Proficient blind users and mobile text-entry

Hugo Nicolau, Tiago Guerreiro, J. Jorge, D. Gonçalves
{"title":"Proficient blind users and mobile text-entry","authors":"Hugo Nicolau, Tiago Guerreiro, J. Jorge, D. Gonçalves","doi":"10.1145/1962300.1962307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Motivation -- Understand how NavTap, an assistive text-entry method, stands in relation to traditional approaches. Research approach -- We performed a between-subjects text-entry study with 12 blind users proficient with MultiTap and five blind users proficient with NavTap. Participants were asked to input ten sentences with different length and complexity. Findings/Design -- MultiTap significantly outperformed NavTap when considering text entry speed, confirming its theoretical advantage. However, when considering method effectiveness, NavTap's less experienced participants committed significantly fewer errors, indicating that it is both easier to learn and use, reaffirming it is an alternative for those unable to adjust to demanding adaptations. Research limitations/Implications -- Before NavTap appeared its users were unable to input text in a mobile device. Indeed, existing data make it difficult to assess differences between the users of either method. Further, NavTap users had less experience using the method (four months) than MultiTap (years). Originality/Value -- We contribute to understanding the limitations and merits of different text-entry approaches for blind people, after extensive usage. Take away message -- Different methods have different limitations and values. Selecting a match for a particular user may depend on his individual differences.","PeriodicalId":115733,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 28th Annual European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 28th Annual European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1962300.1962307","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Motivation -- Understand how NavTap, an assistive text-entry method, stands in relation to traditional approaches. Research approach -- We performed a between-subjects text-entry study with 12 blind users proficient with MultiTap and five blind users proficient with NavTap. Participants were asked to input ten sentences with different length and complexity. Findings/Design -- MultiTap significantly outperformed NavTap when considering text entry speed, confirming its theoretical advantage. However, when considering method effectiveness, NavTap's less experienced participants committed significantly fewer errors, indicating that it is both easier to learn and use, reaffirming it is an alternative for those unable to adjust to demanding adaptations. Research limitations/Implications -- Before NavTap appeared its users were unable to input text in a mobile device. Indeed, existing data make it difficult to assess differences between the users of either method. Further, NavTap users had less experience using the method (four months) than MultiTap (years). Originality/Value -- We contribute to understanding the limitations and merits of different text-entry approaches for blind people, after extensive usage. Take away message -- Different methods have different limitations and values. Selecting a match for a particular user may depend on his individual differences.
精通盲人用户和移动文本输入
动机——理解NavTap(一种辅助文本输入方法)与传统方法的区别。研究方法——我们对12名精通MultiTap的盲人用户和5名精通NavTap的盲人用户进行了一项受试者之间的文本输入研究。参与者被要求输入10个不同长度和复杂程度的句子。研究结果/设计——在考虑文本输入速度时,MultiTap明显优于NavTap,证实了其理论上的优势。然而,当考虑到方法的有效性时,经验不足的参与者犯的错误明显更少,这表明它更容易学习和使用,重申它是那些无法适应要求的人的替代选择。研究局限/启示——在NavTap出现之前,它的用户无法在移动设备上输入文本。事实上,现有的数据使得很难评估两种方法使用者之间的差异。此外,NavTap用户使用该方法的经验(4个月)少于MultiTap用户(年)。原创性/价值——经过广泛的使用,我们有助于理解盲人不同文本输入方法的局限性和优点。要点——不同的方法有不同的局限性和价值。为特定用户选择匹配可能取决于他的个体差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信