9, 3 (2014), 235--245.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Kirsten Boehner, Janet Vertesi, Phoebe Sengers, and Paul Dourish. 2007. How HCI interprets the probes. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 1077--1086. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Anke M. Brock, Philippe Truillet, Bernard Oriola, Delphine Picard, and Christophe Jouffrais. 2015. Interactivity Improves Usability of Geographic Maps for Visually Impaired People. Human-Computer Interaction 30, 2 (March 2015), 156--194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Ann L Brown, Doris Ash, Martha Rutherford, Kathryn Nakagawa, Ann Gordon, and Joseph C Campione. 1993. Distributed expertise in the classroom. Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (1993), 188--228.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Emeline Brule, Gilles Bailly, Anke Brock, Frederic Valentin, Gr´ egoire Denis, and Christophe Jouffrais. 2016. MapSense: Multi-Sensory Interactive Maps for Children Living with Visual Impairments. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 445--457. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Michael Bull, Paul Gilroy, David Howes, and Douglas Kahn. 2006. Introducing Sensory Studies. The Senses and Society 1, 1 (2006), 5--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Dustin Carroll, Suranjan Chakraborty, and Jonathan Lazar. 2013. Designing Accessible Visualizations: The Case of Designing a Weather Map for Blind Users. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction: Design Methods, Tools, and Interaction Techniques for eInclusion - Volume Part I (UAHCI'13). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 436--445. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Simon Catling. 2005. Children's personal geographies and the English primary school geography curriculum. Children's Geographies 3, 3 (2005), 325--344.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Jean Ho Chu, Daniel Harley, Jamie Kwan, Melanie McBride, and Ali Mazalek. 2016. Sensing History: Contextualizing Artifacts with Sensory Interactions and Narrative Design. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. 1294--1302. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Constance Classen. 1993. Worlds of sense: Exploring the senses in history and across cultures. Routledge, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Paul J Cloke, Chris Philo, and David Sadler. 1991. Approaching human geography an introduction to contemporary theoretical debates. Sage, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Amanda Coffey and Paul Atkinson. 1996. Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Sage Publications, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. T. Collins, M. Gaved, P. Mulholland, C. Kerawalla, A. Twiner, E. Scanlon, A. Jones, K. Littleton, G. Conole, and C. Blake. 2008. Supporting location-based inquiry learning across school, field and home contexts. In Proceedings of the MLearn 2008 Conference.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Andrea Cornwall and Rachel Jewkes. 1995. What is participatory research? Social science & medicine 41, 12 (1995), 1667--1676.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Denis E Cosgrove. 1998. Social formation and symbolic landscape. Wiley Online Library, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. N. Dahlb¨ ack, A. J¨ onsson, and L. Ahrenberg. 1993. Wizard of Oz Studies - Why and How. Knowledge-Baseded Systems 6, 4 (Dec. 1993), 258--266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. John Dewey. 1969. The logic of judgments of practice (1915). In The Collected Works of John Dewey: The Middle Works, 1899--1924, vol. 8. Ed. JA Boydston. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 14--82.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jennifer DeWitt and Martin Storksdieck. 2008. A Short Review of School Field Trips: Key Findings from the Past and Implications for the Future. Visitor Studies 11, 2 (2008), 181--197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Paul Dourish. 2004. Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Julie Ducasse, Marc J-M Mac´ e, Marcos Serrano, and Christophe Jouffrais. 2016. Tangible Reels: Construction and Exploration of Tangible Maps by Visually Impaired Users. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2186--2197. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Roger Firth. 2011. Teaching geography 11--18: a conceptual approach. The Curriculum Journal 22, 3 (2011), pp. 439--442.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Robert Fisher. 1998. Thinking About Thinking: Developing Metacognition in Children. Early Child Development and Care 141, 1 (1998), 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Euan Freeman, Graham Wilson, Stephen Brewster, Gabriel Baud-Bovy, Charlotte Magnusson, and Hector Caltenco. 2017. Audible Beacons and Wearables in Schools: Helping Young Visually Impaired Children Play and Move Independently. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '17. ACM Press, to appear. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Vasilis Galis. 2011. Enacting disability: how can science and technology studies inform disability studies? Disability & Society 26, 7 (2011), 825--838.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Rosemarie Garland-Thomson. 