Content uploaded by Christopher Yee Wong
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christopher Yee Wong on Feb 04, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Perspectives on Robotic Systems for the Visually Impaired
Christopher Yee Wong
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
christopher.wong3@mcgill.ca
Rahatul Amin Ananto
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
rahatul.ananto@mail.mcgill.ca
Tanaka Akiyama
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
tanaka.akiyama@mail.mcgill.ca
Joseph Paul Nemargut
Université de Montreal
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
joe.nemargut@umontreal.ca
AJung Moon
McGill University
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
ajung.moon@mcgill.ca
ABSTRACT
Many roboticists hope to build robots and develop technologies that
would one day help vulnerable populations to improve their quality
of life. As there are over 2.2 billion people with visual impairments
in the world, this vulnerable population is a prime target for robotic
assistants to help. In a discussion with a Certied Orientation and
Mobility Specialist, someone who helps individuals with visual
impairments navigate and perform daily tasks eectively, some
interesting and counter-intuitive questions were raised about tech-
nological developments, particularly robots. While these devices
were meant to help the blind and visually impaired (
BVI
) popula-
tion, many are, in reality, not practically benecial. In this article,
we highlight certain misconceptions about the
BVI
population and
their needs. We emphasize the mismatch between robotics research
and the needs of the individuals with visual impairments, especially
from the lens of human-robot interaction (HRI) researchers.
CCS CONCEPTS
•Human-centered computing
→
Accessibility design and
evaluation methods.
KEYWORDS
assistive robots, accessibility, design, human-robot interactions
ACM Reference Format:
Christopher Yee Wong, Rahatul Amin Ananto, Tanaka Akiyama, Joseph
Paul Nemargut, and AJung Moon. 2024. Perspectives on Robotic Systems
for the Visually Impaired. In Companion of the 2024 ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’24 Companion), March 11–14,
2024, Boulder, CO, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5 pages. https://doi.org/
10.1145/3610978.3640698
1 INTRODUCTION
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), over 2.2 billion
people in the world have vision impairment or blindness [
27
,
28
].
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for prot or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the rst page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the
author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specic permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
HRI ’24 Companion, March 11–14, 2024, Boulder, CO, USA
©2024 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0323-2/24/03.. .$15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3610978.3640698
Figure 1: A robotic shopping assistant oers multiple modal-
ities of navigation assistance to a visually impaired person
after initiating the interaction with the robot.
This number is projected to double by 2050 across countries as
individuals continue to age [
24
]. As roboticists, we envisioned de-
signing service robots that assist people with mobility or visual
impairments. For example, robotic shopping assistants could helo
retrieve items out of reach for a person in a wheelchair or guide
people with visual impairments to the desired shelves (Figure 1).
Our collaboration with a Certied Orientation and Mobility Spe-
cialist (author Joseph Nemargut, who specializes in rehabilitation
and training to promote safe and independent lifestyles for peo-
ple with visual impairments) revealed counter-intuitive facts and
mismatches between the actual needs and desires of the blind and
visually impaired (
BVI
) user group and the way in which roboticists
aim to serve them. In particular, we discover problematic automa-
tion trends that create an even more hostile physical environment
for people with visual impairments. We aim to contribute to the
on-going eorts by the human-robot interaction (
HRI
) community
towards inclusive
HRI
[
7
,
23
], and bring insights from existing
assistive technology communities.
We begin by describing the key ndings from two recent fo-
cus groups conducted with people with visual impairments across
Canada (Sec. 2). Our objective is to outline some misconceptions
about the
BVI
population that we roboticists seem to share and
illustrate them with existing trends in assistive and service robots
(Sec. 3 and 4). Finally, we provide some comments on accessibility
best practices for future assistive robotics research (Sec. 5).
2 FOCUS GROUP WITH THE BLIND AND
VISUALLY IMPAIRED POPULATION
In 2023, the laboratory of Dr. Nemargut conducted two focus groups
online (via Zoom) with English and French-speaking adults living
HRI ’24 Companion, March 11–14, 2024, Boulder, CO, USA Christopher Yee Wong, Rahatul Amin Ananto, Tanaka Akiyama, Joseph Paul Nemargut, and AJung Moon
Figure 2: a) Barriers and B) facilitators to a success-
ful/pleasant experience in the pre-dened scenarios iden-
tied during the two focus groups.
