Where Are You Taking Me? Reflections from Observing Ridesharing Use By People with Visual Impairments
Earl W. Huff Jr., Robin N. Brewer, Julian Brinkley · 2022 · Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/3517428.3551355
Summary
This paper presents a methodological case study of conducting quasi-naturalistic observations of 17 blind or visually impaired participants using the Uber ridesharing service. Rather than reporting substantive findings about ridesharing accessibility (which are reserved for a companion paper), this work focuses on the research process itself — what worked, what went wrong, and what researchers should consider when designing observation studies with people with disabilities in real-world transportation contexts. The study was conducted in North-Central Florida in partnership with a school for the blind. Each 90-minute session involved participants completing a four-task scenario: requesting an UberX ride via the mobile app, locating the vehicle upon arrival, entering and riding to a pre-determined destination, and exiting at the destination. Participants wore a GoPro Hero 7 camera on a chest harness to record the experience, used a two-way radio to communicate with the research team, and were followed by a team member in a separate vehicle for safety. Three participants self-identified as blind and 14 as low vision, aged 20-88 (mean 55), with 70.6% owning a vehicle. The researchers chose Uber over Lyft due to higher driver availability in the area, configured phones with VoiceOver (iOS) and TalkBack (Android), and pre-saved destinations and payment methods to simplify the booking process.
Key findings
The paper identifies several critical methodological challenges. First, recruiting participants with specific disabilities in a single geographic location for field research is difficult; partnering with local organizations serving the target population was essential. Second, technology barriers were significant — the Uber app forced use of Android due to technical issues, and participants accustomed to Apple devices needed adjustment time. Participants found the Uber UI challenging to navigate with assistive technologies, struggling to move between the map interface, service selection, vehicle selection, and payment confirmation. Some preferred voice-based ride scheduling over the screen-based UI. Third, the consent process created unintended consequences: drivers were only informed of the study after the trip to preserve natural interaction, but the generous tip (relative to the short trip) caused some drivers to linger near the study site hoping for repeat fares, meaning the same drivers picked up multiple participants and lost the naturalistic quality. Fourth, the safety measures (camera, radio, following vehicle) — while necessary for IRB approval and participant protection — likely altered both driver and participant behavior, providing an atypical sense of security compared to a normal ride. The GoPro harness had limited adjustment range and was uncomfortable for some participants, and its chest positioning provided limited video coverage. The screen reader announced driver names but not vehicle make, model, or license plate, creating a significant barrier for locating the correct vehicle.
Relevance
This paper makes an important contribution to research methodology for accessibility studies in real-world settings. The honest reflection on what went wrong — drivers gaming the tipping system, safety equipment altering natural behavior, technology forcing participants onto unfamiliar platforms — provides a roadmap for other researchers to avoid similar pitfalls. For accessibility practitioners, the incidental observations about ridesharing app usability are revealing: screen readers not conveying critical vehicle identification information, difficulty navigating multi-step booking flows, and participants preferring voice input over screen interaction all point to concrete areas for improvement in ridesharing app accessibility. The finding that 20% of people with disabilities in the US face transportation barriers, with 45% lacking personal vehicle access, underscores ridesharing as a critical accessibility domain. The study also raises important ethical questions about balancing participant safety with ecological validity when conducting field research with vulnerable populations.
Tags: visual impairment · ridesharing · transportation accessibility · observation study · mobile accessibility · research methods · blind and low vision