Deconstructing a "puzzle" of visual experiences of blind and low-vision visual artists
Yulia Zhiglova · 2020 · Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2020) · doi:10.1145/3373625.3417080
Summary
This short paper explores how blind and low-vision visual artists perceive and interpret visual information, with the goal of informing the design of a haptic device that could communicate rich visual details. While existing assistive technologies focus on task-oriented visual information (navigation, object recognition, face identification), they do not convey the nuanced visual details that enrich everyday experience — subtle facial expressions, physical appearance, atmosphere, texture, color, terrain, and architectural details. The author conducted semi-structured interviews (via Zoom or phone, approximately one hour each) with six blind and low-vision visual artists: three professional photographers, one amateur photographer, one painter, and one videographer. Participants ranged from ages 29 to 63 (mean 47), with five female and one male. Two described themselves as profoundly blind, one as blind in one eye with no central vision in the other, and three as low vision with peripheral loss. Visual artists were deliberately chosen because they tend to reflect more deeply on visual experiences. Interviews were structured around their art practice, using their artwork as a conversational probe, and then expanding to everyday visual experiences and social interactions. Transcripts were coded using Burnard's method with two researchers creating independent codebooks, then grouping codes via affinity diagramming.
Key findings
Four themes emerged. (1) Perception of Physical Attributes: all participants discussed wanting to perceive visual details of objects and environments — textures, colors, light, contours of faces and terrains, and architectural details. One participant took photographs specifically because of color and texture; another wanted to re-experience the visual majesty of towering redwood trees from when they were sighted. Many wanted to know detailed physical appearances of friends (tattoos, hair color). (2) Interactions with Others: participants struggled significantly with perceiving facial expressions and interpreting social cues. One noted "I can't really see expressions on people's faces. It makes it extremely hard to communicate because people assume everybody reads expressions." Low-vision participants described needing to focus on faces individually, which "slows down" their ability to read social situations and know "when it is a good time to join in the conversation." (3) Identifying Challenging Environments: crowded, unfamiliar, or sensory-overwhelming spaces created cognitive overload, headaches, and safety concerns. One participant enjoyed museum exhibits but crowded venues caused headaches. Another described safety anxiety in a crowded Indian market where friends noticed they were being watched. (4) Strategies and Challenges: participants relied on sound, touch, and memories. A painter perceives faces by touching them. Others relied on tone of voice for social cues — "but a lot of people aren't really expressive when they vocalize." One participant described experiencing the Statue of Liberty through sound but found it insufficient: "I'm not seeing it, I'm getting a different experience."
Relevance
This paper makes a case that assistive technology has focused too narrowly on functional visual information (is the light green? what object is this?) at the expense of experiential visual information (what does the atmosphere feel like? what expression is on someone's face?). For accessibility practitioners and haptic device designers, the four themes identify specific categories of visual detail that matter to blind and low-vision people but are currently unaddressed by technology: physical attributes of objects and environments, real-time non-verbal social cues across multiple people simultaneously, environmental atmosphere and safety assessment, and the gap between auditory/tactile substitution and the actual visual experience. The choice to interview visual artists is both a strength (deeper reflection on visual experience) and a limitation (may not represent the broader blind/low-vision population). Other limitations include the small sample (N=6) and the preliminary nature of the work, which has not yet produced a design prototype.
Tags: visual accessibility · blindness and low vision · haptic technology · disability arts · perception · social cognition · creative accessibility · sensory processing