Table 1: Focus group (FG) demographics.
Demographic FG1 (French) FG2 (English)
Mean age / sample size
54 ±5(𝑛=11)54 ±8(𝑛=9)
Residence
Urban/suburban
areas in Quebec
Diverse urban
areas in Canada
Vision Classication
Low vision* 1 1
Legally blind†4 2
Functionally blind‡1 3
Light perception 3 0
Total blindness 2 3
* Low vision but not legally blind
†Can use visual aids for reading
‡No possibility to use visual aids for reading, but more
perceptive ability than the light perception category
with low vision and blindness across Canada (age range: 22-75,
𝑛=
20). The aim was to explore barriers and facilitators for daily
activities like going to a coee shop, shopping at a big box store, go-
ing to a party, and taking the bus. Thematic analysis of transcribed
responses resulted in a comprehensive list. The participants were
then asked to rank the obstacles that made it most dicult for them
to complete the task and those that facilitated the task (Figure 2).
The most important obstacles mentioned were: inaccessible signage,
problems nding a precise location, unhelpful interactions with
people, and problems walking around inside. Conversely, the most
important facilitators were: helpful interactions with people, plan-
ning for the task prior to execution (e.g., determining the layout of
a store before visiting [25]), and accessible signage.
Interestingly, the use of technologies, such as smartphone apps,
GPS, or computer vision was ranked very low in the level of im-
portance for these individuals, although they were mentioned in
some scenarios. This surprising result forces us to reect on how
the robotics community should approach the design of interactive
robots to (a) directly address the needs of the
BVI
individuals, and
(b) facilitate everyday activities of the individuals through helpful
interactions.
These results are echoed in another study from the laboratory
of Dr. Nemargut where people with visual impairments around the
world (
𝑛=
139) were asked about their use of smartphone applica-
tions for navigation [
15
]. Interestingly, the study found that very
few individuals with visual impairments used an application for ob-
stacle detection (12%) and for street crossing (18%); the principal rea-
son mentioned was that traditional mobility aids respond adequately
to their needs. On the other hand, 76% of respondents used mobile
applications for visual interpretation (e.g., locating/identifying spe-
cic objects or reading environmental text), which seem to respond
more robustly to specic navigation needs, such as reading signage.
Additionally, many respondents use applications designed for the
general public, such as Google Maps, to respond to their needs
rather than specialized applications, provided that they are acces-
sible to people with visual impairments. This detail points to the
need for accessibility considerations for all technology rather than
the need to develop specialized solutions for dierent populations.
3 MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT VISUAL
IMPAIRMENTS AND THEIR NEEDS
While we often and mistakenly equate visual impairments to mean
total blindness, the actual number of individuals with complete
blindness is only a small fraction of a much larger population of
BVI
individuals. The most common forms of vision impairment
or blindness are refractive errors, cataract, diabetic retinopathy,
glaucoma and age-related degeneration. Although these individuals
have an increased risk of falls [
2
,
17
], social isolation [
6
], and an
overall decrease in their quality of life [
13
], the vast majority of
people with blindness have functional vision to a certain degree.
The tools and technology currently available already allow them
to successfully navigate most areas of life, although certain key
obstacles still exist. If we are to build robotic systems that can better
facilitate the activities of daily living for this population, we must
understand the diversity of visual impairments and correct the
misconceptions that aect our design decisions. Here, we articulate
three main misconceptions about BVI individuals and their needs.
3.1 Misunderstanding visual impairments as
mobility impairments
Assistive robotics for the
BVI
population often fail to capture the nu-
anced ways in which individuals with visual impairments navigate
their surroundings. Many who meet the legal criteria for blindness
still possess enough functional vision to accomplish daily mobility
tasks. In the US and Canada, blindness is dened by a visual acuity
of 6/60 (20/200) or worse (i.e., these individuals need to be less than
6 meters to read something that a person with perfect vision can
read from 60 meters away) and a limitation in the eld of vision no
greater than 20 degrees in the better eye with optical correction.