2011. Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept. Hypatia 26, 3 (2011), 591--609.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Phil Gersmehl. 2014. Teaching geography. Guilford Publications, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Dan Goodley and Katherine Runswick-Cole. 2011. The violence of disablism. Sociology of Health & Illness 33, 4 (2011), 602--617.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Anne Graham, Mary Powell, Nicola Taylor, Donnah Anderson, and Robyn Fitzgerald. 2013. Ethical research involving children. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research-Innocenti (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Aimi Hamraie. 2013. Designing collective access: A feminist disability theory of universal design. Disability Studies Quarterly 33, 4 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Aimi Hamraie. 2016. Universal Design and the Problem of "Post- Disability" Ideology. Design and Culture (2016). http://sci-hub.cc/10.1080/17547075.2016.1218714Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Halvor Hanisch. 2014. Psycho-emotional disablism: a differentiated process. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 16, 3 (2014), 211--228.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Mark Harris. 2007. Ways of knowing: Anthropological approaches to crafting experience and knowledge. Vol. 18. Berghahn Books, Oxford, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Jasmien Herssens and Ann Heylighen. 2012. Blind Photographers: An (Im) material Quest into the Spatial Experiences of Children Born Blind. Children, Youth and Environments 22, 1 (2012), 99--124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Nic Hollinworth, Kate Allen, Gosia Kwiatkowska, Andy Minnion, and Faustina Hwang. 2014. Interactive Sensory Objects for and by People with Learning Disabilities. SIGACCESS Access. Comput. 109 (June 2014), pp. 11--20. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B. Bederson, Allison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, St´ ephane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, Nicolas Roussel, and Bj¨ orn Eiderb¨ ack. 2003. Technology Probes: Inspiring Design for and with Families. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '03). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 17--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Peter Jackson. 2006. Thinking geographically. GEOGRAPHY-LONDON- 91, 3 (2006), 199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Martin Jay. 1993. Downcast eyes: The denigration of vision in twentieth-century French thought. Univ of California Press, Oakland, CA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Michaela D. Kennedy. 2014. The benefit of Field Trips. Ph.D. Dissertation. Georgia Southern University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Scott R. Klemmer, Bj¨ orn Hartmann, and Leila Takayama. 2006. How Bodies Matter: Five Themes for Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 140--149. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. I. Kocur and S. Resnikoff. 2002. Visual impairment and blindness in Europe and their prevention. Br J Ophthalmol 86, 7 (July 2002), 716--722.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Kevin Krahenbuhl. 2014. Collaborative Field Trips: An Opportunity to Connect Practice With Pedagogy. The Geography Teacher 11, 1 (2014), 17--24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Steven Eric Krauss. 2005. Research paradigms and meaning making: A primer. The qualitative report 10, 4 (2005), 758--770.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Milos Kravcik, Andreas Kaibel, Marcus Specht, and Lucia Terrenghi. 2004. Mobile Collector for Field Trips. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 7, 2 (2004), 25--33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.7.2.25Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Alex Kuhn, Clara Cahill, Chris Quintana, and Shannon Schmoll. 2011. Using Tags to Encourage Reflection and Annotation on Data During Nomadic Inquiry. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 667--670. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Mei-Po Kwan. 2002. Feminist visualization: Re-envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research. Annals of the association of American geographers 92, 4 (2002), 645--661.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Emily R. Lai. 2011. Metacognition: A Literature Review. Technical Report. Pearson. http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/ Metacognition_Literature_Review_Final.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. David Lambert and David Balderstone. 2012. Learning to teach geography in the secondary school: a companion to school experience. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Annette Lareau. 1987. Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of education (1987), 73--85.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Christopher A Le Dantec, Erika Shehan Poole, and Susan P Wyche. 2009. Values as lived experience: evolving value sensitive design in support of value discovery. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, 1141--1150. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Wan-Tzu Lo and Chris Quintana. 