2 research outputs found
The Emerging Professional Practice of Remote Sighted Assistance for People with Visual Impairments
People with visual impairments (PVI) must interact with a world they cannot see. Remote sighted assistance (RSA) has emerged as a conversational assistive technology. We interviewed RSA assistants ( agents ) who provide assistance to PVI via a conversational prosthetic called Aira (https://aira.io/) to understand their professional practice. We identified four types of support provided: scene description, navigation, task performance, and social engagement. We discovered that RSA provides an opportunity for PVI to appropriate the system as a richer conversational/social support tool. We studied and identified patterns in how agents provide assistance and how they interact with PVI as well as the challenges and strategies associated with each context. We found that conversational interaction is highly context-dependent. We also discuss implications for design
Comparing performance on the MNREAD iPad application with the MNREAD acuity chart
International audienceOur purpose was to compare reading performance measured with the MNREAD Acuity Chart and an iPad application (app) version of the same test for both normally sighted and low-vision participants. Our methods included 165 participants with normal vision and 43 participants with low vision tested on the standard printed MNREAD and on the iPad app version of the test. Maximum Reading Speed, Critical Print Size, Reading Acuity, and Reading Accessibility Index were compared using linear mixed-effects models to identify any potential differences in test performance between the printed chart and the iPad app. Our results showed the following: For normal vision, chart and iPad yield similar estimates of Critical Print Size and Reading Acuity. The iPad provides significantly slower estimates of Maximum Reading Speed than the chart, with a greater difference for faster readers. The difference was on average 3% at 100 words per minute (wpm), 6% at 150 wpm, 9% at 200 wpm, and 12% at 250 wpm. For low vision, Maximum Reading Speed, Reading Accessibility Index, and Critical Print Size are equivalent on the iPad and chart. Only the Reading Acuity is significantly smaller (I. E., better) when measured on the digital version of the test, but by only 0.03 logMAR (p ¼ 0.013). Our conclusions were that, overall, MNREAD parameters measured with the printed chart and the iPad app are very similar. The difference found in Maximum Reading Speed for the normally sighted participants can be explained by differences in the method for timing the reading trials