This denition simply correlates to the ability of the individual
to read without magnication and detect things in the periphery
but do not provide much insight into their ability to move in their
environment. Since a high level of detail is not always necessary
Perspectives on Robotic Systems for the Visually Impaired HRI ’24 Companion, March 11–14, 2024, Boulder, CO, USA
for mobility tasks, the vast majority of legally blind individuals are
still fully capable of using their vision to move around and avoid
obstacles. For instance, someone with a reduced visual acuity may
not be able to read the price of an item, but can avoid bumping into
others when walking through aisles. On the other hand, someone
with reduced visual elds may have trouble nding a specic store
in a busy mall, but can easily read the signage in front of them.
Despite this ability, many technological solutions designed for
the
BVI
population focus on navigation and mobility challenges,
especially that of obstacle avoidance; a challenge experienced by
only a subset of the
BVI
population. Some examples include robotic
guide dogs that utilize sensors and AI, which has been explored as
an alternative to traditional guide dogs [4, 8, 12, 26].
Misunderstanding visual impairments as mobility impairments
leads us to over-emphasize using robots to solve navigation and
mobility challenges. While obstacle avoidance is important, equal
attention should be devoted to addressing other challenges that
facilitate
BVI
individuals to navigate independently, such as read-
ing signs and locating specic places as highlighted by the focus
groups in Sec. 2. Understanding the nature and diverse types of
visual impairments (e.g., someone with a low visual acuity has
dierent needs from those with a limited eld of vision) is a rst
step toward considering the diverse preferences and successful
adaptation strategies within the low vision population. This can
subsequently help avoid seemingly one-size-ts-all solutions that,
in reality, do not benet the majority BVI individuals.
3.2 Supporting rather than replacing existing
solutions
Many people with visual impairments, especially those who are not
born blind, undergo visual rehabilitation that teaches them how to
navigate their environment using traditional aids (e.g., the white
cane). With the advancement of sensors and actuators, it may be
tempting to envision new systems that replace these aids. However,
not understanding the functionality of existing solutions can lead
us to develop systems that may risk user safety. For example, the
low-cost white cane is meant to collide with obstacles to provide
tactile feedback so that the BVI individual themselves do not collide
with the obstacle. However, electronic canes have been around since
the 1960s [
18
]. These systems are sometimes designed to replace
the traditional tactile experience crucial for navigation with novel
haptic or audio cues that are dicult to interpret, which may en-
danger users, especially when no rehabilitation service is provided.
More modern smart canes may be equipped with features such
as range notication [
19
], obstacle avoidance feedback [
20
], and
even facial recognition [
10
]. However, long-time white cane users
may be reluctant to adopt technologically advanced alternatives
as their current solution suciently fullls their needs. Due to the
technology learning curve [
22
] and the substantial costs associated
with advanced white canes, we must question the need to reinvent
a tool that already serves its purpose eectively.
As the results of the study in Sec. 2 indicate,
BVI
individuals al-
ready use their own means to adequately perform most activities of
daily living, such as navigation [
15
]. This demands a more thought-
ful and inclusive design philosophy that respects and builds upon
the user’s existing skills. This is aligned with the recommended best
practice to consider and support the existing workow of visually
impaired users in the design of technologies [
22
]. In essence, the
approach to assistive technology should be about empowerment
and collaboration with the user’s established methods.
3.3 Assumption of perpetual need for help
Like most people, individuals with visual impairments sometimes
want help but not always. The feeling of being treated as some-
one in constant need of help can lead to infantilization and self-
stigmatization [
1
]. Being able to accomplish tasks on their own
reinforces an individual’s sense of independence and autonomy.
Assistance that constantly hinders or ignores these eorts (e.g.,
people attempting to ‘x’ the disability) are often not appreciated.
As a community that wishes to help others through robotics, we
should be aware of such eects and design interactions and devices
that minimize infantilization. For example, how interactions are
initiated will aect what emotions are elicited. A robotic shopping
assistant that automatically follows a customer may not be as appre-
ciated as one that waits for the customer to initiate the interaction.
