skip to main content
research-article

Blind Leading the Sighted: Drawing Design Insights from Blind Users towards More Productivity-oriented Voice Interfaces

Authors Info & Claims
Published:16 January 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Voice-activated personal assistants (VAPAs) are becoming smaller, cheaper, and more accurate, such that they are now prevalent in homes (e.g., Amazon Echo, Sonos One) and on mobile devices (e.g., Google Assistant, Apple Siri) around the world. VAPAs offer considerable potential to individuals who are blind, offering efficiencies over gesture-based input on touchscreen devices. However, research is just beginning to reveal the ways in which these technologies are used by people who are blind. In the first of two studies, we interviewed 14 blind adults with experience of home and/or mobile-based VAPAs, surfacing myriad accessibility, usability, and privacy issues for this community. A second study analyzing podcast content from 28 episodes relating to blind interactions with VAPAs was then undertaken to validate and extend findings from the first study. In addition to verifying prior findings, we learned that blind users wanted to leverage VAPAs for more productivity-oriented tasks and increased efficiency over other interaction modalities. We conclude that (1) VAPAs need to support a greater variety of AI personas, each specializing in a specific type of task; (2) VAPAs need to maintain continuity of voice interaction for both usability and accessibility; and (3) blind VAPA users, and especially blind technology podcasters, are expert voice interface users who should be incorporated into design processes from the beginning. We argue that when the blind lead the sighted through voice interface design, both blind and sighted users can benefit.

