skip to main content
research-article

Up to a Limit?: Privacy Concerns of Bystanders and Their Willingness to Share Additional Information with Visually Impaired Users of Assistive Technologies

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 September 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The emergence of augmented reality and computer vision based tools offer new opportunities to visually impaired persons (VIPs). Solutions that help VIPs in social interactions by providing information (age, gender, attire, expressions etc.) about people in the vicinity are becoming available. Although such assistive technologies are already collecting and sharing such information with VIPs, the views, perceptions, and preferences of sighted bystanders about such information sharing remain unexplored. Although bystanders may be willing to share more information for assistive uses it remains to be explored to what degree bystanders are willing to share various kinds of information and what might encourage additional sharing of information based on the contextual needs of VIPs. In this paper we describe the first empirical study of information sharing preferences of sighted bystanders of assistive devices. We conducted a survey based study using a contextual method of inquiry with 62 participants followed by nine semi-structured interviews to shed more insight on our key quantitative findings. We find that bystanders are more willing to share some kinds of personal information with VIPs and are willing to share additional information if higher security assurances can be made by improving their control over how their information is shared.

References

  1. Alessandro Acquisti, Ralph Gross, and Fred Stutzman. 2014. Face Recognition and Privacy in the Age of Augmented Reality. Journal of Privacy and Confidentiality 6 (2014), 1--20. Issue 2. http://repository.cmu.edu/jpc/vol6/iss2/1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Dustin Adams and Sri Kurniawan. 2014. A Blind-friendly Photography Application for Smartphones. SIGACCESS Access. Comput. 108 (Jan. 2014), 12--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Dustin Adams, Lourdes Morales, and Sri Kurniawan. 2013. A Qualitative Study to Support a Blind Photography Mobile Application. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PETRA '13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 25, 8 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Tousif Ahmed, Roberto Hoyle, Kay Connelly, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2015. Privacy Concerns and Behaviors of People with Visual Impairments. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3523--3532. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Tousif Ahmed, Roberto Hoyle, Patrick Shaffer, Kay Connelly, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2017. Understanding the Physical Safety, Security, and Privacy Concerns of People with Visual Impairments. IEEE Internet Computing 21, 3 (May 2017), 56--63. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Tousif Ahmed, Patrick Shaffer, Kay Connelly, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2016. Addressing Physical Safety, Security, and Privacy for People with Visual Impairments. In Twelfth Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS 2016). USENIX Association, Denver, CO, 341--354. https://www.usenix.org/conference/soups2016/technical-sessions/presentation/ahmed Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Aipoly. 2017. Vision through artificial intelligence. http://aipoly.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Aira. 2018. Aira. Privacy Policy. https://aira.io/privacy-policy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Aira. 2018. Aira-Your Life, Your Schedule, Right Now. https://aira.io.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. I. Anam, S. Alam, and M. Yeasin. 2014. Expression: A dyadic conversation aid using Google Glass for people who are blind or visually impaired. In 6th International Conference on Mobile Computing, Applications and Services. 57--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Jeffrey S. Anastasi and Matthew G. Rhodes. 2005. An own-age bias in face recognition for children and older adults. Psychonomic Bulletin 8 Review 12, 6 (01 Dec 2005), 1043--1047.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Emily Badger. 2013. Seriously, We Have to Stop Giving Away Free Parking to the Disabled. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/06/seriously-we-have-stop-giving-away-free-parking-disabled/5946/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jan Balata, Zdenek Mikovec, and Lukas Neoproud. 2015. BlindCamera: Central and Golden-ratio Composition for Blind Photographers. In Proceedings of the Mulitimedia, Interaction, Design and Innnovation (MIDI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 8, 8 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Jeffrey P. Bigham, Chandrika Jayant, Hanjie Ji, Greg Little, Andrew Miller, Robert C. Miller, Robin Miller, Aubrey Tatarowicz, Brandyn White, Samual White, and Tom Yeh. 2010. VizWiz: Nearly Real-time Answers to Visual Questions. In Proceedings of the 23Nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 333--342. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Stacy M. Branham, Ali Abdolrahmani, William Easley, Morgan Scheuerman, Erick Ronquillo, and Amy Hurst. 2017. "Is Someone There? Do They Have a Gun": How Visual Information About Others Can Improve Personal Safety Management for Blind Individuals. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 260--269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Shonal Chaudhry and Rohitash Chandra. 2015. Design of a Mobile Face Recognition System for Visually Impaired Persons. CoRR abs/1502.00756 (2015). arXiv:1502.00756 http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.00756Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Patrick Chiroro and Tim Valentine. 1995. An Investigation of the Contact Hypothesis of the Own-race Bias in Face Recognition. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A 48, 4 (1995), 879--894. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401421Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Verena R Cimarolli, Kathrin Boerner, Mark Brennan-Ing, Joann P Reinhardt, and Amy Horowitz. 2012. Challenges faced by older adults with vision loss: a qualitative study with implications for rehabilitation. Clinical Rehabilitation 26, 8, Article 26 (Aug. 2012), 26:748--757 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Scott Stein. CNET. 2017. Google Glass returns: This time, it's professional. https://www.cnet.com/news/google-glass-2-goes-for-enterprise/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. James Coughlan and Roberto Manduchi. 2007. Color Targets: Fiducials to Help Visually Impaired People Find Their Way by Camera Phone. J. Image Video Process. 2007, 2 (Aug. 2007), 10--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. CNN Danielle Rossingh. 2017. Rio Paralympics: Four Paralympians beat Olympic 1,500m winner. https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/13/sport/baka-paralympics-t13-athletics/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Tamara Denning, Zakariya Dehlawi, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2014. In Situ with Bystanders of Augmented Reality Glasses: Perspectives on Recording and Privacy-mediating Technologies. In Proceedings of the 32Nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2377--2386. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. eSight. 2017. Sight. Now for the legally blind. https://www.esighteyewear.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Liz Essley. 2012. Debate grows over free parking for disabled. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/debate-grows-over-free-parking-for-disabled.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Be My Eyes. 2018. Be My Eyes. Lend your eyes to the blind. http://bemyeyes.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Adrienne Porter Felt, Serge Egelman, and David Wagner. 2012. I'Ve Got 99 Problems, but Vibration Ain'T One: A Survey of Smartphone Users' Concerns. In Proceedings of the Second ACM Workshop on Security and Privacy in Smartphones and Mobile Devices (SPSM '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 33--44. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Alexander Fiannaca, Ilias Apostolopoulous, and Eelke Folmer. 2014. Headlock: A Wearable Navigation Aid That Helps Blind Cane Users Traverse Large Open Spaces. In Proceedings of the 16th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers 8 Accessibility (ASSETS '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 19--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Lakshmi Gade, Sreekar Krishna, and Sethuraman Panchanathan. 2009. Person Localization Using a Wearable Camera Towards Enhancing Social Interactions for Individuals with Visual Impairment. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGMM International Workshop on Media Studies and Implementations That Help Improving Access to Disabled Users (MSIADU '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 53--62. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Jun Ge. 2016. Observers' Privacy Concerns about Wearable Cameras. Master's thesis. Pennsylvania State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Abhimanyu Ghoshal.TNW. 2017. Google Glass returns with its sights set on enterprise customers. https://thenextweb.com/augmented-reality/2017/07/18/google-glass-returns-with-its-sights-set-on-enterprise-customers/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Larry Greenemeier. 2016. Blade Runners: Do High-Tech Prostheses Give Runners an Unfair Advantage? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blade-runners-do-high-tech-prostheses-give-runners-an-unfair-advantage/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Anhong Guo, Xiang Chen, Haoran Qi, Samuel White, Suman Ghosh, Chieko Asakawa, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2016. VizLens: A Robust and Interactive Screen Reader for Interfaces in the Real World. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 651--664. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Gillian R. Hayes and Khai N. Truong. 2013. Paratyping: A Contextualized Method of Inquiry for Understanding Perceptions of Mobile and Ubiquitous Computing Technologies. Human--Computer Interaction 28, 3 (2013), 265--286. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classification. CoRR abs/1502.01852 (2015). http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01852Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jeffrey P. Bigham Hernisa Kacorri, Kris M. Kitani and Chieko Asakawa. 2017. People with Visual Impairment Training Personal Object Recognizers: Feasibility and Challenges. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Microsoft HoloLens. 2017. See for yourself. http://www.orcam.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Roberto Hoyle, Robert Templeman, Steven Armes, Denise Anthony, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2014. Privacy Behaviors of Lifeloggers Using Wearable Cameras. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 571--582. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Giovanni Iachello, Khai N. Truong, Gregory D. Abowd, Gillian R. Hayes, and Molly Stevens. 2006. Prototyping and Sampling Experience to Evaluate Ubiquitous Computing Privacy in the Real World. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1009--1018. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Rabia Jafri, Syed Abid Ali, and Hamid R. Arabnia. 2013. Face Recognition for the Visually Impaired. In The 2013 International Conference on Information and Knowledge (IKE13). Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 153--159.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Chandrika Jayant, Hanjie Ji, Samuel White, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2011. Supporting Blind Photography. In The Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 203--210. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Marion Koelle, Matthias Kranz, and Andreas Möller. 2015. Don'T Look at Me That Way!: Understanding User Attitudes Towards Data Glasses Usage. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 362--372. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. K. M. Kramer, D. Hedin, and D. J. Rolkosky. 2010. Smartphone based face recognition tool for the blind. 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology (2010), 4538--4541.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Sreekar Krishna, Shantanu Bala, Troy L. McDaniel, Stephen A McGuire, and Sethuraman Panchanathan. 2010. VibroGlove: an assistive technology aid for conveying facial expressions. In CHI Extended Abstracts. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Sreekar Krishna, Dirk Colbry, John Black, Vineeth Balasubramanian, and Sethuraman Panchanathan. 2008. A Systematic Requirements Analysis and Development of an Assistive Device to Enhance the Social Interaction of People Who are Blind or Visually Impaired. In Workshop on Computer Vision Applications for the Visually Impaired. James Coughlan and Roberto Manduchi, Marseille, France. https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00325432Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Sreekar Krishna, Greg Little, John Black, and Sethuraman Panchanathan. 2005. A Wearable Face Recognition System for Individuals with Visual Impairments. In Proceedings of the 7th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Assets '05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 106--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2012. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, F. Pereira, C. J. C. Burges, L. Bottou, and K. Q. Weinberger (Eds.). Curran Associates, Inc., 1097--1105. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/4824-imagenet-classification-with-deep-convolutional-neural-networks.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Catherine Kudlick. 2011. Black bike, white cane: nonstandard deviations of a special self. Disability Studies Quarterly 31, 1 (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Linda Lee, JoongHwa Lee, Serge Egelman, and David Wagner. 2016. Information Disclosure Concerns in The Age of Wearable Computing. Usable Security (USEC). ISOC (February 2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Lesa Lorenzen-Huber, Kalpana Shankar, Kelly Caine, Kay Connelly, L. Jean Camp, Beth Ann Walker, and Lisa Borrero. 2013. How In-Home Technologies Mediate Caregiving Relationships in Later Life. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 29, 7 (2013), 441--455.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. Haley MacLeod, Cynthia L. Bennett, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Edward Cutrell. 2017. Understanding Blind People's Experiences with Computer-Generated Captions of Social Media Images. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 5988--5999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Bappaditya Mandal, Shue-Ching Chia, Liyuan Li, Vijay Chandrasekhar, Cheston Tan, and Joo-Hwee Lim. 2015. A Wearable Face Recognition System on Google Glass for Assisting Social Interactions. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 419--433.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Chris Matyszczyk. 2014. 72 percent say no to Google Glass because of privacy. https://www.cnet.com/news/72-percent-say-no-to-google-glass-because-of-privacy/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Roisin McNaney, John Vines, Daniel Roggen, Madeline Balaam, Pengfei Zhang, Ivan Poliakov, and Patrick Olivier. 2014. Exploring the Acceptability of Google Glass As an Everyday Assistive Device for People with Parkinson's. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2551--2554. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Microsoft. 2017. Seeing AI: Turning the visual world into an audible experience. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/seeing-ai/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Michelle Naranjo. 2016 (accessed Sep 1, 2017). Toyota's Project BLAID Is an Empowering Mobility Device for the Visually Impaired. https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/toyota-project-blaid/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. David H. Nguyen, Gabriela Marcu, Gillian R. Hayes, Khai N. Truong, James Scott, Marc Langheinrich, and Christof Roduner. 2009. Encountering SenseCam: Personal Recording Technologies in Everyday Life. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 165--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. Helen Nissenbaum. 2009. Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. OrCam. 2017. See for yourself. http://www.orcam.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. S. Panchanathan, J. Black, M. Rush, and V. Iyer. 2003. iCare - a user centric approach to the development of assistive devices for the blind and visually impaired. In Proceedings. 15th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. 641--648. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. S. Panchanathan, S. Chakraborty, and T. McDaniel. 2016. Social Interaction Assistant: A Person-Centered Approach to Enrich Social Interactions for Individuals With Visual Impairments. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 10, 5 (Aug 2016), 942--951.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Halley Profita, Reem Albaghli, Leah Findlater, Paul Jaeger, and Shaun K. Kane. 2016. The AT Effect: How Disability Affects the Perceived Social Acceptability of Head-Mounted Display Use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4884--4895. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Shi Qiu, Jun Hu, and Matthias Rauterberg. 2015. Nonverbal Signals for Face-to-Face Communication between the Blind and the Sighted. In Proceedings of International Conference on Enabling Access for Persons with Visual Impairment. 157--165.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Ivo Rafael, Luís Duarte, Luís Carriço, and Tiago Guerreiro. 2013. Towards Ubiquitous Awareness Tools for Blind People. In Proceedings of the 27th International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference (BCS-HCI '13). British Computer Society, Swinton, UK, UK, Article 38, 5 pages. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2578048.2578095 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Franziska Roesner, Tamara Denning, Bryce Clayton Newell, Tadayoshi Kohno, and Ryan Calo. 2014. Augmented Reality: Hard Problems of Law and Policy. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct Publication (UbiComp '14 Adjunct). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1283--1288. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Sharon Zell Sacks, Karen E. Wolffe, and Deborah Tierney. 1998. Lifestyles of Students with Visual Impairments: Preliminary Studies of Social Networks. Exceptional Children 64, 4, Article 64 (June 1998), 463--478 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Jesus Salido, Oscar Deniz, and Gloria Bueno. 2016. Sainet: An Image Processing App for Assistance of Visually Impaired People in Social Interaction Scenarios. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 467--477.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Roman Schlegel, Apu Kapadia, and Adam J. Lee. 2011. Eyeing your Exposure: Quantifying and Controlling Information Sharing for Improved Privacy. In Proceedings of the 2011 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security (SOUPS). Article 14, 14 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. Mohammad Iftekhar Tanveer and Mohammed Ehsan Hoque. 2014. A Google Glass App to Help the Blind in Small Talk. In Proceedings of the 16th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers 8 Accessibility (ASSETS '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 297--298. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. TapTapSee. 2018. TapTapSee. Assistive Technology for Blind and Visually Impaired. https://taptapseeapp.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Robert Templeman, Zahid Rahman, David Crandall, and Apu Kapadia. 2013. PlaceRaider: Virtual Theft in Physical Spaces with Smartphones. In Proceedings of The 20th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. Marynel Vázquez and Aaron Steinfeld. 2014. An Assisted Photography Framework to Help Visually Impaired Users Properly Aim a Camera. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 21, 5, Article 25 (Nov. 2014), 29 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Qianli Xu, Michal Mukawa, Liyuan Li, Joo Hwee Lim, Cheston Tan, Shue Ching Chia, Tian Gan, and Bappaditya Mandal. 2015. Exploring Users' Attitudes Towards Social Interaction Assistance on Google Glass. In Proceedings of the 6th Augmented Human International Conference (AH '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Ning Zhang, Manohar Paluri, Yaniv Taigman, Rob Fergus, and Lubomir D. Bourdev. 2015. Beyond Frontal Faces: Improving Person Recognition Using Multiple Cues. CoRR abs/1501.05703 (2015). arXiv:1501.05703 http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.05703Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Yuhang Zhao, Shaomei Wu, Lindsay Reynolds, and Shiri Azenkot. 2018. A Face Recognition Application for People with Visual Impairments: Understanding Use Beyond the Lab. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 215, 14 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Up to a Limit?: Privacy Concerns of Bystanders and Their Willingness to Share Additional Information with Visually Impaired Users of Assistive Technologies

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in

          Full Access

          • Published in

            cover image Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies
            Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies  Volume 2, Issue 3
            September 2018
            1536 pages
            EISSN:2474-9567
            DOI:10.1145/3279953
            Issue’s Table of Contents

            Copyright © 2018 ACM

            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 profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 18 September 2018
            • Accepted: 1 September 2018
            • Revised: 1 May 2018
            • Received: 1 February 2018
            Published in imwut Volume 2, Issue 3

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article
            • Research
            • Refereed

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader