The legibility and meaningfulness of a series of point and linear symbols were evaluated for potential use on tactual maps representing building interiors. The representations included symbols developed by other researchers as well as a number designed specifically for this study. A subset of “optimally sized” symbols, including the different representations of women's washroom, men's washroom, telephone, and stop/danger sign, were tested for legibility, and the meaningfulness of this subset of symbols was then evaluated. Blind observers were used. The findings are discussed in terms of which symbols would best represent the four environmental features.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongJ.D. (1978). The development of tactual maps for the visually handicapped. In GordonG. (Ed.), Active touch: The mechanisms of recognition of objects by manipulation. A multidimensional approach.New York: Pergamon Press.
2.
AustinT., & SleightR. (1952). Accuracy of tactual discrimination of letters, numerals, and geometric forms.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 239–249.
3.
BarthJ.L. (1982). The development and evaluation of a tactile graphics kit.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 76, 269–273.
4.
BerlaE.P. (1973). Strategies in scanning a tactual pseudomap.Education of the Visually Handicapped, 5, 8–19.
5.
BerlaE.P. (1982). Haptic perception of tangible graphic displays. In SchiffW., & FoulkeE., (Eds.), Tactual perception: A sourcebook.New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BerlaE.P., & MurrM.J. (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.
7.
BirnhaumH.L., & Mei-feng YangV. (1976). Tactile braille maps of Brooklyn College main campus.Brooklyn: Jewish Guild for the Blind.
8.
BrandJ. (1971). Classification without identification in visual search.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 178–186.
9.
DeGowinE., & DimmickF. (1928). The tactual perception of simple geometric forms.Journal of General Psychology, 1, 114–122.
10.
GillJ.M., & JamesG.A. (1973). A study on the discriminability of tactual point symbols.American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 26, 19–34.
11.
JamesG.A. (1982). Mobility maps. In SchiffW., & FoulkeE. (Eds.), Tactual perception: A sourcebook.New York: Cambridge University Press.
12.
JamesG.A., & GillJ.M. (1974). Mobility maps for the visually handicapped: A study of learning and retention of raised symbols.American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 27, 87–98.
13.
JamesG.A., & GillJ.M. (1975). A pilot study on the discriminability of tactile areal and line symbols.American Foundation for the Blind Research Bulletin, 29, 23–33.
14.
KlatzyR.L., LedermanS.J., & MetzgerV.A. (1985). Identifying objects by touch: An “expert system.”Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 299–302.
15.
KlatzkyR.L., & LedermanS.J. (1987). The intelligent hand. In BowerG. (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation.21, New York: Academic Press.
16.
LambertL. (1984). Tangible maps for the blind: An evaluation of the legibility meaningfulness of potential map symbols. Unpublished Masters of Arts thesis, Queen's UniversityOntario.
17.
LeddicoatC.M., MeyersL.S., & LozanoE. (1982). A comparison of two sets of non-braille elevator symbols.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 5, 194–196.
18.
LedermanS.J. (1979). Tactual mapping from a psychologist's perspective.Bulletin of the Association of Canadian Map Libraries, 32, 21–25.
19.
LedermanS.J., & KinchD.H. (1979). Texture in tactual and graphics for the visually handicapped.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 7, 217–227.
20.
LickliderJ.C.R. (1964). In SwetsJ.A. (Ed.), Signal detection and recognition by human observers: Contemporary readings.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
LoomisJ.M. (1982). Analysis of tactile and visual confusion matrices.Perception and Psychophyics, 31, 41–52.
23.
MorrisJ.E., & NolanC.Y. (1961). Discriminability of tactual patterns.International Journal for the Education of the Blind, 11, 50–54.
24.
NelsserU. (1963). Decision-time without reaction time: Experiments in visual scanning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 23, 178–186.
25.
NolanC.Y., & MorrisJ.E. (1963). Tactual symbols for the blind: Final Report: OVR-RD-587.Louisville, Kentucky: American Printing House for the Blind.
26.
NolanC.Y., & KederisC.J. (1969). Perceptual factors in braille word recognition.New York: American Foundation for the Blind.
27.
NolanC.Y., & MorrisJ.E. (1971). Improvement of tactual symbols for blind children: Final report (Project No. 5–421; Grant No. OEG-32-27-0000-1012).Louisville, Kentucky: American Printing House for the Blind.
28.
SchiffW., KauferL., & MosakS. (1966). Informative tactile stimuli in the perception of direction.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 23(Monograph Supplement 7). Tangible graphics for visually impaired persons: The Louisville workshop and symposium. (1980). National Science Foundation. Final Report No. SP178-03756.
29.
SchiffW. (1966). Raised line drawing research project: Final report.New York: Recording for the Blind.
30.
WiedelJ.W., & GrovesP.A. (1972). Tactual mapping: Design reproduction, reading and interpretation.Occasional papers in geography, No. 2, College Park: University of Maryland.
