The study reported here investigated the design and legibility of tactile thematic maps, focusing on symbolization and the comprehension of spatial patterns on the maps. The results indicate that discriminable and effective tactile thematic maps can be produced using classed data with a microcapsule paper production method. The participants demonstrated that they could describe the spatial data patterns that were displayed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarthJ. (1982). The development and evaluation of a tactile graphics kit. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 76, 269–273.
2.
BentzenB., & PeckA. (1979). Factors affecting traceability of lines for tactile graphics. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 73, 264–269.
3.
BerlaE., & MurrM. (1975). The effects of noise on the location of point symbols and tracking a line on a tactile pseudomap. Journal of Special Education, 9, 183–190.
4.
BladesM., UngarS., & SpencerC. (1999). Map use by adults with visual impairment. Professional Geographer, 51, 539–553.
5.
BoardD., & TaylorR. (1977). Perception and maps: Human factors in map design and interpretation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers: New Series, 2(1), 19–38.
EspinosaA., UngarS., OchaitaW., BladesM., & SpencerC. (1999). Comparing methods for introducing blind and visually impaired people to unfamiliar urban environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 277–287.
13.
GillJ., & JamesG. (1973). A study on the discriminability of tactual point symbols. American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 26, 19–34.
14.
GilmartinP. (1981). The interface of cognitive and psychophysical research in cartography. Cartographica, 18(3), 9–20.
15.
GilmartinP., & SheltonE. (1989). Choropleth maps on high resolution CRTs: The effects of number of classes and hue on communication. Cartographica, 26, 40–52.
16.
GolledgeR. (1993). Geography and the disabled: A survey with special reference to vision impaired and blind populations. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18(1), 63–85.
17.
GrantA., ThiagarajahM., & SathianK. (2000). Tactile perception in blind braille readers: A psychophysical study of acuity and hyperacuity using gratings and dot patterns. Perception and Psychophysics, 62, 301–312.
18.
HughesB., & JanssonG. (1994). Texture perception via active touch. Human Movement Science, 13(3-3), 301–333.
19.
JamesG. (1982). Mobility maps. In SchiffW., & FoulkeE. (Eds.), Tactual perception: A sourcebook.New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
JehoelS., McCallumD., RowellJ., & UngarS. (2006). An empirical approach on the design of tactile maps and diagrams: The cognitive tactualization approach. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 24, 67–74.
21.
JehoelS., UngarS., McCallumD., & RowellJ. (2005). An evaluation of substrates for tactile maps and user preferences. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 99, 85–95.
22.
KimerlingJ. (1985). The comparison of equal-value gray scales. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 12, 132–142.
23.
KlatzkyR., & LedermanS. (1987). The intelligent hand. In BowerG. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 121–151). New York: Academic Press.
24.
LambertL., & LedermanS. (1989). An evaluation of the legibility and meaningfulness of potential map symbols. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 83, 397–403.
25.
LobbenA. (2005). Identifying the needs of tactile map makers. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Cartographic Conference, A Coruña, Spain: International Cartographic Association.
26.
LobbenA., & LawrenceM. (2011). The use of environmental features on tactile maps by navigators who are blind. Professional Geographer, 55, 318–328.
LoomisL., KlatzkyR., GolledgeR., CicinelliJ., PellegrinoJ., & FryP. (1993). Non-visual navigation by blind and sighted: Assessment of path integration ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 73–91.
29.
McEachrenA. (1982). The role of complexity and symbolization method in thematic map effectiveness. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 72, 495–513.
30.
NolanC., & MorrisJ. (1971). Improvement of tactual symbols for blind children: Final report.Louisville, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.
31.
PerkinsC. (2002). Cartography: Progress in tactile mapping. Progress in Human Geography, 26, 521–530.
UngarS., BladesM., & SpencerC. (1995). Visually impaired children's strategies for memorizing maps. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 13(1), 27–32.
42.
UngarS., BladesM., & SpencerC. (1997). Strategies for knowledge acquisition from cartographic maps by blind and visually impaired adults. Cartographic Journal, 34, 93–110.
43.
UngarS., JehoelS., McCallumD., & RowellJ. (2005). “Tactualization” of spatial information: Towards a perceptual-cognitive approach to tactile map design. Proceedings of 22nd International Cartographic Conference, A Coruña, Spain: International Cartographic Association.
