Event Summary

Focus groups

Three focus groups were held. Here is the report from each group:

(Lore Thaler) What kind of systemic support from governments, healthcare providers, schools and other organizations, is needed for a device or technique to be taken up by users?

• Standards for provision of device/technique/training are needed and they need to be continually revised and users have to be involved in this process
• A platform is needed to develop and maintain standards
• Registration for potential users should be mandatory, incl. an information meeting, so that potential users know what is being offered and they are provided with options. People can opt out at any time they wish and they would be removed from register
• Provision of device/technique/training needs to be implemented as a pathway, i.e. it needs to be person oriented rather than service oriented. For example, due to split into child and adult services, people (as they get older and move from one to other) get lost in the cracks with loss of provision; split into education and social services may create difficulties, for example when it comes to question who should pay for what, with resulting lack of provision/delays for users
• No gate keeping, services provided should be mandatory, i.e. the person who provides the device/technique/training should also be the one to assess needs
• Consolidated approach, i.e. currently things are fragmented into charities, local authorities etc. it would be better to have unified provision

(Liam Norman) The focus of my focus group was to discuss what “deal-breakers” exist for using a device that is designed to enhance perception. Below is a summary of the main points raised:

• The device should be fairly priced and, most importantly, have high value. Users would like to see a high return for expensive devices and, if they do invest in a device, they would like the device to maintain its value. For example, users complained that some devices (e.g. apps or physical tools) that initially cost quite a lot can quickly end up being given away for free after a short time.
• The device should be easy to use and completely usable for a person with visual impairment. This includes any setup that is required, and also any troubleshooting or basic maintenance (e.g. battery replacing). The device should use an interface that is optimised for use by someone with visual impairment – e.g. tactile buttons and auditory feedback. If something does go wrong with the device, then users also expect any tech support to be VI aware. Users would also like a guarantee before purchasing that states that if any part of the device is not Vi friendly, then they should get their money back.
• Users would like to have assurance that the device has actually been “road-tested” by VI people.
• The use of the device should not cause any significant interference with intact senses. People raised the example of Microsoft Soundscape, which is primarily designed to be used with earphones. This causes issues when using hearing for normal sensory purposes.
• Any device that is intended to be worn should be discrete and lightweight. Users were not prepared to wear something on their face, and would prefer to wear something around their neck or attached to their lapel.
• The device should be physically sturdy (e.g. survive being dropped or knocked)

(Marko Nardini) What are the major challenges for people with sensory impairments in daily life that a technique or approach to enhancing human perception – things like human echolocation or wearable devices – could try to address?

• Important prospects for using technology as a training or habilitation tool. For example, virtualising a hazardous situation such as road-crossing in order to practice it.
• Using technology to provide an self-paced online course for people who are losing sight, with interactive elements. Making it reliable, fool-proof, and able to meet needs. Some investment needed for development but a very fundable idea. Some participants are developing this further.
• Challenge: object recognition. Real-time AI analysis could provide new capabilities, but there are drawbacks to narrating the scene for the user (“mediated perception”) – advantages to finding interfaces or strategies that engage their own perceptual systems
• Should not forget about “low-tech” solutions – e.g. a castanet to generate echoes is cheap, robust, and avoids drawbacks such as crashing or limited battery-life.
• Challenge: reading. Devices need to be fully reliable and adaptable to the user – e.g. current screen readers which work only with some software, and crash periodically needing to be reset by a sighted users, are not fit for purpose. The iPad is noted as a well-designed system that is accessible throughout.
• Challenge: real-world mobility and navigation. Limitations of current technology with location tracking – for example, navigation via the “soundscape” app is limited by devices’ GPS and compass accuracy. Apps to track location on a bus route can lag in signalling the correct location. These basic limitations prevent such devices or approaches from feeling reliable enough.

Talk Slides

Photos