Emotionally Oriented Analysis of the Experiences of Visually Impaired People on Facebook
Cristiane N. Nobre, Magali R. G. Meireles, Débora B. F. Da Silva, Alberto H. Faria, Niltom Vieira · 2018 · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) · doi:10.1145/3230739
Summary
This paper investigates the emotional experiences of visually impaired Facebook users compared to sighted users, using the PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule) psychological instrument. The research addresses a gap in accessibility literature: while many studies document functional barriers, few examine the emotional impact of these barriers on users. The researchers surveyed 230 Brazilian Facebook users over 11 months (May 2013 to March 2014): 173 sighted users, 34 blind users, and 23 low-vision users. Recruitment used snowball sampling, starting with visually impaired "seed" users from disability associations. The 40-minute questionnaire evaluated emotional responses to four Facebook features: Friends Search, Dissemination of Text/Videos/Photos, Likes/Comments/Sharing, and Chat (Messenger). Two additional features—Groups and Events—were excluded because visually impaired participants rarely used them. For each feature, participants rated the frequency of experiencing five positive affects (Satisfaction, Pleasant Surprise, Excitement, Interest, Determination) and five negative affects (Irritability, Uselessness, Frustration, Sadness, Confusion) on a 1-5 Likert scale. Statistical analysis using Kruskal-Wallis tests and Fisher's LSD post-hoc comparisons identified significant differences between the three user groups.
Key findings
The study found statistically significant differences between sighted and visually impaired users across multiple affects and features. Blind users consistently reported higher frequencies of negative affects—particularly Frustration, Confusion, and feelings of Uselessness—when using most Facebook features. For Friends Search, blind users rated significantly lower on Interest and Determination compared to sighted users. Qualitative comments revealed why: Facebook's search relies heavily on profile photos to disambiguate common names, making it "exhausting" and "sometimes impossible without help from a third party." Users could search by email or phone instead, but privacy settings often blocked these alternatives. For Likes, Comments, and Sharing, blind users showed significantly higher Frustration (128.11 vs 91.82) and Confusion (133.39 vs 88.36) scores compared to sighted users. The screen reader reads identical labels for different posts' Like/Comment buttons, making it difficult to know which item is being acted upon. One user noted: "Facebook has many useless or unlisted images and this frustrates me." Chat emerged as the most accessible feature, generating the highest positive affect scores and lowest negative affect scores among visually impaired users. As a primarily text-based interface with minimal visual content, Chat allowed blind users to "talk to family and friends without any inconvenience." One user commented: "It somehow includes me and makes me more satisfied with my condition, giving me a feeling of being part of something." The coexistence of high positive and negative affects revealed a complex emotional experience: visually impaired users felt genuinely grateful for access to social networking—technology "unavailable not long ago"—while simultaneously frustrated by persistent accessibility barriers.
Relevance
This research makes a significant contribution by measuring the emotional cost of accessibility barriers, moving beyond task-completion metrics to capture user experience holistically. The PANAS methodology offers a validated, reproducible approach that other accessibility researchers could apply to different platforms and user populations. For practitioners, the findings highlight specific Facebook features requiring accessibility improvements. The contrast between Chat (accessible, positive emotions) and Friends Search or Likes/Comments (inaccessible, negative emotions) demonstrates how feature-level accessibility varies within a single platform. Recommendations include: automatic image captioning, clearer contextual labels distinguishing interactive elements, reduced visual clutter, and better screen reader compatibility with dynamic content. The study's finding that visually impaired users experience both social inclusion and social exclusion simultaneously challenges simplistic narratives. Social media provides genuine value—connection, entertainment, information—even when accessibility is imperfect. However, the emotional toll of barriers (frustration, feelings of worthlessness, required dependence on sighted helpers) suggests that "usable" is not equivalent to "emotionally satisfying." Limitations include the Brazilian sample (limiting generalizability), reliance on the simplified m.facebook.com interface rather than mobile apps with potentially better accessibility, and the exclusion of iOS users who may have more positive experiences with VoiceOver. Future work could extend this emotional-design approach to other platforms and explore how accessibility improvements affect emotional outcomes over time.
Tags: blindness · low vision · social media accessibility · Facebook · emotional design · user experience · PANAS · social inclusion
Standards referenced: ISO 9241-11