Table Of ContentCE Article
A Survey on the Use of Mobile
Applications for People Who Are
Visually Impaired
Nora Griffin-Shirley, Devender R. Banda, Paul M. Ajuwon,
Jongpil Cheon, Jaehoon Lee, Hye Ran Park, and
Sanpalei N. Lyngdoh
Structured abstract: Introduction: The literature indicates that few studies have
been conducted with persons with visual impairments (that is, those who are
blind or have low vision) concerning mobile application or “app” usage. The
current study explores the use of mobile apps with this population globally.
Methods: A total of 259 participants with visual impairments completed an online
survey. Descriptive statistics and bivariate tests were used to examine associations
between demographic characteristics and mobile app use. Results: The participants
ratedspecialappsasuseful(95.4%)andaccessible(91.1%)toolsforindividualswith
visualimpairments.Morethan90%ofthemiddle-agedadultgroupstronglyagreed
with the practicality of special apps, a significantly higher percentage than was
observed in the young and old adult groups. In addition, the participants with low
vision considered special apps less accessible than did those with blindness (p (cid:2)
.05). Discussion: Results show that persons with visual impairments frequently use
apps specifically designed for them to accomplish daily activities. Furthermore, this
population is satisfied with mobile apps and would like to see improvements and
new apps. Implications for practitioners: Developers of apps for individuals with
visualimpairmentsneedtorefineandtesttheexistingapps.Practitionersneedtobe
knowledgeable about app usage so they can provide effective instruction to their
studentsorclients.Thisstudyprovidespreliminaryinformationregardingappusage
among persons with visual impairments.
O
ne of the most common barriers that those who are blind or have low vision)
people who are visually impaired (that is, experience pertains to the daily challenge
ofcopingwithvisualimpairmentinaworld
inwhichthemajorityofindividualsinterpret
their surroundings with vision (Koestler,
EARN CES ONLINE
1976). In most societies, individuals with
by answering questions on this article.
visual impairments encounter difficulties
For more information,
visit: http://jvib.org/CEs. in safe and independent mobility that de-
prive them of typical professional and
307
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017
CE Article
social functioning (Tuttle & Tuttle, 2004). Reading Download for reading, recreation,
Furthermore, they face more problems and entertainment; and BlindSquare and
related to communication and access to iMove for indoor, outdoor, and point-of-
information (Arati, Sayali, Sushanta, & interest navigation.
Harshata, 2015). In the modern, devel- In spite of the technological advances,
oped world, however, technology is help- persons with visual impairments and other
ing to reduce many of these barriers. disabilitiescontinuetofacebarrierstocom-
Through the use of computer technology puter use worldwide (Ajuwon & Chitiyo,
for tasks such as reading, writing, commu- 2016; Lewis, 2016; Rodriguez-Sanchez
nicating, navigating, and searching for in- et al., 2014). Specifically, modern devices
formation, trained individuals with blind- typically function through the use of touch
nessarecapableofperformingawiderange screens (Morris & Mueller, 2014), which
of activities independently. As technology presents challenges for people with visual
has evolved from computers to tablets and impairments because touch screens rely on
smartphones, manufacturers have recog- visual cues (Sanchez & de Togores, 2012).
nized the need for applications or “apps” A majority of studies have focused on
that make activities of daily living easier developing or testing the usability of spe-
for the general population (Lewis, 2016; cific devicesorappsforpeoplewithvisual
Rodriguez-Sanchez, Moreno-Alvarez, Mar- impairments (Dim & Ren, 2014; Frey,
tin, Borromeo, & Hernandez-Tamames, Southern & Romero, 2011; Venugopal,
2014). 2013; Wagner, Vanderheiden, & Sesto,
Appsareprogramsorsoftwarethatrun 2006; Yousef, Adwan, & Abu-Leil, 2013).
on mobile devices. Recently, they have Recently, Crossland, Silva, and Macedo
gainedpopularityamongpersonswithvi- (2014) conducted an online survey with
sual impairments because of their porta- 132 persons with visual impairments
bility, cost, easy access to information, from the United Kingdom, Portugal, and
and ease of use. For example, Blind- the United States to examine the types of
Square, a Global Positioning System devices they utilized, the accessibility
(GPS) app designed for iOS (Apple’s pro- features of the devices and their useful-
prietary mobile operating system) costs ness, and the types of apps they used and
$39.99, while the Trekker Breeze, a ded- theirusability.Resultsindicatedthat81%
icatedhandheldtalkingGPSdevice,costs of the participants used a smartphone for
$699. Some of the apps that people with making telephone calls, texting, reading,
visualimpairmentsarecurrentlyusingin- browsingtheInternet,andidentifyingob-
clude: ScanLife Barcode and QR (Quick jects. Furthermore, results also showed
Response code, a matrix barcode) Reader that the use of smartphones was found to
to use a smartphone’s camera to scan declineamongindividualsovertheageof
codes to receive more information; Ai- 65 years.