Even for customer-initiated interactions, robot personality also
plays a major factor on what the user feels [16].
Another form of unwelcome and overly helpful behaviour in-
volves mistaking functional assistance with cognitive assistance.
For instance, people sometimes provide excessive assistance or in-
fantilize, simply because the other party has a disability. However,
visual impairment is not equivalent to cognitive impairment. In
fact, the listening rate for
BVI
individuals is signicantly faster (334
WPM) than sighted individuals (297 WPM) as they consume spoken
information at a faster rate [
3
]. Treating
BVI
individuals as though
they have other impairments is frustrating and discouraging.
4 (IN)ACCESSIBILITY OF CURRENT
TECHNOLOGICAL TRENDS
In addition to the misconceptions, there are design trends that make
advanced technologies particularly inaccessible. Among many, we
discuss two examples to highlight how communication modalities
can be more inclusive.
Touchscreens are increasingly being used on robotic assistive
devices as an interaction modality for their exibility and ease of
implementation. Unfortunately, interacting with touchscreens is
generally challenging for the
BVI
population as a result of the lack
of tactile feedback that they usually receive from physical buttons.
Another issue with touchscreens is that glare may make it dicult
or impossible for the user with low vision to operate the device
even with magnication. Haptic or vocal conrmation is necessary
for products that are made with inclusive design methodologies
in consideration. If a touchscreen must be used, it is important
so that they also include accessibility features, similar to those on
smartphones, like increasing font size or contrast, or providing
haptic or audio feedback. On the other hand, successful products
that are specically designed for the
BVI
population [
9
], although
incredibly useful, may be stigmatizing since they are specically
marketed to people with visual impairments.
While the use of buttons is an excellent way to provide haptic in-
teractions, the button layout also plays an important role in making
interactions accessible. Buttons that are hidden for the aesthetics
HRI ’24 Companion, March 11–14, 2024, Boulder, CO, USA Christopher Yee Wong, Rahatul Amin Ananto, Tanaka Akiyama, Joseph Paul Nemargut, and AJung Moon
purposes or placed in unconventional locations may be problematic
as people generally prefer familiarity. For instance, while turning
on a computer, we expect the power button to be in the front. If
for some reason it is hidden on the sides, it may give a sense of
annoyance as people have to spend time looking for it. This thought
process applies similarly to robots, where buttons should be located
in intuitive locations and easily identiable.
5 TOWARD BEST PRACTICES
Going back to the fact that “helpful interactions with people" was
found to be the most important facilitator for
BVI
individuals, we
must reect on the question: “What would a helpful interaction
with a robot resemble?" To date, we have yet to come across a
comprehensive guide for interactive robot designs that addresses
this question. In its absence, and as we look to develop interactive
robotic systems for the
BVI
users, it will be important to apply
existing design principles and best practices from the assistive
technologies community.
5.1 Universal Design
The accessibility technology community is familiar with inclusive
design and universal design principles. Inclusive design aims to
engage and include people with diverse perspectives, backgrounds,
and needs, and often welcomes dierent solutions to address dif-
ferent needs of individuals [
21
]. As robotic devices are expensive
technologies with typically hard-to-modify hardware, we advocate
for using the universal design philosophy. In contrast to inclusive
design, universal design principles aim to create products, envi-
ronments, and systems that are accessible and usable by people
of all abilities and disabilities, without the need for adaptation or
specialized design. They encourage singular design solutions to a
given problem that serve the needs of the broadest set of users. For
example, one of the guidelines for universal design from [
5
] states:
1a. Provide the same means of use for all users: identical
whenever possible; equivalent when not.
Bone conduction headphones are a great example of univer-
sal design that is welcomed by many
BVI
individuals. Although
mostly marketed for listening to music while maintaining situa-
tional awareness when engaging in outdoor athletic activities, the
headphones allow
BVI
individuals to hear audio prompts from their
phones, other technologies, and the environment without disturb-
ing people around them and without blocking their sense of hearing
as traditional headphones would. Moreover, bone conduction head-
phones are a prime example of technology that supports existing
mobility aids like white canes without aiming to replace them.
