Descriptive Title: Perspectives from Canadians with visual impairments in everyday environments outside the home: insights for assistive technology development (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND Despite the abundance of assistive devices available, the accomplishment of many everyday tasks remains complex for people with visual impairments (PVI). While several studies have been conducted to identify the obstacles encountered when moving around outdoors, current knowledge is less abundant when it comes to the difficulties encountered in complex, indoor environments. OBJECTIVE The present study aimed to identify the most important obstacles and facilitators encountered in common dynamic, indoor environments outside the home for people with low vision and blindness. METHODS Data were collected from twenty participants with varying levels of vision from several cities across Canada in two virtual focus groups in both English and French. Using open-ended questions, participants shared obstacles and facilitators experienced or imagined during independent navigation in the following scenarios: coffee shop, hospital, big-box store, party with friends, and bus rides. Thematic analysis was conducted, and responses were either categorized as barriers or facilitators for each scenario. These were ranked by all participants via email according to their perceived importance in completing each scenario. RESULTS Across scenarios, the principal barriers to perceived success were inaccessible signage, difficulties walking around, problems finding a specific location, and unsuccessful interactions with others. The main facilitators across scenarios were helpful interactions with others, planning, accessible signage, and websites. The use of mobile applications was discussed but ranked as less important by participants. Though similar amongst the French and English groups, the rankings of the different facilitators and barriers were largely scenario-specific. The most barriers were mentioned in the coffee shop (n=8) followed by the department store (n=7) and bus or metro (n=7) for the English group, whereas the most barriers were in the department store (n=9), followed by the hospital or clinic (n=7) and coffee shop (n=6) for the French group. CONCLUSIONS Though promising technologies have been developed to resolve some of the issues surrounding indoor navigation for PVI, they were not perceived as helpful as some other traditional methods of assistance, such as asking for help, by our participants. For the successful incorporation of indoor navigation technologies, it is important to understand how they integrate into the experience of people as they move in these dynamic environments. The successful use of technology is only possible if the physical environment permits and facilitates independent navigation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,017 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,018 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».