poly and AudioLabels for object recogni- Morris and Mueller (2014) surveyed
tion and color identification; EyeSight 1,348 respondents with disabilities about
and Ultra Magnifier(cid:3) for magnification; the ease of use, perceived importance of,
MessagEase Keyboard, AccessNote, and and their own satisfaction with Android
BrailleTouch for writing; Braille Audio (the mobile operating system created by
308
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
CE Article
Google) or iOS mobile devices. Of those professionals with visual impairments in
participants, 85 were blind and 122 were the United States and other countries and
deaf, and two focus groups were con- regions such as India, Australia, Africa,
ducted with these individuals based on and Europe. These professionals then
theirformofsensoryloss.Forindividuals posted the survey link on various social
who are blind, results indicated that most mediaplatformssuchasFacebook.When
of them felt they had to choose to own participants clicked on or followed the
iPhones and that they learned how to use survey link, that action denoted their ex-
thedevicesontheirown.Someuserswho plicit consent to complete the study. Two
are blind, however, indicated that they and four weeks after sending the first
e-mail, the researchers sent two reminder
relied on peers and family members to
e-mailscontainingthesameinvitationlet-
help them select and learn how to use
ter to the above-mentioned organizations
mobile devices. The majority of users of
and professionals. The professionals and
iOSdevices(85%)felttheirdeviceswere
organizations were requested to share the
easy or very easy to use and were very
recruitment letter with their students, cli-
satisfied (77%) with them. Since these
ents, and members.
studiesonlyprovidedpreliminarydataon
the use of mobile apps, a need exists for
SURVEYDEVELOPMENT
more research on the use of mobile apps
The researchers developed the survey to
among individuals with visual impair-
explore the current use of mobile devices
ments. The purpose of the exploratory
and apps among people with visual im-
studypresentedhereistounderstandhow
pairments, as well as their perceptions
people with visual impairments use and
of the apps. The survey consisted of so-
perceivemobileappsintermsofusability
ciodemographic information (age, gen-
and accessibility, and how they identify
der,visualfunctioning,ethnicity,country,
challenges in usage.
geographicallocation,education,occupa-
tion, and annual income), use of mobile
Methods
devices and apps in general (device type,
RECRUITMENT
years of using a mobile device, the num-
Prior to conducting the study, the re-
ber of apps downloaded in a month, apps
searchers obtained human subjects per-
inuse,frequentlyusedapps,andusability
mission from two universities. A letter andaccessibilityofapps),anduseofapps
of invitation was sent to the American specifically designed for people who are
Council of the Blind (ACB), the National visually impaired (ownership, usability,
Federation of the Blind (NFB), and other accessibility, and desire to purchase).
major organizations that serve persons Sevenprofessionalswithvisualimpair-
with visual impairments around the ments were contacted to review all sur-
world. Then these organizations in turn vey items. Based on their feedback, sur-
e-mailedarecruitmentletterthroughtheir vey items were revised for clarity and
electronic discussion groups with a link accessibility. The final version of the sur-
to an anonymous online survey. The re- veywasplacedonSurveyMonkey,which
searchers also sent an invitation letter to was fully accessible for screen readers.
309
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017
CE Article
Thesurveytooknomorethan15minutes DATAANALYSIS
to complete. The participants’ responses Descriptive statistics were calculated to
to survey items were saved automatically summarize demographic characteristics
into a database. After eight weeks, the
oftheparticipantsandtheiruseofmobile
survey link was disabled and data were
devices and apps. In addition, a chi-
analyzed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute,
square test for independence was per-
2002–2012).
formed to determine whether participant
subgroupsdifferedintermsofmobilede-
PARTICIPANTS
vice and app use at .05 alpha level. More
A total of 259 participants who were le-
specifically, the participants were divided
gally blind completed the survey. Legal
by age (young: aged 10 to 29 years, mid-
blindness is defined as “central visual
dle-aged: aged 30 to 49 years, or old:
acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye
aged 50 years old or more); visual func-
with corrective glasses or central visual
tion (blindness or low vision); annual in-
acuity of more than 20/200 if there is a
come (less than $25,000 or equal to or
visual defect in which the peripheral field
above $25,000); and the type of mobile
is contracted to such an extent that the
devices they use (Android only or iOS
widest diameter of the visual field sub-
only). The subgroups were compared for
tendsanangulardistanceofnomorethan
the distribution of responses to each sur-
20 degrees in the better eye” (Koestler,
vey item. Effect sizes (Crame´r’s V) were
1976, p. 45). Visual impairment was the
also calculated.