2013. Students' Use of Mobile Technology to Collect Data in Guided Inquiry on Field Trips. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 297--300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Hannah Mary MacPherson. 2007. Landscapes of blindness and visual impairment: sight, touch and laughter in the English countryside. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Newcastle upon Tyne. https://theses.ncl. ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10443/258/1/macpherson07.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Angelica Carvalho Di Maio, Cilene Gomes, and Maria de Lourdes Neves de Oliveira Kurkdjian. 2011. Geoinformation: a social Issue. In Advances in Cartography and GIScience. Volume 2: Selection from ICC 2011, Paris, Anne Ruas (Ed.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 35--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. James MaKinster, Nancy Trautmann, and Michael Barnett. 2014. Teaching science and investigating environmental issues with geospatial technology. Springer, Amsterdam, NL. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Lambros Malafouris. 2013. How things shape the mind. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Laura Malinverni, Edith Ackermann, and Narcis Pares. 2016. Experience As an Object to Think with: From Sensing-in-action to Making-Sense of Action in Full-Body Interaction Learning Environments. In Proceedings of the TEI '16: Tenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 332--339. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Laura Malinverni and Narc´ 's Par´ es Burgu` es. 2015. The Medium Matters: The Impact of Full-body Interaction on the Socio-affective Aspects of Collaboration. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 89--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Laura Malinverni, Julian Maya, Marie-Monique Schaper, and Narcis Pares. 2017. The World-as-Support: Embodied Exploration, Understanding and Meaning-Making of the Augmented World. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5132--5144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Laura Malinverni and Narcis Pares. 2017. Learning from Failures in Designing and Evaluating Full-Body Interaction Learning Environments. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1065--1074. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Kevin St. Martin and Madeleine Hall-Arber. 2008. The missing layer: Geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 32, 5 (2008), 779 -- 786. The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Implementing Ecosystem-based, Sea Use Management.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Sarah Maslen. 2015. Researching the Senses as Knowledge. The Senses and Society 10, 1 (March 2015), 52--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Doreen Massey. 2013. Space, place and gender. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. S´ onia Matos. 2017. The Sound Labyrinth: Computers, Constructionism and Language Learning. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 258--267. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. MH Matthews and Peter Vujakovic. 1995. Private Worlds and Public Places: Mapping the Environmental Values of Wheelchair Users. Environment and Planning A 27, 7 (1995), 1069--1083.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Melanie McBride and J. Nolan Jason. 2017. Situating olfactory literacies: An intersensory pedagogy by design. In Designing with Smell : Practices, Techniques and Challenges, Victoria Henshaw, Dominic Medway, Chris Perkins, Gary Warnaby, and Kate C. McLean (Eds.). Routledge, London, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  69. Leyla Norooz, Matthew Louis Mauriello, Anita Jorgensen, Brenna McNally, and Jon E. Froehlich. 2015. BodyVis: A New Approach to Body Learning Through Wearable Sensing and Visualization. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1025--1034. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  70. Dennis Ocholla. 2007. Marginalized knowledge: An agenda for indigenous knowledge development and integration with other forms of knowledge. International review of information ethics 7, 09 (2007), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. OpenStreetMap. 2017. OpenStreetMap for the blind. (2017). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_for_the_blindGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Martin Pielot, Niels Henze, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2007. Tangible User Interface for the Exploration of Auditory City Maps. In Haptic and Audio Interaction Design, Ian Oakley and Stephen Brewster (Eds.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 4813. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 86--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Sarah Pink, Kerstin Leder Mackley, Val Mitchell, Marcus Hanratty, Carolina Escobar-Tello, Tracy Bhamra, and Roxana Morosanu. 2008. Applying the Lens of Sensory Ethnography to Sustainable HCI. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 20, 4, Article 25 (Sept. 2008), 18 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  74. Chris Quintana, Brian J. Reiser, Elizabeth A. Davis, Joseph Krajcik, Eric Fretz, Ravit Golan Duncan, Eleni Kyza, Daniel Edelson, and Elliot Soloway. 