Robotic vacuum cleaners are one robotics example of universal
design at work. Many
BVI
individuals vacuum their homes using
robotic vacuum cleaners, in part because many guide dog owners
have frequent need to vacuum, and also the robots allow them
to automate tasks that would otherwise be dicult for them to
perform. However, maintenance of the robot (e.g., removing long
strands of hair caught in the wheels) is still nontrivial for
BVI
users.
Applying universal design principles in the maintenance workow
of the users could signicantly enhance accessibility and ease for all
users, minimizing the need for precision and reducing the learning
curve associated with these tasks.
5.2 Additional Notes
In addition,
HRI
practitioners should increase eorts to engage tar-
get user groups early in the design process while following existing
guides and best practices. Kim [
11
] provides a helpful guide on how
to conduct participatory design involving
BVI
individuals. While
this point is obvious, rehabilitation specialists for visual impair-
ments can be a valuable asset as they carry a wealth of information
on
BVI
individuals’ diverse needs, and how the individuals learn
to adapt new technologies to their environment and workows.
For instance, Limprayoon et al. involved Orientation and Mobility
Specialists in the design of mobile robot trajectories in order to
determine whether dierent robot approach behaviours are more
socially appropriate and safe for the visually impaired population
than others [
14
]. This type of involvement allows vision specialists
to provide feedback based on their expertise, prior to burdening
BVI individuals with potentially unsafe interactions.
In conducting research, it is also important to note that
BVI
in-
dividuals who volunteer to participate in user studies may not be
an accurate representation of the heterogeneous
BVI
population.
Not only is it dicult to recruit participants from across the many
types and degrees of visual impairments, but those who volunteer
may also hold a much more positive view of technologies. Siu [
22
]
presents a helpful list of recommendations on recruitment and anal-
ysis of
BVI
participant data, including considerations for research
methodologies that necessarily involve smaller sample sizes than
we are used to seeing in controlled user studies. Rehabilitation
specialists can also be helpful here to provide a balanced view of
the broad range of
BVI
individuals, point out non-generalizable
ndings, and how new technologies can complement existing tools.
For example, it is from our conversation with a vision rehabilitation
specialist that we were able to debunk our own misconceptions
prior to developing interactive robotic solutions.
6 CONCLUSION
In this work, we sought to highlight key misconceptions about
BVI
individuals that may be shared by
HRI
practitioners. Ultimately,
robotic assistants have much potential to improve the quality of
life of the
BVI
population. To unlock that potential, the HRI com-
munity needs to be more cognizant of the heterogeneity of
BVI
users. Rather than equating visual impairments as mobility chal-
lenges, universal design principles should be used in the design of
robot behaviours, interaction modality, and user interfaces. This
inclusivity will increase the multitude of ways in which robots
facilitate activities of daily living for BVI individuals. The amount
of time and resources we saved by uncovering misconceptions and
inaccessibility trends with a vision rehabilitation specialist cannot
be understated. By sharing the results of our collaboration, we in-
vite the
HRI
community to challenge their own misconceptions
about
BVI
individuals and adopt the mindset of inclusivity in our
everyday design and research practice.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work is funded by the National Science and Engineering
Research Council of Canada, Quebec Ministère de l’Économie,
de l’Innovation et de l’Énergie, Mitacs Accelerate, and VMWare
Canada, Inc.
Perspectives on Robotic Systems for the Visually Impaired HRI ’24 Companion, March 11–14, 2024, Boulder, CO, USA
REFERENCES
[1]
Maayan Agmon, Amalia Sa’ar, and Tal Araten-Bergman. 2016. The person in
the disabled body: a perspective on culture and personhood from the margins.
International Journal for Equity in Health 15, 1 (Sept. 2016), 147. https://doi.org/
10.1186/s12939-016- 0437-2
[2]
Rebecca Q. Ivers BOptom, Robert G. Cumming, Paul Mitchell, and Karin Attebo.
