China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Technology for sensory impairments (vision and hearing)
Published in Alex Mihailidis, Roger Smith, Rehabilitation Engineering, 2023
J. A. Brabyn, H. Levitt, J.A. Miele
Modern computer operating systems come with a number of screen magnification options built in. More powerful screen magnification packages are available such as Zoom Text, which can provide high magnification and more complete functionality with different software applications. An often-ignored option for low-vision computer access is simply to use a larger monitor.
Accessibility Design Issues beyond the Standards of Government e-Services for People with Low Vision
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2023
Aritz Sala, Myriam Arrue, J. Eduardo Pérez, Sandra M. Espín-Tello, Lourdes Moreno
The same computer was utilized in all sessions: a Dell Precision M6700 laptop with these characteristics: intel core i7-3740M 2.70Gh processor with 8 RAM and 512GB of disk storage. The operating system was 64 bits version of Windows 7 Enterprise. A virtual machine of Windows 7 Enterprise was specifically created for the experimental sessions to ensure consistency between experimental sessions and the correct running of the assistive technology required by each participant. It included Mozilla Firefox 44.0.1, ZoomText 2019, Jaws 2019, and Windows Magnifier. The virtual machine was played by VMPlayer version 15.0.2. An additional widescreen LCD monitor (aspect ratio 16:10) with a diagonal size of 24 inches and a display resolution set to 1920 × 1200 pixels was used to present stimuli to participants.
Perceived importance and difficulty of online activities among visually impaired persons in Nigeria
Published in Assistive Technology, 2020
Patrick Emeka Okonji, Olatokunbo Christopher Okiki, Darlington Ogwezzy
Participants in this study were all visually impaired, aged between 20 and 85, and recruited from low-vision clinics within 16 eye clinics with low-vision services and Braille centers for people with low vision in Lagos and Delta states, Nigeria. All participants confirmed using screen readers (Dolphine-Supernova, ZoomText, and JAWS). Inclusion criteria ensured that participants had a minimum of 2 years’ computer use experience and that participants had experience engaging in a majority of internet activities listed, namely online banking, online shopping, paying bills online, online forums/social network sites (SNS), playing games or lottery online, instant messaging, health information seeking, checking the weather, listening to music online, web surfing for fun, and sending or receiving emails. Only visually impaired individuals with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/36 (i.e., 20/120) who used screen readers were invited to participate in the study. In this study, the original intention of the authors was to have a normal-sighted control group in order to compare accessibility of internet activities between BVI persons and their sighted peers. However, bearing in mind that, with respect to internet access, BVI individuals are not on equal playing field as their sighted counterparts, the authors considered that such comparison would not be fair.
Inclusive Web Empirical Studies in Remote and In-Situ Settings: A User Evaluation of the RemoTest Platform
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2019
Myriam Arrue, Xabier Valencia, J. Eduardo Pérez, Lourdes Moreno, Julio Abascal
Participants were encouraged to use their own laptop and assistive technology whenever possible. The objective was to evaluate the RemoTest on different platforms and settings adapted to the participants. However, a desktop PC or laptop was configured for the sessions in Elkartu, LabUC3M and LabEHU. The desktop PC in Elkartu and the laptop in LabUC3M run Microsoft Windows 7 and Mozilla Firefox 25.0. The desktop PC in Elkartu was utilized by seven participants with their own assistive technology (joystick, head pointer, etc.), the other two participants (P3, P7) used their own laptop with the same configuration (Microsoft Windows 7 and Mozilla Firefox 25.0). The laptop in LabUC3M was utilized in 5 sessions in which a ZoomText magnifier and a JAWS 15 screen reader were also installed. The other three participants (P12, P13 and P17) used their own laptop with different configurations: Microsoft Windows XP and Mozilla Firefox 25 (P12), Windows Vista and Mozilla Firefox 25 (P13) and Microsoft Windows 7 and Mozilla Firefox 9.0.1 (P17). The desktop PC in LabEHU runs Microsoft Windows XP and Mozilla Firefox 22.0. All participants except for P27 and P28 used it. The laptops of these participants did not differ on the Mozilla Firefox version from the one installed in the PC but the laptop of P28 ran Microsoft Windows 7. Participant P29 used his own trackball to interact with the PC. Different configurations were found in Servimedia as the experimental sessions were conducted in the participant workplace. All computers run Microsoft Windows XP but differ in the version of Mozilla Firefox (we found 8.0.1, 19.0, 21.0, 23.0, 25.0 and 26.0 versions). Two of the participants conducting the session at home (P30, P31) had the same configuration: Microsoft Windows 7 and Mozilla Firefox 22.0. Finally, participant P4 used his own desktop PC running Microsoft Windows 7 and Mozilla Firefox 25.0.