From: David Andrews 
Subject: Re: Presentation of latest research on Talking Signs technology
>
>Precision: Did the participant begin the crossing from within
>the crosswalk?
>
>  * Talking Signs 97%
>  * No Talking Signs 70%
>
>Was the participant heading toward the opposite corner when
>he/she began the crossing?
>
>  * Talking Signs 80%
>  * No Talking Signs 48%
>
>Did the participant end up within the crosswalk at the opposite
>corner?
>
>  * Talking Signs 76%
>  * No Talking Signs 56%
>
>Need for assistance: Did the participant need (request)
>assistance in finding the crosswalk?
>
>  * Talking Signs 1%
>  * No Talking Signs 19%
>
>Did the participant need (request) assistance in knowing when
>the walk phase began?
>
>  * Talking Signs 0%
>  * No Talking Signs 24%
>
>Did the participant need assistance in safely completing the
>crossing (either participant's request, or at the initiative of
>the experimenter when participant was endangered)?
>
>  * Talking Signs 3%
>  * No Talking Signs 19%
>
>Knowledge: Did the participant know the general shape of the
>intersection (plus, T, or irregular)?
>
>  * Talking Signs 86%
>  * No Talking Signs 46%
>
>Did the participant know the nature of traffic control at the
>intersection? (traffic light, stop sign, or uncontrolled)?
>
>  * Talking Signs 84%
>  * No Talking Signs 50%
>
>Results show that Talking Signs at intersections significantly
>improved safety, precision, and independence in street crossing,
>as well as knowledge of intersections, for good, frequent,
>independent blind travelers, using a long cane or dog guide,
>including those with hearing loss. Talking Signs also resulted
>in improved street crossing for persons who considered
>themselves relatively poor travelers, and who did not normally
>travel in unfamiliar areas.
>
>
>
>
>Automated Teller Machines and Fare Machines:
>
>Location and effective use of ATMs and other public terminals
>(vending machines with displays, kiosks, hi-tech public
>telephones, and ticket and fare machines) is a significant and
>rapidly increasing problem for those with visual impairments. An
>ATM which cannot be located is not an accessible ATM. Perhaps 7%
>to 14% of all legally blind people read Braille. Of this group
>who do read Braille, many do not read Grade II Braille, the
>abbreviated form of Braille specified by the Americans with
>Disabilities Act (ADA). Therefore, in this application the
>number of actual customers helped by a Braille instructions are
>very small. Even if the majority of blind or print handicapped
>persons did use Braille, the instructions for any transaction
>are, in our opinion, to complex to memorize and therefore must
>be read while on the street at the ATM. Without feedback from
>the display, users have no indication as to whether the ATM has
>accepted the PIN code as being proper. Similarly, there is no
>indication that subsequent entries are operating under the
>desired menus (i.e.. are the key presses and expected responses
>synchronized?) If the withdrawal amount exceeds the account
>balance, the user has no indication as to the error that has
>occurred. If the ATM cannot issue "a transaction record" at that
>particular time and requires a response in order to proceed or
>abort, the user is left to wonder what went wrong and where he
>or she is in the sequence. Long, silent pauses during
>transaction processing leave the customer guessing as to what
>went wrong. Operating the machine in this "open-loop mode" is
>similar to asking a blind person to drive a car from Point A to
>Point B based upon a list of performed instructions. In summary,
>an interactive machine cannot be operated by a set of rote
>instructions. Furthermore, it is pointless to provide the
>instructions in a code understood by perhaps only 7% to 14% of
>the target market.
>
>Therefore, access to these terminals includes: 1) finding them,
>and, once they are found, 2) reading the printed information on
>the screens as well as 3) rapidly identifying the location and
>functions of the various controls; again, normally accomplished
>with labels.
>
>We feel our prototype Talking Signs solution to accessing ATMs
>accomplishes the goals stated above: The first is to simply
>indicate the existence of and location of the teller machine.
>This function is provided by a moderately high output emitter
>above the ATM which is aimed in the approaching directions.
>
>The second provides a spoken equivalent of the information
>appearing on the ATM display. This allows the transaction to
>occur in the "interactive mode" -- the mode in which the machine
>was designed to operate. This information is provided by a
>moderate output emitter which is received whenever the user
>approached the front of the ATM.
>
>The third provides clear labeling of the physical features of
>the machine such as "card slot," "deposit slot," "receipt
>dispenser," and "cash >dispenser" -- features with which the
>visually-impaired customer must interact. Because infrared light
>transmission is highly directional, each component of the teller
>machine is labeled with a low output infrared emitter to
>identify that component. The customer "scans" the face of the
>teller machine with the receiver to locate the appropriate slot
>to accomplish that phase of the transaction.
>
>
>
>
>Acknowledgments:
>
>This report was developed with assistance from The
>Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute's Rehabilitation
>Engineering Research Center, the Federal Transit Administration,
>Project ACTION of the National Easter Seal Society, the National
>Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the City
>of San Francisco Department of Public Works.
>
>----------
>End of Document
>
>
>
---
---------------