Recommendations on a Test Infrastructure for Evaluation of Touchscreen Assistive Technology for Visually Impaired Users

Berglind Smaradottir
Department of Information and Communication Technology, University of Agder, Norway

Jarle Håland
Department of Health and Nursing Science, University of Agder, Norway

Santiago Martinez
Department of Psychosocial Health, University of Agder, Norway

Åsmund Rodvig Somdal
Department of Information and Communication Technology, University of Agder, Norway

Rune Fensli
Department of Information and Communication Technology, University of Agder, Norway

Ladda ner artikel

Ingår i: SHI 2015, Proceedings from The 13th Scandinavien Conference on Health Informatics, June 15-17, 2015, Tromsø, Norway

Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 115:7, s. 41-46

Visa mer +

Publicerad: 2015-06-26

ISBN: 978-91-7685-985-8

ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)


Mobile technologies’ touchscreen allows the use of choreography of gestures to interact with the user interface. Relevant aspects in mobile technology design become crucial when targeting users with disabilities. For instance, when assistive technology is designed to support speech interaction between visually impaired users and a system, accessibility and easeof-use of such technology should be included in the usability and technical evaluation of their effectiveness. This paper presents the analysis of the technical and physical infrastructure of a controlled laboratory environment for user evaluations made in the research project “Visually impaired users touching the screen - A user evaluation of assistive technology” where VoiceOver, a screen reader in Apple Inc. products was tested. The paper reports on challenges related to the use of the test infrastructure, such as how to obtain valuable data when interactive high-speed gestures are performed and how to optimise the recording and synchronisation between audio and video data. The lessons learned by the research group showed that there are effective alternatives for each challenge, and these should be customised for each particular test, type of participants and device.


EInclusion; visually impaired users; speechassisted navigation; touch gestures; accessibility; assistive technology; laboratory infrastructure; usability; health informatics


[1] Goggin G. Cell Phone Culture: Mobile Technology in Everyday Life. Routhledge, 2006.

[2] Ling R. The Mobile Connection: The Cell Phone’s Impact on Society. Elsevier Inc, 2004.

[3] Jarvenpaa SL, and Lang KR. Managing the Paradoxes of Mobile Technology. Information Systems Management, 2005: 22:4: 7-23. doi: 10.1201/1078.10580530/45520.22.4.20050901/90026.2

[4] Albinsson A, and Zhai S. High precision touch screen interaction. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2003; 105-112. doi: 10.1145/642611.642631.

[5] Butler A, Izadi S, and Hodges S. SideSight: multi-"touch" interaction around small devices. Proceedings of the 21st annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, 2008; 201-204.

[6] McGookin D, Brewster S, and Jiang W. Investigating Touchscreen Accessibility for People with Visual Impair-ments. Proceedings of NordiCHI Using Bridges, 18-22 October, Lund, Sweden, 2008; 298-307.

[7] World Health Organization (WHO): http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en/. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[8] Pascolini D, and Mariotti SP. Global issues:Global esti-mates of visual impairment: 2010 . British Journal of Ophthalmology, 2011. doi: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300539.

[9] ICD-10 version 2015: chttp://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2015/en#/H53-H54] [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[10]Voiceover: http://www.apple.com/accessibility/osx/voiceover/ [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[11]Window-Eyes: http://www.windoweyesforoffice.com/ [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[12]Edyburn D. Rethinking Assistive Technology. Special Education Technology Practice, 5(4): 16-23.

[13]Scherer M. The change in emphasis from people to person. Introduction to the special issue on Assistive Technology, Disability and Rehabilitation, 2002: VOL. 24: NO. 1/2/3, 1 ± 4.

[14]LaPlante MP, Hendershot G, and Moss AJ. Assistive Technology Devices and Home Accessibility Features: Prevalence, Payment, Need, and Trends. Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, 1992: n217 Sep. Nation-al Center for Health Statistics (DHHS/PHS), Hyattsville, MD.

[15]Iwarsson S, and Ståhl A. Accessibility, usability and universal design—positioning and definition of concepts describing person-environment relationships. Disability and Rehabilitation, 2003: 25:2: 57-66. doi: 10.1080/0963828021000007969.

[16]Petrie H, and Kheir O. The relationship between accessi-bility and usability of websites. Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2007; p 397-406.

[17]Leporini B, Buzzi MC, and Buzzi M. Interacting with mobile devices via VoiceOver: Usability and Accessibility Issues. Proceedings of the ACM OzCHI ’12, 24th Austral-ian Computer-Human Interaction Conference, 2012; 339-348. [18]Phillips B, and Zhao H. Predictors of Assistive Technolo-gy Abandonment. Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of Resna, 1993: Volume 5: Issue 1: 36-45. doi: 10.1080/10400435.1993.10132205.

[19]Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, and Ska B. Development of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology: The Of-ficial Journal of Resna, 1996: Volume 12: (Issue 1): 3-13. doi: 10.1080/10400435.1996.10132268.

[20]Demers L, Weiss-Lambrou R, and Ska B. Item Analysis of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST). Assistive Technology: The Of-ficial Journal of Resna, 2000: Volume 1: (Issue 2): 96-105. doi: 10.1080/10400435.2000.10132015.

[21]Svanæs D, Alsos OA, and Dahl Y. Usability testing of mobile ICT for clinical settings: Methodological and practical challenges. International journal of medical infor-matics 2010: 79(4): e24-e34.

[22]Gerdes M, Smaradottir B, and Fensli R. End-to-end in-frastructure for usability evaluation of eHealth applications and services. Proceedings of the Scandinavian Conference on Health Informatics, Grimstad, Norway, 21-22 Aug 2014; 53-59. ISSN(print): 1650-3686, ISSN(online): 1650-3740.

[23]Wirecast: http://www.telestream.net/wirecast/overview.htm. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[24]QSR NVIVO 10: http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[25]Lazar J, Feng JH, and Hochheiser H. Research methods in human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

[26]Norwegian Social Science Data Services: http://www.nsd.uib.no/personvern. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[27]Mirroring 360. http://www.mirroring360.com/. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[28]Apple Airplay: https://www.apple.com/airplay/. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[29]Snagit: http://snagit.en.softonic.com/. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[30]UX recorder: http://www.uxrecorder.com/. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[31]Cyberlink: www.cyberlink.com/. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[32]VLC media player: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[33]ProTools: http://www.avid.com/US/products/family/pro-tools. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[34]Final Cut Pro X: https://www.apple.com/final-cut-pro/. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[35]Adobe Premiere Pro CC: www.adobe.com/PremierePro. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

[36]FireWire: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=4659233. [Accessed 2015 May 20].

Citeringar i Crossref