1998. Visual Impairment and Falls in Older Adults: The Blue Mountains Eye
Study. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 46, 1 (Jan. 1998), 58–64. https:
//doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1998.tb01014.x
[3]
Danielle Bragg, Cynthia Bennett, Katharina Reinecke, and Richard Ladner. 2018.
A Large Inclusive Study of Human Listening Rates. In Proceedings of the 2018
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3173574.3174018
[4]
Diego Renan Bruno, Marcelo Henrique de Assis, and Fernando Santos Osório.
2019. Development of a Mobile Robot: Robotic Guide Dog for Aid of Visual
Disabilities in Urban Environments. In 2019 Latin American Robotics Symposium
(LARS), 2019 Brazilian Symposium on Robotics (SBR) and 2019 Workshop on Robotics
in Education (WRE). 104–108. https://doi.org/10.1109/LARS-SBR-WRE48964.
2019.00026 ISSN: 2643-685X.
[5]
Bettye Rose Connell, Mike Jones, Ron Mace, Jim Mueller, Abir Mullick, Elaine
Ostro, Jon Sanford, Ed Steinfeld, Molly Story, and Gregg Vanderheiden. 1997.
The Principles of Universal Design. https://design.ncsu.edu/research/center-
for-universal- design/
[6]
Caitlin E. Coyle, Bernard A. Steinman, and Jie Chen. 2017. Visual Acuity and
Self-Reported Vision Status: Their Associations With Social Isolation in Older
Adults. Journal of Aging and Health 29, 1 (Feb. 2017), 128–148. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0898264315624909
[7]
Maartje M. A. de Graaf, Giulia Perugia, Eduard Fosch-Villaronga, Angelica Lim,
Frank Broz, Elaine Schaertl Short, and Mark Neerincx. 2022. Inclusive HRI: Equity
and Diversity in Design, Application, Methods, and Community. In 2022 17th
ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI). 1247–1249.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HRI53351.2022.9889455
[8]
João Guerreiro, Daisuke Sato, Saki Asakawa, Huixu Dong, Kris M. Kitani, and
Chieko Asakawa. 2019. CaBot: Designing and Evaluating an Autonomous Nav-
igation Robot for Blind People. In Proceedings of the 21st International ACM
SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’19). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3308561.3353771
[9]
Humanware. 2023. Low vision & blindness solutions. https://www.humanware.
com/
[10]
Yongsik Jin, Jonghong Kim, Bumhwi Kim, Rammohan Mallipeddi, and Minho Lee.
2015. Smart Cane: Face Recognition System for Blind. In Proceedings of the 3rd
International Conference on Human-Agent Interaction. ACM, Daegu Kyungpook
Republic of Korea, 145–148. https://doi.org/10.1145/2814940.2814952
[11]
Hyung Nam Kim. 2021. Guidance for Best Practices in Participatory Design
Involving People with Visual Impairment. Ergonomics in Design (Dec. 2021),
10648046211058248. https://doi.org/10.1177/10648046211058248 Publisher: SAGE
Publications Inc.
[12]
Masaki Kuribayashi, Tatsuya Ishihara, Daisuke Sato, Jayakorn Vongkulbhisal,
Karnik Ram, Seita Kayukawa, Hironobu Takagi, Shigeo Morishima, and Chieko
Asakawa. 2023. PathFinder: Designing a Map-less Navigation System for Blind
People in Unfamiliar Buildings. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–16. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580687
[13]
Maaike Langelaan, Michiel R. De Boer, Ruth M. A. Van Nispen, Bill Wouters,
Annette C. Moll, and Ger H. M. B. Van Rens. 2007. Impact of Visual Impairment
on Quality of Life: A Comparison With Quality of Life in the General Population
and With Other Chronic Conditions. Ophthalmic Epidemiology 14, 3 (Jan. 2007),
119–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/09286580601139212
[14]
Jirachaya "Fern" Limprayoon, Prithu Pareek, Xiang Zhi Tan, and Aaron Steinfeld.