References

  1. A. Abdolrahmani, R. Kuber, and A. Hurst. 2016. An empirical investigation of the situationally-induced impairments experienced by blind mobile device users. In Proceedings of the 13th Web for All Conference (W4A’16). 21, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. A. Abdolrahmani, R. Kuber, and S. M. Branham. 2018. Siri talks at you: An empirical investigation of voice-activated personal assistant (VAPA) usage by individuals who are blind. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’18). 249--258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Albouys-Perrois, J. Laviole, C. Briant, and A. M. Brock. 2018. Towards a multisensory augmented reality map for blind and low vision people: A participatory design approach. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18). ACM, New York, NY, 629, 1--629:14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174203Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. L. Anthony, Y. Kim, and L. Findlater. 2013. Analyzing user-generated YouTube videos to understand touchscreen use by people with motor impairments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1223--1232.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. S. Azenkot and N. B. Lee. 2013. Exploring the use of speech input by blind people on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 15th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’13). 11, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. A. Ballantyne. 2019. Fair compensation or undue inducement? Yale Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics. Retrieved from: https://bioethics.yale.edu/research/irb-case-studies/irb-case-payments-subjects-who-are-substance-abusers/fair-compensation-or.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. M. Baldauf, R. Bösch, C. Frei, F. Hautle, and M. Jenny. 2018. Exploring requirements and opportunities of conversational user interfaces for the cognitively impaired. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct. 119--126.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. F. Bentley, C. Luvogt, M. Silverman, R. Wirasinghe, B. White, and D. Lottrjdge. 2018. Understanding the long-term use of smart speaker assistants. Proc.e ACM Interact., Mob., Wear. Ubiq. Technol. 2, 3 (2018), 91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. T. Bogers, A. A. A. Al-Basri, C. O. Rytlig, M. E. B. Møller, M. J. Rasmussen, N. K. B. Michelsen, and S. G. Jørgensen. 2019. A study of usage and usability of intelligent personal assistants in Denmark. In Proceedings of the International iConference (iConference’19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. E. C. Bouck, S. Flanagan, G. S. Joshi, W. Sheikh, and D. Schleppenbach. 2011. Speaking math—A voice input, speech output calculator for students with visual impairments. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 26, 4 (2011), 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. S. M. Branham, A. Abdolrahmani, W. Easley, M. Scheuerman, E. Ronquillo, and A. Hurst. 2017. Is someone there? Do they have a gun?: How visual information about others can improve personal safety management for blind individuals. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’17). 260--269.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. S. M. Branham and S. K. Kane. 2015. Collaborative accessibility: How blind and sighted companions co-create accessible home spaces. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’15). ACM, New York, NY, 2373--2382. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702511.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. S. M. Branham and A. R. Mukkath Roy. 2019. Reading between the guidelines: How commercial voice assistant guidelines hinder accessibility for blind users. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers 8 Accessibility (ASSETS’19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. R. N. Brewer, M. Cartwright, E. Karp, B. Pardo, and A. M. Piper. 2016. An approach to audio-only editing for visually impaired seniors. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’16). ACM, New York, NY, 307--308. https://doi.org/10.1145/2982142.2982196Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. R. M. Brewer and A. M. Piper. 2017. Rethinking design for aging and accessibility through an IVR blogging system. Proc, ACM Hum,-Comput, Interact. 1, CSCW, Article 26 (December 2017), 17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3139354Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. C. Carroll, C. Chiodo, A. Lin, M. Nidever, and J. Prathipati. 2017. Robin: Enabling independence for individuals with cognitive disabilities using voice assistive technology. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 46--53.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. K. Charmaz. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. M. L. Chen and H. C. Wang. 2018. How personal experience and technical knowledge affect using conversational agents. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces Companion (IUI’18). 53:1--2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. C. Chhetri and V. G. Motti. 2019. Eliciting privacy concerns for smart home devices from a user centered perspective. In Proceedings of the International iConference (iConference’19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. A. Coskun-Setirek and S. Mardikyan. 2017. Understanding the adoption of voice activated personal assistants. Int. J. E-Serv. Mob. Appl. 9, 3 (2017), 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. B. R. Cowan, N. Pantidi, D. Coyle, K. Morrissey, P. Clarke, S. Al-Shehri, D. Earley, and N. Bandeira. 2017. What can I help you with?: Infrequent users’ experiences of intelligent personal assistants. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI’17). 43 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. A. E. Chung, A. C. Griffin, D. Selezneva, and D. Gotz. 2018. Health and fitness apps for hands-free voice-activated assistants: Content analysis. JMIR mHealth uHealth 6, 9 (2018), e174.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. M. Dee and V. L. Hanson. 2016. A pool of representative users for accessibility research: Seeing through the eyes of the users. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 8, 1 (2016), 4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. A. Easwara Moorthy and K. P. L. Vu. 2015. Privacy concerns for use of voice activated personal assistant in the public space. Int. J. Hum.-Compu. Interact. 31, 4 (2015), 307--335.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. C. Efthymiou and M. Halvey. 2016. Evaluating the social acceptability of voice based smartwatch search. In Proceedings of the Asia Information Retrieval Symposium. 267--278.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. I. Guy. 2016. Searching by talking: Analysis of voice queries on mobile web search. In Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR’16). 35--44.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. S. Han and H. Yang. 2018. Understanding adoption of intelligent personal assistants: A parasocial relationship perspective. Industr. Manag. Data Syst. 118, 3 (2018), 618--636.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. J. Lazar, A. Allen, J. Kleinman, and C. Malarkey. 2007. What frustrates screen reader users on the web: A study of 100 blind users. Int. J. Hum.--Comput. Interact. 22, 3 (2007), 247--269.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Y. Liao, J. Vitak, P. Kumar, M. Zimmer, and K. Kritikos. 2019. Understanding the role of privacy and trust in intelligent personal assistant adoption. In Proceedings of the International iConference (iConference’19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. I. Lopatovska, K. Rink, I. Knight, K. Raines, K. Cosenza, H. Williams, P. Sorsche, D. Hirsch, Q. Li, and A. Martinez. 2018. Talk to me: Exploring user interactions with the Amazon Alexa. J. Librar. Inform. Sci. 51, 4 (2018), 984--97.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. S. B. Lovato and A. M. Piper. 