Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 118 references

VIP-Sim: A User-Centered Approach to Vision Impairment Simulation for Accessible Design

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Five of seven visually impaired users endorsed VIP-Sim filters

desk verdict A solid participatory-design artifact and protocol, but the resemblance ratings are calibration output, not independent validation; strong claims need an out-of-sample check. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10479 v1 pith:G34SOUOO submitted 2025-07-14 cs.HC

Max Rädler , Mark Colley , Enrico Rukzio This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords visualimpairmentsimulationparticipatorydesignuser-centeredaccessibilityeyetrackingshadersMonoWitnessProtocoldesktoptools
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to close a gap in accessibility tools: almost no vision-impairment simulators are built with direct input from the people who actually live with the impairments. The authors developed VIP-Sim, a desktop overlay that lets designers apply 21 adjustable symptom filters, such as central or peripheral field loss, blur, light sensitivity, double vision, and floaters, to any Windows or macOS design tool. Their central claim is that a symptom-based simulator co-designed with seven visually impaired participants can be faithful enough that most participants recognize it as their own experience. Five of the seven said VIP-Sim effectively simulated their symptoms, and the authors argue this makes it the first simulator endorsed through a documented participatory process. The claim matters because accessibility guidelines are described as too general and emotionally distant; a faithful simulator could help designers catch problems early, as long as it is used alongside, not instead of, direct testing with visually impaired users.

What carries the argument

The MonoWitness Protocol is the mechanism that carries the argument. It is a participatory refinement loop in which each participant first undergoes vision tests, including an Amsler grid for field loss, Ishihara plates for color deficiency, and a Pelli-Robson chart for contrast sensitivity, then views candidate shaders and compares them against their own perception while alternating left and right eyes, so a healthier or cured eye can serve as a witness for the impaired eye. Discrepancies are used to adjust existing shaders or create new ones before the next participant runs the same loop. The technical substrate is a transparent Unity overlay that applies the shaders to any running desktop application, with gaze-contingent effects driven by a webcam-based eye-tracking library and a mouse-based fallback for participants with nystagmus or strabismus.

What would settle it

Run a blind test with new VIPs who did not help tune the shaders: present each symptom filter at several severity levels alongside an unmodified screen, ask which image matches their own perception, and require accuracy significantly above chance; if untuned participants cannot identify their own symptom filter, or if participants with central scotomas cannot tell whether the central-loss shader is switched on, the resemblance claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that VIP-Sim successfully simulates a wide range of visual symptoms through a user-centered design process involving seven people with different vision impairments, and that most participants felt the simulation replicated their symptoms. The most convincing evidence is symptom-by-symptom: the central vision loss shader, which fades resolution rather than drawing a black blob, was recognized across different diagnoses; light sensitivity, blur, contrast desaturation, and double vision were also singled out as accurate. The same process produced negative evidence as well: participants rejected the metamorphopsia and nystagmus shaders when those did not match their perception, and the authors acknowledge that color-vision-deficiency shaders cannot be fully confirmed by the people who cannot see the missing colors. The authors frame the conclusion carefully, calling the results subjective approximations from a small sample that do not claim to cover every VIP experience.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that VIP-Sim replicates symptoms rests on participants saying the shaders looked like their own vision, but those participants helped tune the shaders just before rating them, and when a simulated defect landed inside a participant's own blind spot they could not actually see it to judge it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Designers working in tools like Adobe XD or Unreal Engine can toggle VIP-Sim on and see their current screen under any of 21 adjustable symptom filters, with gaze-contingent field loss following the eye instead of the mouse.
  • The same central-vision-loss shader matched symptoms in participants with different underlying diagnoses, which suggests symptom-based rather than disease-based filters can cover more people per filter.
  • The MonoWitness Protocol gives future simulator builders a concrete, reusable procedure: assess each participant's vision, show candidate shaders, let a witness eye judge the impaired experience, and iterate before the next participant.
  • Acceptance was conditional: participants whose symptoms were matched on the first pass were positive, while participants whose shader missed felt that only direct contact with VIPs can truly validate a design.
  • The paper concludes that VIP-Sim should be used alongside, not instead of, involving visually impaired people in design, because even an endorsed simulator cannot represent the full diversity of visual experience.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • We infer that the protocol's transferable insight is the mono-witness trick: recruiting people with asymmetric vision, or people who recovered after treatment, gives a within-person baseline that turns resemblance ratings into a comparison rather than an unverifiable guess, and the same design could generalize to simulations of hearing, motor, or cognitive conditions.
  • We infer that the next strong test of fidelity should be behavioral rather than verbal, for example measuring whether sighted designers using VIP-Sim make the same reading-speed or detection errors as matched VIP users on the same interface, since resemblance ratings alone cannot separate faithful simulation from politeness or the tendency to approve what one just helped tune.
  • We infer that the paper's own blind-spot observation marks a sharp boundary on the claim: for shaders that occlude exactly what the participant cannot see, approval is close to vacuous, and those specific filters will be the hardest to validate without an external measure.
  • We infer that a sample drawn entirely from congenitally impaired participants would likely produce weaker endorsement, because the paper notes such participants lack a reference point for normal vision and therefore cannot judge resemblance in the same way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents VIP-Sim, a desktop overlay simulator with 21 symptom shaders developed through a participatory design process with 7 participants with visual impairments. The authors introduce the MonoWitness Protocol, a qualitative calibration procedure combining vision tests, monocular and binocular comparisons, and iterative shader adjustment. The evaluation reports that 5 of 7 participants felt the simulation replicated their symptoms, and the paper discusses participant concerns about the use of simulators by designers, the comprehensiveness of the symptom set, and technical limitations. The central contribution is the open-source artifact and the reusable protocol, rather than a controlled experimental validation of simulator fidelity.

