This study evaluated the relative suitability of a range of base materials for producing tactile maps and diagrams via a new ink-jet process. The visually impaired and sighted participants tactilely scanned arrays of symbols that were printed on seven substrate materials, including paper, plastic, and aluminum. In general, the rougher substrates were scanned faster than the smoother substrates, and the majority of participants preferred the rougher substrates over the smoother ones.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Dacen-NagelD. L., & CoulsonM. R. C. (1990). Tactual mobility maps—A comparative study. Cartographica, 27(2), 47–63.
2.
EkmanG., HosmanJ., & LindströmB. (1965). Roughness, smoothness and preference: A study of quantitative relations in individual subjects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(1), 18–26.
3.
HellerM. A. (1989). Texture perception in sighted and blind observers. Perception and Psychophysics, 45, 49–54.
4.
HollinsM., FaldowskiR., RaoS., & YoungF. (1993). Perceptual dimensions of tactile surface texture: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Perception and Psychophysics, 54, 697–705.
5.
HorsfallB. (1997). Tactile maps: New materials and improved designs. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 91, 61–65.
6.
HorsfallR. B., & VanstonD. C. (1981). Tactual maps: Discriminability of textures and shapes. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 75, 363–367.
7.
KeatesJ. S. (1982). Understanding maps.New York: Halsted Press.
8.
LedermanS. J. (1974). Tactile roughness of grooved surfaces. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 385–395.
9.
LedermanS. J. (1981). The perception of surface roughness by passive and active touch. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 18, 253–255.
10.
LedermanS. J. (1983). Tactual roughness perception: Spatial and temporal determinants. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 37, 498–511.
11.
LedermanS. J., & TaylorM. M. (1972). Fingertip force, surface geometry and the perception of roughness by active touch. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 401–408.
12.
McCallumD., & UngarS. (2003). Producing tactile maps using new inkjet technology: An introduction. Cartographic Journal, 3, 294–298
13.
MorleyS., & GunnD. (2002). Making tactile graphics.Hatfield, England: National Centre for Tactile Diagrams, University of Hertfordshire [Online]. Available: www.nctd.org.uk
14.
PerkinsC. (2002). Tactile mapping quality: The Manchester experience. North West Geography, 2(2), 11–17.
15.
PikeE., BladesM., & SpencerC. (1992). A comparison of two types of tactile maps for blind children. Cartographica, 29(3-4), 83–88.
16.
RenerR. (1993). Tactile cartography: Another view of tactile cartographic symbols. Cartographic Journal, 30, 195–198.
17.
RowellJ., & UngarS. (2003). Feeling your way—A tactile map user survey. In Cartographic Renaissance: Proceedings of the 21st International Cartographic Conference, Durban, South Africa [CD-ROM]. Durban: International Cartographic Association.
18.
SrinivasanM. A., & LaMotteR. H. (1995). Tactual discrimination of softness. Journal of Neurophysiology, 73, 88–101.