only disability for most participants
(84.2%). There were relatively more par-
Results
ticipants who were blind (55.6%) than
MOBILEDEVICEANDAPPUSE
those who had low vision (44.4%; exist-
The participants’ use of mobile devices
ing visual acuity and visual field) in the
and apps is presented in Table 2. All
sample;theywerecomparableintermsof
participants were currently utilizing at
age,gender,ethnicity,education,employ-
ment, and annual income (all p (cid:4) .05). leastonemobiledevice(M(cid:5)1.68,SD(cid:5)
0.82; range (cid:5) 1–5): smartphone (95.4%),
Table 1 shows the demographic pro-
filesofthesample.Theaverageageofthe tablet (40.5%), or other (19.7%; for in-
participants was 44.51 years (range (cid:5) stance, iPod or braille notetaker). About
16–77). The majority of the participants 80% of the participants had iOS devices,
were female (56%), Caucasian (76.1%), 7% had Android devices, and 13.1% had
livinginanurbanareaorcluster(91.1%), both types. The majority of the partici-
and living in the United States (86.1%). pants (82.2%) have used mobile devices
Most participants (86.5%) attended col- for more than two years, and four years
lege. More than half of the participants (26.6%) was the most common duration
(55.2%) had paid employment. Among of mobile device usage. There was no
those who were not employed, 30.4% significant difference in mobile device
were high school, college, or graduate experience between age groups (young
students. About one-third (34.4%) earned vs. middle-aged vs. older adults; p (cid:5) .09,
less than $25,000 annually. V (cid:5) 0.23) or visual function groups
310
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
CE Article
Table1
Sampledemographics(N(cid:2)259).
Variable n M(%) SD
Age(years) 259 44.51% 14.65
Gender
Male 111 42.9%
Female 145 56.0%
Prefernottodisclose 3 1.2%
Visualfunction
Blindness 144 55.6%
Lowvision 115 44.4%
Ethnicity
AfricanAmerican 14 5.4%
AmericanIndian 1 0.4%
Asian 16 6.2%
AsianAmerican 4 1.5%
Caucasian 197 76.1%
Hispanic 16 6.2%
NativeHawaiianorotherPacificIslanders 1 0.4%
Prefernottodisclose 10 3.9%
Geographicallocation
Rural(populationof(cid:2)2,500) 23 8.9%
Urbanizedcluster(populationof2,500–50,000) 59 22.8%
Urbanizedarea(populationof(cid:2)50,000) 177 68.3%
Education
Lessthanhighschooldegree 3 1.2%
Highschooldegreeorequivalent 32 12.4%
Collegeattendanceorequivalent 57 22.0%
Bachelor’sdegree 83 32.0%
Master’sdegree 64 24.7%
Doctoraldegree 20 7.7%
Employment
Yes 143 55.2%
No 115 44.4%
Missing 1 0.4%
Annualincome
Lessthan$15,000 64 24.7%
$15,000–$24,999 25 9.7%
$25,000–$34,999 27 10.4%
$35,000–$49,999 35 13.5%
$50,000–$74,999 38 14.7%
$75,000–$99,999 21 8.1%
$100,000andabove 6 2.3%
Prefernottodisclose 43 16.6%
(blindness vs. low vision; p (cid:5) .28, V (cid:5) Mostparticipants(90.3%)reportedthat
0.21), but the participants with higher in- they utilize both free and paid apps (that
comes indicated they had been using de- is, apps that cost money). About 15% of
vices significantly longer than those with theparticipantswithlowvisionusedonly
lower incomes (p (cid:2) .05, V (cid:5) 0.31). free apps as compared to 5.6% among
311
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017
CE Article
Table2
Useofmobiledevicesandapps(N(cid:2)259).
