Travelling more independently: A Requirements Analysis for Accessible Journeys to Unknown Buildings for People with Visual Impairments
Christin Engel, Karin Müller, Angela Constantinescu, Claudia Loitsch, Vanessa Petrausch, Gerhard Weber, Rainer Stiefelhagen · 2020 · Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2020) · doi:10.1145/3373625.3417022
Summary
This paper presents a comprehensive survey with 106 people with visual impairments (63 blind, 43 low vision; ages 8-77, mean 46; predominantly German) examining how they plan and carry out journeys to unknown buildings. Unlike previous studies that focused on isolated aspects of travel or indoor navigation, this research covers the entire travel chain — from advance planning through on-site orientation — and importantly distinguishes between the different needs of people who are blind versus those with low vision. The online survey (in German and English) contained 27 questions across five sections: demographics, abilities and experiences, planning of journeys, on-site orientation in unknown buildings, and usage of maps and navigation aids. The study found that 60% of participants travel to at least one type of unknown building several times per week, with train stations/airports, shopping centers, restaurants, and office buildings being the most frequently visited. For planning, 84% of people with low vision prepare at least one day in advance versus 70% of blind people. The most important planning information for both groups includes the building address, room name at destination, opening hours, main entrance location, and staircase locations. Blind participants place significantly more importance on tactile maps, tactile labels, and textual descriptions of buildings during planning.
Key findings
The survey revealed a substantial information gap, particularly for indoor orientation. The primary strategy for finding rooms in unknown buildings is asking other people (53% LV, 41% blind), though both groups would prefer textual descriptions or maps instead. For navigating back to exits, 63% of LV participants memorize their route while 50% of blind participants rely on memory. Building geometry was the most frequently cited challenge (64 comments), especially asymmetric layouts, non-orthogonal room arrangements, and different floor layouts. Building features like glass doors, automatic doors, spiral staircases, and stairs without handrails were particularly problematic. For people with LV, poor lighting (too little or too bright), weak contrasts, and missing/unclear labeling were major concerns. For blind participants, wide open areas without auditory, olfactory, or tactile orientation cues were especially challenging. Regarding maps: 83% of participants had never used indoor navigation apps, and 66% of those who do not use indoor maps cited lack of availability as the reason. Yet 82.3% of those without experience would like to use them. Blind participants most frequently use tactile maps (swell paper 25%, embossed 18.8%), while LV participants prefer digital visual maps (70%). Smartphones are the most used technical aid (85%), with headphones second (47%) — used twice as often by blind participants (59%) as LV participants (31%). The paper derives 10 design requirements including: provide tailored support for planning and implementation phases, support different wayfinding strategies for BL and LV, provide indoor landmark information, offer maps in multiple formats (visual, tactile, digital, swell paper), customize to individual needs (color, contrast, font size, simplified information), and support multiple feedback mechanisms (textual, auditive, graphical).
Relevance
This paper provides the most comprehensive requirements analysis to date for accessible journeys to unknown buildings, covering both planning and implementation phases and distinguishing blind from low vision needs. For accessibility practitioners, architects, and indoor navigation developers, the 10 design requirements offer a concrete framework for improving building accessibility beyond physical compliance. The finding that asking strangers for directions remains the primary wayfinding strategy — despite users preferring technological alternatives — highlights the massive gap between available indoor navigation solutions and real-world needs. The distinction between blind and low vision requirements is particularly valuable: these groups need fundamentally different map types (tactile vs. digital visual), orient by different landmarks (auditory/tactile cues vs. visual features/contrast), and have different planning timelines. The lack of indoor maps emerged as the single biggest gap — outdoor maps exist via OpenStreetMap and similar services, but comparable indoor map infrastructure is largely nonexistent. Limitations include the predominantly German sample (87 of 106), self-selection bias, and the inability to probe interesting responses in an anonymous survey format.
Tags: visual accessibility · blindness and low vision · indoor navigation · wayfinding · orientation and mobility · accessible maps · tactile accessibility · built environment · independent living