Exploring the use of smartphones and tablets among people with visual impairments: Are mainstream devices replacing the use of traditional visual aids?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Smartphones and tablets incorporate built-in accessibility features, but little is known about their impact within the visually impaired population. This study explored the use of smartphones and tablets, the degree to which they replace traditional visual aids, and factors influencing these decisions. Data were collected through an anonymous online survey targeted toward visually impaired participants above the age of 18, whom had been using a smartphone or tablet for at least three months. Among participants (n = 466), 87.4% felt that mainstream devices are replacing traditional solutions. This is especially true for object identification, navigation, requesting sighted help, listening to audiobooks, reading eBooks and optical character recognition. In these cases, at least two-thirds of respondents indicated that mainstream devices were replacing traditional tools most or all of the time. Users across all ages with higher self-reported proficiency were more likely to select a mainstream device over a traditional solution. Our results suggest that mainstream devices are frequently used amongst visually impaired adults in place of or in combination with traditional assistive aids for specific tasks; however, traditional devices are still preferable for certain tasks, including those requiring extensive typing or editing. This provides important context to designers and rehabilitation personnel in understanding the factors influencing device usage.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it