Significance. If the fidelity claim were fully supported, this would be a meaningful step: a gaze-contingent, symptom-based desktop simulator co-designed with VIPs, an open-source implementation, and a reusable protocol for participatory simulator design. The qualitative reporting is candid, and the authors explicitly acknowledge the halo effect, the small sample, and the difficulty of having participants approve effects they cannot perceive. However, the resemblance ratings are in-sample and partly unconfirmable, so the paper does not currently establish that VIP-Sim replicates symptoms beyond the calibration process itself. The artifact and protocol contributions are real, and the limitations are acknowledged, but the conclusion overstates the evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 6.2.1 and Table 4] The resemblance ratings are in-sample: each participant helped adjust the shader parameters before rating whether the shader resembled their perception. Section 4.3 describes the hands-on session in which participants or the supervisor set the sliders based on the participants' descriptions, and the Table 4 legend states that a dash means 'differences were noted and the shader was adjusted afterward.' The checkmarks in Table 4 are therefore the output of the calibration loop, not independent evidence of fidelity. Section 6.6 mentions the halo effect, but the more fundamental issue is circularity: the ratings measure whether the participant endorsed the result of a fitting procedure they just performed. A blinded, out-of-sample evaluation with new VIPs who did not participate in tuning, and with fixed shader presets, is required to support the claim that VIP-Sim replicates symptoms.
  2. [Section 6.5, P3 exchange] The paper itself provides a direct illustration of why some positive ratings are unconfirmable. When the simulated field loss was gaze-contingent, P3 reported that the simulated scotoma fell 'exactly in the blind spot,' so the participant did not actually perceive the simulated effect. The text then states that 'participants cannot fully approve what they cannot perceive.' This is a load-bearing caveat because the central vision loss shader is described in Section 6.2.1 as especially well received (P2, P3, P4, P6), and P3's positive rating is one of the supporting data points. The conclusion that VIP-Sim successfully simulates symptoms needs to account for the fact that at least one strongly endorsed shader received endorsement for an effect the participant could not see.
  3. [Section 7 and Section 6.2.2] The conclusion 'VIP-Sim successfully simulates a wide range of visual symptoms (N=21) through a UCD process involving N=7 participants' overstates what the data show. Table 4 indicates that several shaders were added after a participant (asterisks) and therefore were not evaluated by that participant; the CVD shaders were explicitly not directly evaluable because participants with CVD did not notice changes; and no participant approved the metamorphosia, teichopsia, or nystagmus shaders. The evidence supports a narrower claim: a symptom set was co-designed with seven participants, and five of them endorsed most of the shaders that were actually shown to them. The generalization from seven participants to a 'wide range of visual symptoms' should be reframed, or an out-of-sample evaluation with new participants should be added.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 3 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'incoperates' should be 'incorporates.'
  2. [Tables 1 and 5] Table 1 contains 'Uspecified' and 'no.' where 'Unspecified' and 'no' are intended, and Table 5 contains 'unkown'; these should be corrected.
  3. [Section 6.5] The statement that 'most of our proposed shaders (20 of 24; 83.33%) resembled participants' perceptions' is not obviously reconcilable with Table 3, which lists 21 symptom shaders, and with Table 4, which shows that several shaders were never presented to any participant. Please clarify the denominator and which shaders are included in the 20 of 24 count.
  4. [Section 5.4] The abbreviation 'CDV' is used in the Color vision deficiency paragraph ('fixed CDV calculation matrices') while the rest of the paper uses 'CVD'; please standardize.
  5. [Section 6.2.2] The sentence 'This is similar to Tigwell [74], where 13 of 17 participants argued similarly' is missing a verb or object; rephrase to indicate what the 13 participants argued, for example that simulators would not change their design practice.
  6. [Section 5.1] The text says that all data are publicly available anonymously, but the URL is only given in the Open Science section; adding the link at the point of the data availability statement would help readers.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Resemblance evidence is in-sample: participants rate shaders during the same calibration session in which they adjust them, so the central fidelity claim partly restates fitting success.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.3 (MonoWitness Protocol, Q8), Section 4.3.1 (Assessment Session), Section 6.2.1 and Table 4; conclusion in Section 7]
    "Q8 You will now see visual effects on the screen. These visual effects have different effect sizes that we can adjust together. Please describe how applicable the effects are in comparison with your changed vision due to the impairment. ... Then, the hands-on simulator section of the MonoWitness protocol was used to calibrate the existing shaders. ... participants could set the sliders themselves."

