Accessibility Challenges of Expansive Outside Spaces for Persons with Blindness or Visual Impairment: Effectiveness of Guidance Lines in Winter Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Site design criteria for wide open spaces are often based on aesthetic concerns and safe crowd movements. These criteria consequently led the designers of the Montreal Place of Festivals to suggest levelling sidewalks and streets and prohibition of vehicle traffic during the warm season (six months). Use of guidance tiles has been proposed and its relevance examined by the Accessibility Committee since blind people were losing cues normally used for traveling in a straight line and for localizing street corners. Though many countries install tactile surfaces in such areas in order to facilitate travel by the blind or visually impaired persons, the effectiveness of these surfaces in cities with long winter periods has not been demonstrated. Also, guidance lines have not yet been applied in North America. This pilot project intended to test the effectiveness of this type of application in winter conditions. The objectives of the project were (1) to assess the capability of a blind person to maintain a straight line of travel by shorelining guidance tiles in a winter situation, (2) to document the usefulness of the attention field in identifying an intersecting passageway composed of guidance tiles, and (3) to identify strategies used by participants while shorelining the tiles. A testing site has been installed in a wide open space surrounding a major subway station. Guidance tiles (polymer, 300mm wide), were casted-in place in two T-shape passageways. An attention field (600mm X 600 mm) composed of truncated domes has been installed at the intersection of one T-shape passageway. The experimentation was conducted during cold days, tiles and adjacent areas were covered by snow. Two groups of participants were recruited. Group one was composed of 24 cane user blind adults and group two was composed of 12 O&M specialists wearing a blindfold. Each participant had to perform four tasks: (1) detect the starting point of a guidance pathway from a street corner, establish contact with the pathway and shoreline it over a 5-meter long route, (2) execute a L-shape route having an attention field only as a cue to identify the intersecting passageway, (3) execute a L-shape having an attention field and the perpendicular passageway as cues, and (4) execute the L-shape route having only the perpendicular guidance pathway as a cue. Strategies used by participants were noted. An appreciation questionnaire was submitted following completion of the tasks. Preliminary results seem to indicate that tiles were difficult to detect and to shoreline when covered by snow. Results from task one indicate that 55% of participants succeeded in detecting the pathway and in establishing and maintaining contact over 5 meters. With regard to tasks 2, 3, and 4, the results were respectively 39%, 25%, and 17% with a criterion success of 3 successful L-route executions over 4. Detection of the intersecting pathway was the main issue independently of the cue offered. Feet placement and cane strategies were various. Participants reported that use of guidance tiles was tiring and not effective during winter. However, participants expressed their appreciation for the use of this design in more clement seasons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".