2015. Siri, is this you?: Understanding young children's interactions with voice input systems. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC’15). ACM, New York, NY, 335--338. https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771910Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. S. B. Lovato, A. M. Piper, and E. A. Wartella. 2019. Hey Google, do unicorns exist?: Conversational agents as a path to answers to children's questions. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC’19). ACM, New York, NY, 301--313. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311927.3323150Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. E. Luger and A. Sellen. 2016. Like having a really bad PA: The gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’16). 5286--5297.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. W. E. Mackay and A. L. Fayard. 1997. HCI, natural science and design: A framework for triangulation across disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods and Techniques. 223--234.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. N. Mallat, V. Tuunainen, and K. Wittkowski. 2017. Voice activated personal assistants--Consumer use contexts and usage behavior. In Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS’17). Retrieved from: https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1548&context==amcis2017.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. A. R. Mukkath Roy, A. Abdolrahmani, R. Kuber, and S. M. Branham. 2019. Beyond being human: The (In) accessibility consequences of modeling VAPAs after human-human conversation. In Proceedings of the International iConference (iConference’19).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. A. M. Mulloy, C. Gevarter, M. Hopkins, K. S. Sutherland, and S. T. Ramdoss. 2014. Assistive technology for students with visual impairments and blindness. Assistive Technologies for People with Diverse Abilities. Springer, 113--156.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. E. Murphy, R. Kuber, G. McAllister, P. Strain, and W. Yu. 2008. An empirical investigation into the difficulties experienced by visually impaired internet users. Univ. Access Inform. Soc. 7 (1--2), 79--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. H. Nicolau, K. Montague, T. Guerreiro, A. Rodrigues, and V. L. Hanson. 2017. Investigating laboratory and everyday typing performance of blind users. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 10, 1 4 1--4:26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3046785Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. M. Palmer. 2011. Disability and poverty: A conceptual review. J. Disab. Policy Stud. 21, 4 (2011), 210--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. F. Portet, M. Vacher, C. Golanski, C. Roux, and B. Meillon. 2013. Design and evaluation of a smart home voice interface for the elderly: Acceptability and objection aspects. Person. Ubiq. Comput. 17, 1 (2013), 127--144.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. A. Pradhan, K. Mehta, and L. Findlater. 2018. Accessibility came by accident: Use of voice-controlled intelligent personal assistants by people with disabilities. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18). 459:1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. L. Ran, S. Helal, and S. Moore. 2004. Drishti: An integrated indoor/outdoor blind navigation system and service. In Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom’04). 23--30. https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOM.2004.1276842Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. S. H. Reinharz and L. Davidman. 1992. Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. A. Rodrigues, L. Camacho, H. Nicolau, K. Montague, and T. Guerreiro. 2018. Aidme: Interactive non-visual smartphone tutorials. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct (MobileHCI’18). ACM, New York, NY, 205--212. https://doi.org/10.1145/3236112.3236141Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. G. Schiavo, O. Mich, M. Ferron, and N. Mana. 2017. Mobile multimodal interaction for older and younger users: Exploring differences and similarities. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM’17). 407--414.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. A. Sears and V. Hanson. 2011. Representing users in accessibility research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2235--2238.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Kristen Shinohara and Josh Tenenberg. 2007. Observing Sara: A case study of a blind person's interactions with technology. In Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’07). ACM, New York, NY, 171--178. https://doi.org/10.1145/1296843.1296873Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. K. Shinohara and J. O. Wobbrock. 2011. In the shadow of misperception: Assistive technology use and social interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). 705--714.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. K. Shinohara, J. O. Wobbrock, and W. Pratt. 2018. Incorporating social factors in accessible design. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’18). ACM, New York, NY, 149--160.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Kevin M. Storer and Stacy M. Branham. 2019. That's the way sighted people do it: What blind parents can teach technology designers about co-reading with children. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS’19). ACM, New York, NY, 385--398. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322374Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. M. F. Story, J. L. Mueller, and R. L. Mace. 1998. The universal design file: Designing for people of all ages and abilities. School of Design, the Center for Universal Design, NC State, Raleigh.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. A. Vtyurina, A. Fourney, M. R. Morris, L. Findlater, and R. W. White. 2019a. Bridging screen readers and voice assistants for enhanced eyes-free web search. In Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference. ACM, 3590--3594.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. A. Vtyurina, A. Fourney, M. R. Morris, L. Findlater, and R. W. White. 2019b. VERSE: Bridging screen readers and voice assistants for enhanced eyes-free web search. In Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. L. Wulf, M. Garschall, J. Himmelsbach, and M. Tscheligi. 2014. Hands free—care free: Elderly people taking advantage of speech-only interaction. In Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational (NordiCHI’14). 203--206.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. C. Yu, H. Shane, R. W. Schlosser, A. O'Brien, A. Allen, J. Abramson, and S. Flynn. 2018. An exploratory study of speech-language pathologists using the Echo Show™ to deliver visual supports. Adv. Neurodev. Disord. 2, 3 (2018), 286--292.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Y. Zhong, T. V. Raman, C. Burkhardt, F. Biadsy, and J. P. Bigham. 2014. JustSpeak: Enabling universal voice control on Android. In Proceedings of Web for All Conference (W4A’14). 36 1--4.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Blind Leading the Sighted: Drawing Design Insights from Blind Users towards More Productivity-oriented Voice Interfaces

      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

      Full Access

      • Published in

        cover image ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
        ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing  Volume 12, Issue 4
        Regular Papers and Special Issue on ASSETS 2018
        December 2019
        158 pages
        ISSN:1936-7228
        EISSN:1936-7236
        DOI:10.1145/3375992
        Issue’s Table of Contents

        Copyright © 2020 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: 16 January 2020
        • Accepted: 1 October 2019
        • Revised: 1 September 2019
        • Received: 1 April 2019
        Published in taccess Volume 12, Issue 4

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format