2004. A Scaffolding Design Framework for Software to Support Science Inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences 13, 3 (2004), 337--386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. Paul Rodaway. 1994. Sensuous geographies: Body, sense and place. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Y. Rogers, S. Price, G. Fitzpatrick, R. Fleck, E. Harris, H. Smith, C. Randell, H. Muller, C. O'Malley, D. Stanton, M. Thompson, and M. Weal. 2004. Ambient Wood: Designing New Forms of Digital Augmentation for Learning Outdoors. In ACM IDC'04 (IDC '04). 3--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  77. Jaime S´ anchez, Mauricio Saenz, and Jose Miguel Garrido. 2010. Usability of a Multimodal Video Game to Improve Navigation Skills for Blind Children. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 3, 2, Article 7 (Nov. 2010), 29 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  78. Douglas Schuler and Aki Namioka (Eds.). 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale, NJ, USA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  79. Mathieu Simonnet, Dan Jacobson, Stephane Vieilledent, and Jacques Tisseau. 2009. SeaTouch: A Haptic and Auditory Maritime Environment for Non Visual Cognitive Mapping of Blind Sailors. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 212--226.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Justin Spinney. 2006. A Place of Sense: A Kinaesthetic Ethnography of Cyclists on Mont Ventoux. Environ Plan D 24, 5 (Oct. 2006), 709--732.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Katie Headrick Taylor and Rogers Hall. 2013. Counter-Mapping the Neighborhood on Bicycles: Mobilizing Youth to Reimagine the City. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 18, 1 (July 2013), 65--93.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  82. Jean-Paul Thibaud. 2011. A sonic paradigm of urban ambiances. Journal of Sonic Studies 1, 1 (2011), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Simon Ungar, Mark Blades, and Christopher Spencer. 1997. Strategies for Knowledge Acquisition from Cartographic Maps by Blind and Visually Impaired Adults. The Cartographic Journal 34, 2 (1997), 93--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Maarten Van Mechelen, Jan Derboven, Ann Laenen, Bert Willems, David Geerts, and Vero Vanden Abeele. 2017. The GLID method: Moving from design features to underlying values in co-design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 97 (Jan. 2017), 116--128.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  85. Jayne Wallace, John McCarthy, Peter C. Wright, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. Making Design Probes Work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3441--3450. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  86. WHO. 2014. Disabilities - Health Topics. (2014). http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. Dilafruz R. Williams and P. Scott Dixon. 2013. Impact of Garden-Based Learning on Academic Outcomes in Schools. Review of Educational Research 83, 2 (2013), 211--235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. Michele A. Williams, Amy Hurst, and Shaun K. Kane. 2013. "Pray Before You Step out": Describing Personal and Situational Blind Navigation Behaviors. In Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 28:1--28:8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Graham R. Williamson and Sue Prosser. 2002. Action research: politics, ethics and participation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 40, 5 (Dec. 2002), 587--593.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  90. Myriam Winance. 2014. Universal design and the challenge of diversity: reflections on the principles of UD, based on empirical research of people's mobility. Disability and Rehabilitation 36, 16 (2014), 1334--1343.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  91. Ryuichi Yoshida, Ryohei Egusa, Machi Saito, Miki Namatame, Masanori Sugimoto, Fusako Kusunoki, Etsuji Yamaguchi, Shigenori Inagaki, Yoshiaki Takeda, and Hiroshi Mizoguchi. 2015. BESIDE: Body Experience and Sense of Immersion in Digital Paleontological Environment. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1283--1288. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  92. 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. http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/ Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-792/Zeng.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Taking into Account Sensory Knowledge: The Case of Geo-techologies for Children with Visual Impairments

      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

        Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM acknowledges that this contribution was authored or co-authored by an employee, contractor or affiliate of a national government. As such, the Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free right to publish or reproduce this article, or to allow others to do so, for Government purposes only.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 21 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%

        Upcoming Conference

        CHI PLAY '24
        The Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play
        October 14 - 17, 2024
        Tampere , Finland

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader