Cristiane N. Nobre
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
With technological advancements, there has been a vast increase in the number of companies that fight over their market share. In search of a differentiating factor, companies are investing more and more in their products’ emotional designs. This researched work has evaluated the affects that are caused in visually impaired people when using Facebook's features and then compared them with the experiences of sighted users. To do that, these two types of Facebook users were subjected to a questionnaire that was based on the PANAS affect scale. Once the information was collected, statistics were employed so as to evaluate both users’ feelings. The results have shown that there were significant statistical differences between the sighted and the visually impaired users when the “affects” were evaluated by using the PANAS tool. The five “negative affects” that were selected (Irritability, Uselessness, Frustration, Sadness, and Confusion) were largely more relevant for the blind people in most of the evaluated features. This has indicated some serious accessibility problems. However, a high frequency of the five “positive affects” that were considered (Satisfaction, Pleasantness, Surprise, Excitement, Interest, and Determination) were additionally observed for both of these two groups. These results were interpreted as feelings of both social inclusion and social exclusion, indicating the possibility of exploring technological devices that were unavailable not long ago. After analyzing their experiences in their usage of the Facebook features, the findings have also highlighted the many differing emotions that are felt by the visually impaired and the sighted users. The resulting outcomes have indicated that there are some issues that are still open to problems and difficulties. Moreover, these issues involve human-computer interactions. Nevertheless, fortunately, there is light at the end of the tunnel, as will be revealed.
- AOA (American Optometric Association). 2017. Common types of low vision. Retrieved Oct. 25, 2017 from https://www.aoa.org/patients-and-public/caring-for-your-vision/low-vision/common-types-of-low-vision.Google Scholar
- J. E. Bates. 2000. Temperament as an emotion construct: Theoretical and practical issues. In Handbook of Emotions (2nd ed.), M. Lewis and J. M. Haviland Jones (Eds.). New York. Guilford Press, 382--396.Google Scholar
- Simone D. J. Barbosa and Bruno S. da Silva. 2010. Interação Humano Computador. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier Editora Ltda.Google Scholar
- D. R. Benyon and S. Skidmore (orgs). 1988. Automating Systems Development. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
- P. Bienarcki and D. Waldorf. 1981. Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods Research 10, 2 (1981), 141--16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Juliana C. Braga, Antônio C. C. Campi, Rafael Jeferson Pezzuto Damaceno Júnior, and Neno H. da Cunha Albernaz. 2012. Estudo e relato sobre a utilização da tecnologia pelos deficientes visuais. In Proceedings of the 11th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC'12). Brazilian Computer Society, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 37--46. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Erin L. Brady, Yu Zhong, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2013. Investigating the appropriateness of social network question asking as a resource for blind users. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW'13). 1225--1236. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robson A. Campêlo, José Almir F. M. Júnior, Márcia M. Tabosa, and Ana H. Carneiro. 2011. Inclusão digital de Deficientes Visuais: O uso da Tecnologia Assistiva em Redes Sociais online e Celulares. In Computer on The Beach. Florianópolis. Retrieved August 28, 2018 from https://siaiap32.univali.br/seer/index.php/acotb/article/view/6329/3566.Google Scholar
- Gilbert A. Churchill Jr. and J. Paul Peter. 2013. Marketing: Criando Valor Para o Cliente. São Paulo: Saraiva. 3<sup>a</sup> Edição.Google Scholar
- A. Damásio. 1996. O erro de Descartes: Emoção, Razão e Cérebro Humano. São Paulo: Cia das Letras.Google Scholar
- P. Desmet. 2002. Design emotions. PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
- A. Faria and Cristiane Nobre. 2013. Análise da interação dos deficientes visuais com o facebook através da avaliação emocional do usuário. In Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas Colaborativos. Belo Horizonte, Brasil.Google Scholar
- I. Galinha and J. Ribeiro. 2005. Contribuição para o estudo da versão portuguesa da positive and negative affect schedule (P): II- estudo psicométrico. Análise Psicológica 219--227.Google Scholar
- J. J. Garrett. 2010. The lements of User Experience: User-centered Design for the Web and Beyond. San Francisco: New Riders.Google Scholar
- A. Gendera, C. Mattoso, and A. Boente. 2010. Avaliação das emoções dos consumidores idosos que participam de comunidades virtuais: Teoria do Conjuntos Fuzzy. In VII Simpósio de Excelência em Gestão e Tecnologia. Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 1--16.Google Scholar
- P. Gonçalves, W. Dores, and F. Benevenuto. 2012. PANAS-t: Uma escala psicométrica para medição de sentimentos no Twitter. Ouro Preto, Brazil: Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto.Google Scholar
- E. Gray and D. Watson. Emotion, mood, and temperament: similarities, differences and a syntheses. In Emotions at Work: Theory, Research and Applications for Management. R. L. Payne and C. L. cooper (Eds.). Chichester, John Wiley 8 Sons, 21--44.Google Scholar
- João Guerreiro and Daniel Gonçalves. 2013. Blind people interacting with mobile social applications: Open challenges. In Mobile Accessibility Workshop at CHI. Paris, France.Google Scholar
- D. Hawkins, D. Mothersbaugh, and R. Best. 2007. Comportamento do consumidor: Construindo a estratégia de marketing. Tradução Cláudia Mello Belhassof. Rio de Janeiro, Elsevier.Google Scholar
- IBGE. Censo demográfico. Retrieved Oct. 25, 2017 from http://www.censo2010.ibge.gov.br/.Google Scholar
- ISO 9241-11. International Organization for Standardization. 1998. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs), Part 11: Guidance on Usability. ISO.Google Scholar
- P. Jordan. Pleasure with products: Human factors for body, mind and soul. In Human Factors in Product Design: Current Practice and Future Trends, W. S. Green; P. W. (Eds.). 171--181.Google Scholar
- Elsa Kim, Sam Gilbert, Michael J. Edwards, and Erhardt Graeff. 2009. Detecting Sadness in 140 Characters: Sentiment Analysis of Mourning Michael Jackson on Twitter. Technical report, Web Ecology Project, Cambridge, MA, 1--15Google Scholar
- M. Kuniersky. 2003. Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner´s Guide to User Research. San Francisco, CA, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. A. Goodman. 1961. Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 32, 1 (1961), 148--170.Google ScholarCross Ref
- I. Lopatovska and Ioannis Arapakis. 2011. Theories, methods and current research on emotions in library and information science, information retrieval and human-computer interaction. Information Processing and Management: An International Journal 47, 4 (2011), 575--592. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Rodrigo Dias Morcelli and Rodrigo Duarte Seabra. 2014. Inclusão digital e deficiência visual: Análise do uso de ferramentas de comunicação pela internet. Informática na Educação: Teoria e Prática, Porto Alegre 17, 1 (Jan./June) (2014), 201--219.Google Scholar
- M. M. Moschos. 2014. Physiology and psychology of vision and its disorders: A review. Medical Hypothesis, Discovery and Innovation in Ophthalmology 3, 3 (2014), 83--90.Google Scholar
- M. Munezero, C. S. Montero, E. Sutinen, and J. Pajunen. 2014. Are they different? Affect, feeling, emotion, sentiment, and opinion detection in text. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 5, 2 (2014), 101--111.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Nielsen. 2006. Iterative user interface design. Journal Computer 26, 11 (2006), 32--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jakob Nielsen. 1993. Usability Engineering. New York, Academic Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Donald A. Norman. 2004. Emotional Design: Why We Love or Hate Everyday Things. New York, Basic Books.Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Pessini, J. Citadin, A. Kemczinski, and I. Gasparini. 2013. Avaliação da acessibilidade das funções de privacidade do Facebook com pessoas com deficiência visual. Revista Latino-Americana de Inovação e Engenharia de Produção 1, 76--91.Google Scholar
- Sandra D. Piovesan, Rosana Wagner, and Lisete Rodrigues. 2013. Acessibilidade em redes sociais: em busca da inclusão digital no Facebook. Informática na Etducação: Teoria 8 Prática 16, 2 (2013), 16.2.Google Scholar
- Cláudia F. Silva, Simone B. L. Ferreira, and João F. M. Ramos. 2016. WhatsApp accessibility from the perspective of visually impaired people. In Proceedings of the 15th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computer Systems (IHC'16). ACM, New York, NY, Article 11, 10 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Luiz Gustavo de Souza, André Specian Cardoso, Tiago Alexandre Schulz Sippert, and Clodis Boscarioli. 2012. Análise da percepção e interação de usuários sobre privacidade e segurança no Facebook. In Companion Proceedings of the 11th Brazilian Symposium on Human Factors in Computing Systems (IHC'12). Brazilian Computer Society, Porto Alegre, Brazil, 67--68. Available on: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2400076.2400107. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Ricardo FR de Souza. 2009. Avaliação de usabilidade e acessibilidade para deficientes visuais em serviços de busca web. Universidade de Mogi das Cruzes. São Paulo. Retrieved August 28, 2018 from https://de.slideshare.net/rickaleu/trabalho-de-concluso-de-curso-avaliao-de-usabilidade-e-acessibilidade-para-deficientes-visuais-em-servios-de-busca-web.Google Scholar
- Sprinklr. 2017. The social media landscape in Brazil. Retrieved Oct 25, 2017 from https://www.sprinklr.com/the-way/social-media-in-brazil-whitepaper.Google Scholar
- A. Stone. 1997. Measurement of affective response. In Measuring Stress: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists, S. Cohen, R. C. Kessler, and L. U. Gordon (Eds.). New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- C. A. Torres. 2009. Bíblia do Marketing Digital. São Paulo, Novatec.Google Scholar
- Uran Oh and Leah Findlater. 2015. A performance comparison of on-hand versus on-phone nonvisual input by blind and sighted users. ACM Transactions Accessible Computing 7, 4 (November 2015), Article 14, 20 pages. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Van der Krieke, A. C. Emerencia, M. Aiello, and S. Sytema. 2012. Usability evaluation of a web-based support system for people with a schizophrenia diagnosis. Journal of Medical Internet Research 14, 1 (2012), e24. URL: http://www.jmir.org/2012/1/e24.. PMID:22311883. PMCID:PMC3374538.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Niltom Vieira Junior. 2014. Atuação junto ao grupo de pesquisa “informática na educação” e o desenvolvimento de um aplicativo móvel para escolha de testes em análise inferencial: Um guia matemático e computacional. Relatório (Pós doutorado em Informática) -- Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais, PUC MINAS, Belo Horizonte.Google Scholar
- WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative). 2017. Introduction to Web Accessibility. What is Web Accessibility? Retrieved Oct. 20, 2017 from http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/accessibility.php.Google Scholar
- D. Watson, L. Clark, and A. Tellegen. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 6 (1988), 1063--1070.Google Scholar
- B. Wentz and J. Lazar. 2011. Are separate interfaces inherently unequal? An evaluation with blind users of the usability of two interfaces for a social networking platform. In Proceedings of iConference’11. 91--97. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paul Wiele and Esa Rantanen. 2015. Usability of incident reporting systems: Preliminary results of a case study. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in HealthCare 4, 168--173.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Shaomei Wu and Lada A. Adamic. 2014. Visually impaired users on an online social network. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'14). ACM, New York, NY, 3133--3142. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Emotionally Oriented Analysis of the Experiences of Visually Impaired People on Facebook
Recommendations
Emoji Accessibility for Visually Impaired People
CHI '20: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsEmoji are graphical symbols that appear in many aspects of our lives. Worldwide, around 36 million people are blind and 217 million have a moderate to severe visual impairment. This portion of the population may use and encounter emoji, yet it is unclear ...
Understanding Blind or Visually Impaired People on YouTube through Qualitative Analysis of Videos
TVX '18: Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Conference on Interactive Experiences for TV and Online VideoIn this paper, we analyzed videos to explore blind or visually impaired (BVI) people on YouTube. While researchers found how BVI people interact with contents and other people on social media platforms (e.g., Facebook), little is known about the ...
Exploring the Community of Blind or Visually Impaired People on YouTube
ASSETS '17: Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and AccessibilityWe explore a community of blind or visually impaired (BVI) people through video blogs (vlogs) on YouTube. Many researchers have used vlogs as a means of identifying communities of video bloggers (vloggers). Nevertheless, little is still known about how ...
Comments