    The applicability judgment and the parameter adjustment occur in the same step: participants (or the supervisor) tune each shader until it matches the participant's described perception, and the resulting 'applicable' ratings, summarized as checkmarks in Table 4, are then reported in Section 6.2.1 as evidence that 'VIP-Sim effectively simulated their symptoms.' The Section 7 conclusion that VIP-Sim 'successfully simulates a wide range of visual symptoms' is thus, for the co-designed shaders, a restatement of the calibration loop rather than an independent test.

full rationale

The central fidelity claim is not independently established. The MonoWitness Protocol is explicitly a calibration procedure: the hands-on session 'was used to calibrate the existing shaders,' and Section 4.3.1 says participants could set the sliders themselves. The same session collects the resemblance judgments used in Table 4 and Section 6.2.1, so those judgments measure fit of the calibration loop, not out-of-sample fidelity. Section 6.5 adds that for scotoma shaders the simulated defect can land exactly on the participant's own blind spot, and the paper concedes that participants cannot approve what they cannot perceive; the paper's own P3 exchange shows a positive rating given for an unseen effect. Section 6.6 acknowledges the halo effect and calls for A/B testing, which is honest but confirms that the reported resemblance data are in-sample. Not all content is circular: CVD matrices are imported from Machado et al. [45] and Jones et al. [29], and several shaders build on OpenVisSim, giving independent grounding for those symptoms. Self-citations (UnitEye, prior interview protocols) are technical or methodological and are not load-bearing for the fidelity claim. Score 6 reflects that one of the paper's central claims — successful simulation of symptoms — partially reduces by construction to the calibration ratings, while other shaders have independent prior-work content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on subjective calibration (free parameters fit to 7 participants) and on several domain assumptions about the validity of self-reported ground truth, the mono-witness method, webcam eye tracking accuracy, and the face validity of on-screen shaders. No new physical entities are introduced; the MonoWitness Protocol is a methodological innovation, not a postulated entity. The main structural cost is that the resemblance result is produced by the same fitting procedure that defined the shader parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • Central vision loss size = per-participant (from Amsler grid drawing)
    Adjusted for each participant based on their drawn field loss (Section 4.3.1); the final shader retains a settable size parameter.
  • Hyperopia blur (cycles per degree) = 0.01 to 30
    Participants (P2, P3, P6) adjusted the blur level until it matched their acuity; the CPD slider is a free parameter in the tool.
  • Contrast sensitivity (brightness, contrast, gamma) = ranges in Table 3
    The CS shader was tuned to each participant's report of a washed-out, grayish image; the paper describes the shader as adjustable but does not fix a validated default.
  • Retinopathy dot size, density, centering = per P7
    Adjusted after P7 said dots were 'Smaller. Denser. Centered in the middle'; parameters remain user-adjustable.
  • Distortion vortex parameters = per P1
    Added after P1 described a 'pull inwards'; parameters (radius, suction strength, noise) were set to match P1's account.
  • Metamorphosia shader parameters = rejected by participants
    Both metamorphosia shaders were not approved by participants; parameters lack validated values and disclaimers were added in the UI.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Participants' self-reports of their visual experience (field loss drawings, verbal descriptions) are accurate ground truth for their impairment.
    The MonoWitness Protocol calibrates the simulation entirely from subjective reports and simple chart tests (Amsler grid, Ishihara, contrast sensitivity) rather than clinical perimetry or medical records (Section 4.3, 4.3.1).
  • domain assumption A participant with one healthy eye or a memory of unimpaired vision can reliably separate the simulation from their own perception.
    The method's name and recruitment strategy rely on this 'mono-witness' ability (Section 4.3); if this comparison is unreliable, the calibration data are invalid.
  • domain assumption A webcam-based eye tracker (UnitEye) with approximately 2.4 to 2.55 cm accuracy is precise enough for gaze-contingent simulation.
    All eye-tracked shaders depend on this; Section 6.6 discloses the accuracy limits and states that inaccuracies remain, but the authors judge it sufficient.
  • domain assumption On-screen shaders viewed on a flat monitor can represent the real perceptual experience of a VIP looking at the same monitor.
    The evaluation assumes face validity of the simulation medium; Section 6.5 acknowledges that visualizations cannot capture compensation mechanisms and that some effects were not fully perceivable.
  • domain assumption CVD simulation matrices from Machado et al. are correct.
    The paper adopts fixed CVD matrices from prior work because participants with CVD could not perceive color changes to validate them (Section 6.2.1).
  • domain assumption The initial symptom set chosen from WHO prevalence, Zaman et al., and OpenVisSim covers the relevant space of symptoms.
    Symptom selection (Section 4.2) is based on prevalence and prior reviews; the paper's own participants question the comprehensiveness (Section 6.2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of VIP-Sim: A User-Centered Approach to Vision Impairment Simulation for Accessible Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G34SOUOO

@misc{pith2026250710479,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: VIP-Sim: A User-Centered Approach to Vision Impairment Simulation for Accessible Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G34SOUOO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10479}
}
read the original abstract

People with vision impairments (VIPs) often rely on their remaining vision when interacting with user interfaces. Simulating visual impairments is an effective tool for designers, fostering awareness of the challenges faced by VIPs. While previous research has introduced various vision impairment simulators, none have yet been developed with the direct involvement of VIPs or thoroughly evaluated from their perspective. To address this gap, we developed VIP-Sim. This symptom-based vision simulator was created through a participatory design process tailored explicitly for this purpose, involving N=7 VIPs. 21 symptoms, like field loss or light sensitivity, can be overlaid on desktop design tools. Most participants felt VIP-Sim could replicate their symptoms. VIP-Sim was received positively, but concerns about exclusion in design and comprehensiveness of the simulation remain, mainly whether it represents the experiences of other VIPs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10479 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. VIP-Sim, a vision impairment simulator, was created in a user-centered design process in collaboration with participants with visual impairments. During this process, VIP-Sim was first built upon existing work and then extended and optimized towards a closer representation of the perception of our participants. This was done in a process where each participant underwent an initial assessment (left) to identify blind… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the development process of VIP-Sim. Starting from an unevaluated estimate of the shader for visual impairments, we underwent the MonoWitness Protocol seven times to evaluate, refine, or extend it. Demographics Fieldloss central Shader Adjustment of Parameters Double Vision Shader Adjustment of Parameters For each eye and both eyes Evaluation of accuracy Differences to shaders Opinion on simulators Hands … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Our approach for assessing and participatory development of the visual impairment shaders. The left-hand side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the shaders available in VIP-Sim. It is important to note that each shader still has differences in parameters and severity. Nystagmus is not represented here as the motion is not depictable. mouse input mode. This feature was added because some partici￾pan…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: VIP-Sim overlays other applications (e.g., Adobe XD) without interrupting their functionality. The upper section of the UI allows users to select the application for integration. In the lower section, symptoms can be toggled and their asso￾ciated parameter settings adj…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the impairments identified with our participants. The marked areas on the left indicate regions with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

118 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Carl Halladay Abraham, Godfred Sakyi-Badu, Samuel Bert Boadi-Kusi, Enyam Morny, Charles Darko-Takyi, Stephen Ocansey, Paa Kwesi Fynn Hope, Albert Kofi Dadzie, Asantewaa Aboagye MacCarthy, Kingsford Osei-Frimpong, Emmanuella Nyarkoa Opoku, and Emmanuel Kwasi Abu. 2024. Simulation of Visual Impair- ment in Persons with Normal Vision for Scientific Research....

    work page doi:10.1111/opo.13268 2024

  2. [2]

    Almutleb, Arthur Bradley, Jason Jedlicka, and Shirin E

    Essam S. Almutleb, Arthur Bradley, Jason Jedlicka, and Shirin E. Hassan. 2018. Simulation of a Central Scotoma Using Contact Lenses with an Opaque Centre. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 38, 1 (2018), 76–87. doi:10.1111/opo.12422

    work page doi:10.1111/opo.12422 2018

  3. [3]

    Martin Anderson (Ed.). 2013. Contemporary Ergonomics and Human Factors 2013: Proceedings of the International Conference on Ergonomics & Human Factors 2013, Cambridge, UK, 15-18 April 2013 . Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1201/b13826

    work page doi:10.1201/b13826 2013

  4. [4]

    Sarah Andrew, Chelsea Bishop, and Garreth W. Tigwell. 2024. Light and Dark Mode: A Comparison Between Android and iOS App UI Modes and Interviews with App Designers and Developers.Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 8, 1, Article 32 (March 2024), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3643539

    work page doi:10.1145/3643539 2024

  5. [5]

    Halim Cagri Ates, Alexander Fiannaca, and Eelke Folmer. 2015. Immersive Simulation of Visual Impairments Using a Wearable See-through Display. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction . ACM, Stanford California USA, 225–228. doi:10.1145/ 2677199.2680551

    arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Duchowski, and Wilson S

    Patrick Baudisch, Doug DeCarlo, Andrew T. Duchowski, and Wilson S. Geisler

  7. [7]

    Jan Bedrosian. 1995. Limitations in the Use of Nondisabled Subjects in AAC Research. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 11, 1 (Jan. 1995), 6–10. doi:10.1080/07434619512331277089

    work page doi:10.1080/07434619512331277089 1995

  8. [8]

    Bennett and Daniela K

    Cynthia L. Bennett and Daniela K. Rosner. 2019. The Promise of Empathy: Design, Disability, and Knowing the "Other". In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300528

    arXiv 2019

Show all 118 references
  1. [9]

    Brewer and Vaishnav Kameswaran

    Robin N. Brewer and Vaishnav Kameswaran. 2018. Understanding the Power of Control in Autonomous Vehicles for People with Vision Impairment. InPro- ceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, Galway Ireland, 185–197. doi:10.1...

    2018

  2. [10]

    Ronald J. Chenail. 2011. Interviewing the Investigator: Strategies for Addressing Instrumentation and Researcher Bias Concerns in Qualitative Research. Qualita- tive Report 16, 1 (Jan. 2011), 255–262

    2011

  3. [11]

    Kenny Tsu Wei Choo, Rajesh Krishna Balan, and Youngki Lee. 2019. Examining Augmented Virtuality Impairment Simulation for Mobile App Accessibility De- sign. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–11. doi:10....

    2019

  4. [12]

    Dekker, and Pete R

    Hugo Chow-Wing-Bom, Tessa M. Dekker, and Pete R. Jones. 2020. The Worse Eye Revisited: Evaluating the Impact of Asymmetric Peripheral Vision Loss on Everyday Function. Vision Research 169 (April 2020), 49–57. doi:10.1016/j.visres. 2019.10.012 UIST ’25, September 28-October 1, ...

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Mark Colley, Marcel Walch, Jan Gugenheimer, Ali Askari, and Enrico Rukzio

  6. [14]

    John Clarkson

    Katie Cornish, Joy Goodman-Deane, and P. John Clarkson. 2014. Designer Requirements for Visual Capability Loss Simulator Tools: Differences between Design Disciplines. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design and Development Methods for Universal Access , Cons...

    2014

  7. [15]

    Jingying Dong and Caroline Karmann. 2024. A Review Study of Space Perception and Navigation of People with Low Vision: Is Simulated Low Vision a Reliable Methodology? IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1320, 1 (March 2024), 012022. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/132...

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Donald Fong, Lloyd Aiello, Frederick Ferris, and Ronald Klein. 2004. Diabetic Retinopathy. Diabetes Care 27 (Oct. 2004), 2540–2553. doi:10.2337/diacare.27.10. 2540

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    Anne Frances Walonker and Kenneth R. Diddie. 1981. Simulating Decreased Visual Acuity With a Contact Lens System. American Journal of Ophthalmology 92, 6 (Dec. 1981), 863–864. doi:10.1016/S0002-9394(14)75645-4

    1981 doi

  10. [18]

    Flatla, and Ciabhan L

    Connor Geddes, David R. Flatla, and Ciabhan L. Connelly. 2023. 30 Years of Solving the Wrong Problem: How Recolouring Tool Design Fails Those with Colour Vision Deficiency. In The 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, New York NY USA,...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Dimitris Giakoumis, Nikolaos Kaklanis, Konstantinos Votis, and Dimitrios Tzo- varas. 2014. Enabling User Interface Developers to Experience Accessibility Limitations through Visual, Hearing, Physical and Cognitive Impairment Sim- ulation. Universal Access in the Information So...

    2014 doi

  12. [20]

    Langdon, P

    Joy Goodman-Deane, Patrick M. Langdon, P. John Clarkson, Nicholas Hm Cald- well, and Ahmed M. Sarhan. 2007. Equipping Designers by Simulating the Effects of Visual and Hearing Impairments. In Proceedings of the 9th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Access...

    2007

  13. [21]

    John Clarkson

    Joy Goodman-Deane, Sam Waller, Katie Cornish, and P. John Clarkson. 2014. A Simple Procedure for Using Vision Impairment Simulators to Assess the Visual Clarity of Product Features. In Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Design and Development Methods for Universal...

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    Mathias Haimerl, Mark Colley, and Andreas Riener. 2022. Evaluation of Com- mon External Communication Concepts of Automated Vehicles for People With Intellectual Disabilities. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 6, MHCI, Article 182 (Sept. 2022), 19 pages. doi:10.1145/3546717

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    Jonna Häkkilä, Ashley Colley, Jani Väyrynen, and Antti-Jussi Yliharju. 2018. Introducing Virtual Reality Technologies to Design Education. Seminar.net 14, 1 (June 2018), 1–12. doi:10.7577/seminar.2584

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Hartong, Eliot L

    Dyonne T. Hartong, Eliot L. Berson, and Thaddeus P. Dryja. 2006. Retinitis Pigmentosa. The Lancet 368, 9549 (Nov. 2006), 1795–1809. doi:10.1016/S0140- 6736(06)69740-7

    2006 doi

  17. [25]

    Shinobu Ishihara. 1951. Tests for colour-blindness

    1951

  18. [26]

    Md Touhidul Islam and Syed Masum Billah. 2023. SpaceX Mag: An Automatic, Scalable, and Rapid Space Compactor for Optimizing Smartphone App Interfaces for Low-Vision Users. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 7, 2, Article 59 (June 2023), 36 pages. doi:10.1145/3596253

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    Tiffany Jan and Jorge Del Castillo. 2012. Visual hallucinations: charles bonnet syndrome. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 13, 6 (2012), 544

    2012

  20. [28]

    Taewoo Jo, Dohyeon Yeo, Gwangbin Kim, Seokhyun Hwang, and SeungJun Kim

  21. [29]

    Jones and Giovanni Ometto

    Pete R. Jones and Giovanni Ometto. 2018. Degraded Reality: Using VR/AR to Simulate Visual Impairments. In 2018 IEEE Workshop on Augmented and Virtual Realities for Good (V AR4Good). IEEE, 1–4. doi:10.1109/VAR4GOOD.2018.8576885

    2018

  22. [30]

