|
ABSTRACT
In this paper we discuss why access to mathematical graphs is problematic for visually impaired people. By a review of graph understanding theory and interviews with visually impaired users, we explain why current non-visual representations are unlikely to provide effective access to graphs. We propose the use of multiple views of the graph, each providing quick access to specific information as a way to improve graph usability. We then introduce a specific multiple view system to improve access to bar graphs called SoundBar which provides an additional quick audio overview of the graph. An evaluation of SoundBar revealed that additional views significantly increased accuracy and reduced time taken in a question answering task.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
 |
1
|
|
| |
2
|
|
| |
3
|
Brown, L., and Brewster, S. A. Drawing by ear: Interpreting sonified line graphs. In Proceedings of ICAD 2003 (Boston, Massachusetts, 2003), ICAD, pp. 152--156.
|
| |
4
|
Curcio, F. R. Comprehension of mathematical relationships expressed in graphs. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 18, 5 (1987), 382--393.
|
| |
5
|
Dimigen, G., Scott, F., Thackeray, F., Pimm, M., and Roy, A. W. N. Career expectations of british visually impaired students who are of school-leaving age. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness 87 (1993), 209--210.
|
| |
6
|
Kosslyn, S. M. Understanding charts and graphs. Applied Cognitive Psychology 3, 3 (1989), 185--226.
|
| |
7
|
Lohse, G. L. Models of graphical perception. In Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, M. Helander, T. Landauer, and P. Prabu, Eds., 2 ed. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1997, pp. 107--135.
|
| |
8
|
Mansur, D. L. Graphs in Sound: A Numerical Data Analysis Method for the Blind. M.sc., University of California, 1985.
|
| |
9
|
Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review 63, 1 (1956), 81--97.
|
| |
10
|
Peebles, D., and Cheng, P. C. H. Modeling the effect of task and graphical representation on response latency in a graph reading task. Human Factors 45, 1 (2003), 28--46.
|
| |
11
|
Pinker, S. A theory of graph comprehension. In Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Testing, R. Freedle, Ed. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1990, pp. 73--126.
|
| |
12
|
|
| |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
|
| |
15
|
|
| |
16
|
Walker, B. N., and Cothran, J. T. Sonification sandbox: A graphical toolkit for auditory graphs. In ICAD 2003 (Boston, MA, 2003), ICAD, pp. 161--163.
|
 |
17
|
|
| |
18
|
Woods, D. D., Patterson, E. S., and Roth, E. M. Can we ever escape from data overload? a cognitive systems diagnosis. Cognition, Technology and Work 4 (2002), 22--36.
|
| |
19
|
Yu, W., and Brewster, S. A. Evaluation of multimodal graphs for blind people. Journal of Universal Access in the Information Society 2, 2 (2003), 105--124.
|
CITED BY
|
Leo Ferres , Petro Verkhogliad , Gitte Lindgaard , Louis Boucher , Antoine Chretien , Martin Lachance, Improving accessibility to statistical graphs: the iGraph-Lite system, Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility, October 15-17, 2007, Tempe, Arizona, USA
|
|