Variable n %
Mobiledevicesincurrentuse
Smartphone 247 95.4%
Tablet 105 40.5%
Bothsmartphoneandtablet 96 37.1%
Other 51 19.7%
Typeofmobiledevicesincurrentuse
Android 18 7.0%
iOS 207 79.9%
BothAndroidandiOS 34 13.1%
Mobiledeviceexperience
Lessthan1year 26 10.0%
2years 20 7.7%
3years 38 14.7%
4years 69 26.6%
5years 42 16.2%
6years 36 13.9%
7years 13 5.0%
8years 6 2.3%
9years 3 1.2%
10years 6 2.3%
Freeorpaidapps
Onlyfree 25 9.7%
Onlypaid 0 0.0%
Bothfreeandpaid 233 90.3%
Appdownloadspermonth
1to2 159 61.4%
3to5 66 25.5%
Morethan5 34 13.1%
Mostfrequentlyusedapps
E-mail 63 24.5%
Toolsforvisualimpairment 32 12.5%
Socialnetworking 29 11.3%
Entertainment 27 10.5%
Leisurereading 23 8.9%
Specialappsinmobiledevice(N(cid:5)1,104)
Visualidentification 325 29.4%
Screenreadingandwriting 225 20.4%
GPSnavigation 149 13.5%
Leisurereading 144 13.0%
News 85 7.7%
Specialappswantedtopurchase(N(cid:5)167)
Screenreadingandwriting 62 37.1%
GPSnavigation 38 22.8%
Visualidentification 29 17.4%
Leisurereading 6 3.6%
Education 4 2.4%
312
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
CE Article
those with blindness (p (cid:2) .05, V (cid:5) 0.16), The participants’ perceptions about us-
indicating that the blind group has a rel- ability and accessibility of apps is pre-
atively higher tendency of purchasing sented in Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
paid apps. The majority of the partici- In general, mobile apps were perceived
pants (61.4%) downloaded three to five as user-friendly (83.1%) and accessible
(free and paid) apps in a month. Younger (80.7%).Neithertheagenorincomegroups
participants downloaded significantly more differed in their overall appraisals for ease
apps than older participants (p (cid:2) .05, V (cid:5) of use and accessibility (all p (cid:4) .05). The
0.15). Also, the low vision group down- participantswithlowvision,however,con-
loadedmoreappsthantheblindgroup,but sidered apps less user-friendly and less ac-
thisdifferencewasmarginal(p(cid:5).08,V(cid:5) cessiblethandidthosewithblindness(p(cid:2)
0.14). The income groups did not differ in .05 and .01, respectively). The participants
thenumberofappdownloads(p(cid:5).92,V(cid:5) who were currently utilizing iOS devices
0.03). consideredappsmoreaccessiblethanthose
Theparticipantsusedappsforavariety who were using Android devices (p (cid:2) .01,
of different reasons. The most frequently V (cid:5) 0.28).
used apps were for e-mail (24.5%); fol-
lowed by tools for visual impairment SPECIALAPPSFORINDIVIDUALS
(12.5%; for instance, screen readers and WITHVISUALIMPAIRMENTS
writers or visual identification tools); so- More than 90% of the participants indi-
cial networking (11.3%); entertainment cated they were currently using apps that
(10.5%; for instance, radio, sports, or re- were especially designed for people with
laxation); and leisure reading (8.9%; for visual impairments. Of a total of 1,104
instance,books,magazines,orlibraryser- specialappslistedbytheparticipants,the
vices). The participants were asked to list most frequently mentioned apps were for
up to 10 apps that they utilize most fre- visualidentification(29.4%;forexample,
quently, and then all reported apps were Be My Eyes, ColorID, CamFind, and
classified on the basis of their main func- ColoredEye); followed by screen reading
tion. Of a total of 2,082 lists, the most and writing apps (20.4%; for example,
reported apps were for tools for visual KNFBReader,AccessNote,Fleksy,Talk-
impairment (12.6%), followed by enter- Back,andBrailleTouch);GPSnavigation
tainment(11.6%),leisurereading(7.5%), apps (13.5%; for example, BlindSquare,
social networking (7.4%), and e-mail Ariadne GPS, Seeing Eye GPS, Sendero
(6.1%). As depicted in Figure 1, younger GPSLookAround,andSeeingAssistant);
participantsusedappsforsocialnetwork- leisure reading apps (13%; for example,
ing significantly more frequently than did NLS BARD, Read2Go, and Learning
older participants (p (cid:2) .001). The partic- Ally Audio); and news apps (7.7%; for
ipants who were blind or of higher in- example,NFB-Newsline,BlindBargains,
come utilized app tools for people with and AccessWorld). As shown in Figure 4,
visual impairments such as screenreaders about 93% of the middle-aged and old
significantly more often than did their adultgroupstogetherusedspecialappsas
counterparts (p (cid:2) .01 and .05, respec- compared to 83% in the young adult
tively). group, but this difference was only mar-
313
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017
CE Article
Figure 1. Top five most frequently used apps.
ginally significant (p (cid:5) .05). The partic- significant difference was found between
ipants with blindness were significantly the income groups (p (cid:5) .31).
more likely to have special apps than The majority of the participants (52.9%)
those with low vision (p (cid:2) .001). No reported that they want to purchase new
314
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
CE Article
Figure 2. Apps are user-friendly in general.
315
©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017
CE Article
Figure 3. Apps are accessible in general.
316
JournalofVisualImpairment&Blindness,July-August2017 ©2017AFB,AllRightsReserved