    Jones, Tamás Somoskeöy, Hugo Chow-Wing-Bom, and David P

    Pete R. Jones, Tamás Somoskeöy, Hugo Chow-Wing-Bom, and David P. Crabb

  23. [31]

    Rie Kamikubo, Keita Higuchi, Ryo Yonetani, Hideki Koike, and Yoichi Sato. 2018. Exploring the Role of Tunnel Vision Simulation in the Design Cycle of Accessible Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 15th International Web for All Conference . ACM, Lyon France, 1–10. doi:10.1145/31...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Johnson, Ryan Neydavood, Anvitha Akkaraju, and Michael Beyeler

    Justin Kasowski, Byron A. Johnson, Ryan Neydavood, Anvitha Akkaraju, and Michael Beyeler. 2023. A Systematic Review of Extended Reality (XR) for Un- derstanding and Augmenting Vision Loss. Journal of Vision 23, 5 (May 2023), 5. doi:10.1167/jov.23.5.5

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Kirandeep Kaur and Bharat Gurnani. 2024. Contrast Sensitivity. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL)

    2024

  26. [34]

    npj Digital Medicine 3, 1 (March 2020), 1–9

    Seeing Other Perspectives: Evaluating the Use of Virtual and Augmented Reality to Simulate Visual Impairments (OpenVisSim). npj Digital Medicine 3, 1 (March 2020), 1–9. doi:10.1038/s41746-020-0242-6

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Wonjung Kim, Kenny Tsu Wei Choo, Youngki Lee, Archan Misra, and Ra- jesh Krishna Balan. 2018. Empath-D: VR-based Empathetic App Design for Accessibility. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services . ACM, Munich Germ...

    2018

  28. [36]

    Sharon Kingman. 2004. Glaucoma is second leading cause of blindness globally. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 82 (2004), 887–888

    2004

  29. [37]

    Urvashi Kokate, Kristen Shinohara, and Garreth W. Tigwell. 2022. Exploring Accessibility Features and Plug-ins for Digital Prototyping Tools. InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, Athens Greece, 1–4. doi:10.1145/3...

    2022

  30. [38]

    N. W. Kim, S. C. Joyner, A. Riegelhuth, and Y. Kim. 2021. Accessible Visualization: Design Space, Opportunities, and Challenges. Computer Graphics Forum 40, 3 (2021), 173–188. doi:10.1111/cgf.14298

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Katharina Krösl, Marina Lima Medeiros, Marlene Huber, Steven Feiner, and Carmine Elvezio. 2023. Exploring the Educational Value and Impact of Vision- Impairment Simulations on Sympathy and Empathy with XREye. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction 7, 7 (July 2023), 70. doi:10...

    2023 doi

  32. [40]

    Queener, Scott B

    Arun kumar Krishnan, Hope M. Queener, Scott B. Stevenson, Julia S. Benoit, and Harold E. Bedell. 2019. Impact of Simulated Micro-Scotomas on Reading Performance in Central and Peripheral Retina. Experimental Eye Research 183 (June 2019), 9–19. doi:10.1016/j.exer.2018.06.027

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Merja Laamanen, Tarja Ladonlahti, Hannu Puupponen, and Tommi Kärkkäinen

  34. [42]

    Luidolt, Matthias Hürbe, Sonja Karst, Steven Feiner, and Michael Wimmer

    Katharina Krösl, Carmine Elvezio, Laura R. Luidolt, Matthias Hürbe, Sonja Karst, Steven Feiner, and Michael Wimmer. 2020. CatARact: Simulating Cataracts in Augmented Reality. In 2020 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Aug- mented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 682–693. doi:10.1...

    2020

  35. [43]

    Jennifer Leo and Donna Goodwin. 2016. Simulating Others’ Realities: Insiders Reflect on Disability Simulations. Adapted physical activity quarterly : APAQ 33 (April 2016), 156–175. doi:10.1123/APAQ.2015-0031

    2016 doi

  36. [44]

    Low Vision Simulators. 2024. Low Vision Simulators: Tools for Understanding Visual Impairments. https://www.lowvisionsimulators.com/. Accessed: 2024-08- 19

    2024

  37. [45]

    Machado, Manuel M

    Gustavo M. Machado, Manuel M. Oliveira, and Leandro A. F. Fernandes. 2009. A Physiologically-based Model for Simulation of Color Vision Deficiency. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 15, 6 (Nov. 2009), 1291–1298. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2009.113

    2009 doi

  38. [46]

    Universal Access in the Information Society 23, 1 (March 2024), 475–491

    Does the Law Matter? An Empirical Study on the Accessibility of Finnish Higher Education Institutions’ Web Pages. Universal Access in the Information Society 23, 1 (March 2024), 475–491. doi:10.1007/s10209-022-00931-6

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    Robbins, Emilie M

    Jo Lane, Rachel A. Robbins, Emilie M. F. Rohan, Kate Crookes, Rohan W. Essex, Ted Maddess, Faran Sabeti, Jamie-Lee Mazlin, Jessica Irons, Tamara Gradden, Amy Dawel, Nick Barnes, Xuming He, Michael Smithson, and Elinor McKone

