Handling sensory disabilities in a smart society

Abstract

Billions of people live with visual and/or hearing impairments. Regrettably, their access to systems remains delayed, leaving them socially excluded. The need for universal access of next-generation systems and users’ inclusion is paramount. We pose that a smart society should respond to this crucial need. Following ability-based design principles, we introduce a simulated social robot that adapts to users’ sensory abilities. Its working was assessed via a Rock–Paper–Scissors game in an Intelligent Environment (IE), using three modes: where the user is able to see and hear, only see, or only hear. With this game, two user-studies were conducted using the UMUX-LITE usability score, an expectation rating, and the gap between experience and expectation, complemented with two open questions. A repeated measures Multivariate ANalysis Of VAriance (MANOVA) on the data from study 1 unveiled an overall difference between the three modes, F ( 6 , 6 ) = 6.823, η p 2 = .872, p = .017. Users expected applications to be harder to use with a disability, especially a visual impairment. All modes were considered accessible, with the experience exceeding expectations for the mode with a hearing impairment. In parallel, substantial variance was observed across participants and the results from the open questions suggested improvements. To reduce this variance and increase system stability, study 2 was run with an enhanced design. A repeated measures MANOVA on the data from study 2 confirmed study 1’s findings, F ( 6 , 6 ) = 12.801, η p 2 = .928, p = .003. Moreover, experiences exceeded expectations in all modes and the variance among participants was substantially decreased. We conclude that IE applications managed by a social robot can be adapted to user’s sensory abilities, improving smart society’s accessibility, and, hence, reducing social exclusion.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.