2021. Robot Trajectories When Approaching a User with a Visual Impairment. In
Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers
and Accessibility (ASSETS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1145/3441852.3476538
[15]
Natalina Martiniello, Maxime Bleau, Nathalie Gingras-Royer, Catherine Tardif-
Bernier, and Joseph Paul Nemargut. 2023. Exploring the role of articial intelligence
and inclusive technologies during navigation-based tasks for individuals who are
blind or who have low vision: Future directions and priorities. preprint. In Review.
https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3715501/v1
[16]
Yi Mou, Changqian Shi, Tianyu Shen, and Kun Xu. 2020. A Systematic Review of
the Personality of Robot: Mapping Its Conceptualization, Operationalization, Con-
textualization and Eects. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction
36, 6 (April 2020), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1663008
[17]
Rebecca J. Reed-Jones, Guillermina R. Solis, Katherine A. Lawson, Amanda M.
Loya, Donna Cude-Islas, and Candyce S. Berger. 2013. Vision and falls: A multi-
disciplinary review of the contributions of visual impairment to falls among older
adults. Maturitas 75, 1 (May 2013), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.
2013.01.019
[18]
Uta R. Roentgen, Gert Jan Gelderblom, Mathijs Soede, and Luc P. De Witte. 2008.
Inventory of Electronic Mobility Aids for Persons with Visual Impairments: A
Literature Review. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness 102, 11 (Nov. 2008),
702–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X0810201105
[19]
M.F. Saaid, A.M. Mohammad, and M.S.A. Megat Ali. 2016. Smart cane with
range notication for blind people. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on
Automatic Control and Intelligent Systems (I2CACIS). IEEE, Selangor, 225–229.
https://doi.org/10.1109/I2CACIS.2016.7885319
[20]
Tushar Sharma, Tarun Nalwa, Tanupriya Choudhury, Suresh Chand Satapathy,
and Praveen Kumar. 2017. Smart Cane: Better Walking Experience for Blind
People. In 2017 3rd International Conference on Computational Intelligence and
Networks (CINE). IEEE, Odisha, 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/CINE.2017.22
[21]
Albert Shum, Kat Holmes, Kris Woolery, Margaret Price, Doug Kim, Elena Dvork-
ina, Derek Dietrich-Muller, Nathan Kile, Sarah Morris, Joyce Chou, and Sogol
Malekzadeh. 2016. Inclusive 101 Guidebook. Technical Report. Microsoft. https:
//inclusive.microsoft.design/tools-and-activities/Inclusive101Guidebook.pdf
[22]
Yue-Ting Siu. 2019. Foundations and recommendations for research in access
technology. In The Routledge Handbook of Visual Impairment. Routledge. Num
Pages: 15.
[23]
Ana Tanevska, Shruti Chandra, Giulia Barbareschi, Amy Eguchi, Zhao Han,
Raj Korpan, Anastasia K. Ostrowski, Giulia Perugia, Sindhu Ravindranath, Katie
Seaborn, and Katie Winkle. 2023. Inclusive HRI II: Equity and Diversity in Design,
Application, Methods, and Community. In Companion of the 2023 ACM/IEEE
International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI ’23). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 956–958. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3568294.3579965
[24]
Rohit Varma, Thasarat S. Vajaranant, Bruce Burkemper, Shuang Wu, Mina Torres,
Chunyi Hsu, Farzana Choudhury, and Roberta McKean-Cowdin. 2016. Visual
Impairment and Blindness in Adults in the United States: Demographic and
Geographic Variations From 2015 to 2050. JAMA Ophthalmology 134, 7 (July
2016), 802. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2016.1284
[25]
Xiyue Wang, Seita Kayukawa, Hironobu Takagi, and Chieko Asakawa. 2022.
BentoMuseum: 3D and Layered Interactive Museum Map for Blind Visitors. In
Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers
and Accessibility (ASSETS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3517428.3544811
[26]
Yuanlong Wei and Mincheol Lee. 2014. A guide-dog robot system research for the
visually impaired. In 2014 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology
(ICIT). 800–805. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT.2014.6894906
[27]
World Health Organization (WHO). 2023. Blindness and vision impairment. Fact
sheet. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-
impairment
[28]
World Health Organization. 2019. World report on vision. World Health Organi-
zation, Geneva. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/328717