  40. [48]

    Marco Manca, Vanessa Palumbo, Fabio Paternò, and Carmen Santoro. 2023. The Transparency of Automatic Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools: Design Criteria, State of the Art, and User Perception. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 16, 1, Article 3 (March 2023), 36 pages. doi:10.1145/3556979

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    Mankoff, H

    J. Mankoff, H. Fait, and R. Juang. 2005. Evaluating Accessibility by Simulating the Experiences of Users with Vision or Motor Impairments. IBM Systems Journal 44, 3 (2005), 505–517. doi:10.1147/sj.443.0505

    2005 doi

  42. [50]

    Manuela M Marin and Helmut Leder. 2013. Examining complexity across domains: relating subjective and objective measures of affective environmental scenes, paintings and music. PloS one 8, 8 (2013), e72412

    2013

  43. [51]

    Tuuli Mattelmäki, Kirsikka Vaajakallio, and Ilpo Koskinen. 2014. What Happened to Empathic Design? Design Issues 30, 1 (2014), 67–77. jstor:24267026

    2014

  44. [52]

    Schinazi, Dimitrios Saredakis, and Tobias Loetscher

    Anne Macnamara, Celia Chen, Victor R. Schinazi, Dimitrios Saredakis, and Tobias Loetscher. 2021. Simulating Macular Degeneration to Investigate Activities of Daily Living: A Systematic Review. Frontiers in Neuroscience 15 (Aug. 2021). doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.663062

    2021

  45. [53]

    Maher, Justin A

    Anthony J. Maher, Justin A. Haegele, and Andrew C. Sparkes. 2024. Stop Fearing Blindness! Visually Impaired People Reflect on the Ethics of Sighted Prospective Teachers Simulating Visual Impairment. Disability & Society 39, 5 (May 2024), 1196–1214. doi:10.1080/09687599.2022.2116560

    2024

  46. [54]

    Michelle Nario-Redmond, Dobromir Gospodinov, and Angela Munoz-Geoghegan

  47. [55]

    National Eye Institute. 2021. Age-Related Macular Degeneration. https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn-about-eye-health/eye-conditions-and- diseases/age-related-macular-degeneration. Accessed: August 21, 2024

    2021

  48. [56]

    National Eye Institute. 2023. Refractive Errors. https://www.nei.nih.gov/learn- about-eye-health/eye-conditions-and-diseases/refractive-errors. Accessed: Au- gust 21, 2024

    2023

  49. [57]

    User Sensitive Inclusive Design

    Alan F. Newell and Peter Gregor. 2000. “User Sensitive Inclusive Design”— in Search of a New Paradigm. In Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability (CUU ’00) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 39–44. doi:10.1145/355460.355470

    2000

  50. [58]

    Luca-Maxim Meinhardt, Maximilian Rück, Julian Zähnle, Maryam Elhaidary, Mark Colley, Michael Rietzler, and Enrico Rukzio. 2024. Hey, What’s Going On? Conveying Traffic Information to People with Visual Impairments in Highly Automated Vehicles: Introducing OnBoard. Proc. ACM In...

    2024 doi

  51. [59]

    Luca-Maxim Meinhardt, Lina Madlin Weilke, Maryam Elhaidary, Julia von Abel, Paul D. S. Fink, Michael Rietzler, Mark Colley, and Enrico Rukzio. 2025. Light My Way: Developing and Exploring a Multimodal Interface to Assist People With Visual Impairments to Exit Highly Automated ...

    2025

  52. [60]

    Ken Perlin. 1985. An Image Synthesizer. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 19, 3 (July 1985), 287–296. doi:10.1145/325165.325247

    1985

  53. [61]

    Perry and Wilson S

    Jeffrey S. Perry and Wilson S. Geisler. 2002. Gaze-contingent Real-Time Simu- lation of Arbitrary Visual Fields. In SPIE Proceedings, Bernice E. Rogowitz and Thrasyvoulos N. Pappas (Eds.). SPIE, San Jose, CA. doi:10.1117/12.469554

    2002 doi

  54. [62]

    Betts Peters, Matt Higger, Fernando Quivira, Steven Bedrick, Shiran Dudy, Bran- don Eddy, Michelle Kinsella, Tab Memmott, Jack Wiedrick, Melanie Fried-Oken, Deniz Erdogmus, and Barry Oken. 2018. Effects of Simulated Visual Acuity and Ocular Motility Impairments on SSVEP Brain-...

    2018

  55. [63]

    Christopher Power, André Freire, Helen Petrie, and David Swallow. 2012. Guide- lines Are Only Half of the Story: Accessibility Problems Encountered by Blind Users on the Web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12) . Association ...

    2012

  56. [64]

    Sydney Pratte, Anthony Tang, and Lora Oehlberg. 2021. Evoking Empathy: A Framework for Describing Empathy Tools. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, N...

    2021

  57. [65]

    Nisbett and Timothy D

    Richard E. Nisbett and Timothy D. Wilson. 1977. The Halo Effect: Evidence for Unconscious Alteration of Judgments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35, 4 (1977), 250–256. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250

    1977 doi

  58. [66]

    Denis Pelli, John Robson, and Arnold Wilkins. 1987. Designing a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vis Sci 2 (11 1987)

    1987

  59. [67]

    Birthe Krogh Rasmussen and Jes Olesen. 1992. Migraine with aura and migraine without aura: an epidemiological study. Cephalalgia 12, 4 (1992), 221–228

    1992

  60. [68]

    William Rosengren, Marcus Nyström, Björn Hammar, and Martin Stridh. 2020. A Robust Method for Calibration of Eye Tracking Data Recorded during Nystagmus. Behavior Research Methods 52, 1 (Feb. 2020), 36–50. doi:10.3758/s13428-019-01199- 0

    2020 doi

  61. [69]

    J. B. Rousek and M. S. Hallbeck. 2011. The Use of Simulated Visual Impairment to Identify Hospital Design Elements That Contribute to Wayfinding Difficulties. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 41, 5 (Sept. 2011), 447–458. doi:10. 1016/j.ergon.2011.05.002

    2011

  62. [70]

    Christoph Schulz, Nils Rodrigues, Marco Amann, Daniel Baumgartner, Arman Mielke, Christian Baumann, Michael Sedlmair, and Daniel Weiskopf. 2019. A Framework for Pervasive Visual Deficiency Simulation. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR) . IEE...

    2019

  63. [71]

    Andrew Sears and Vicki Hanson. 2011. Representing Users in Accessibility Research. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2235–2238. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979268

    2011

  64. [72]

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Tao Xu, Greg Brockman, Christine Mcleavey, and Ilya Sutskever. 2023. Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Super- vision. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 28492–28518

    2023

  65. [73]

    Puja Rai, Jolly Rohatgi, and Upreet Dhaliwal. 2019. Coping Strategy in Per- sons with Low Vision or Blindness – an Exploratory Study. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology 67, 5 (May 2019), 669. doi:10.4103/ijo.IJO_1655_18

    2019 doi

  66. [74]

    Garreth W. Tigwell. 2021. Nuanced Perspectives Toward Disability Simulations from Digital Designers, Blind, Low Vision, and Color Blind People. In Proceed- ings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3411764.3445620

    2021

  67. [75]

    University of Cambridge. 2024. Inclusive Design Toolkit: Customer Service Guide. https://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/csg/csg.html. Accessed: 2024-08-19

    2024

  68. [76]

    Tobias Wagner, Mark Colley, Daniel Breckel, Michael Kösel, and Enrico Rukzio

  69. [77]

    Yanan Wang, Yuhang Zhao, and Yea-Seul Kim. 2024. How Do Low-Vision In- dividuals Experience Information Visualization?. In Proceedings of the CHI Con- ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642188

    2024

  70. [78]

    WebAIM. 2025. The WebAIM Million: The 2025 Report on the Accessibility of the Top 1,000,000 Home Pages. https://webaim.org/projects/million/. Accessed: 2025-07-14

    2025

  71. [79]

    Amritha Stalin and Kristine Dalton. 2020. Relationship of Contrast Sensitivity Measured Using Quick Contrast Sensitivity Function With Other Visual Functions in a Low Vision Population. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science 61, 6 (June 2020), 21. doi:10.1167/iovs.61.6.21

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    Taylor, Laura A

    Deanna J. Taylor, Laura A. Edwards, Alison M. Binns, and David P. Crabb. 2018. Seeing It Differently: Self-Reported Description of Vision Loss in Dry Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 38, 1 (2018), 98–105. doi:10.1111/opo.12419

    2018 doi

  73. [81]

    World Health Organization. 2023. Blindness and Visual Impairment. https://www. who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment. Ac- cessed: August 21, 2024

    2023

  74. [82]

    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 2024. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/. Accessed: 2024- 08-27

    2024

  75. [83]

    Tina Yao, Soojeong Yoo, and Callum Parker. 2022. Evaluating Virtual Real- ity as a Tool for Empathic Modelling of Vision Impairment: Insights from a simulated public interactive display experience. In Proceedings of the 33rd Aus- tralian Conference on Human-Computer Interactio...

    2022

  76. [84]

    In Proceedings of Mensch Und Computer 2024 (Karlsruhe, Germany) (MuC ’24)

    UnitEye: Introducing a User-Friendly Plugin to Democratize Eye Tracking Technology in Unity Environments. In Proceedings of Mensch Und Computer 2024 (Karlsruhe, Germany) (MuC ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–10. doi:10.1145/3670653.3670655

    2024

  77. [85]

    Lee, Alireza Tavakkoli, and Stewart Zuckerbrod

    Nasif Zaman, Joshua Ong, Ethan Waisberg, Mouayad Masalkhi, Andrew G. Lee, Alireza Tavakkoli, and Stewart Zuckerbrod. 2024. Advanced Visualization Engi- neering for Vision Disorders: A Clinically Focused Guide to Current Technology and Future Applications. Annals of Biomedical ...

    2024 doi

  78. [86]

    Qing Zhang, Giulia Barbareschi, Yifei Huang, Juling Li, Yun Suen Pai, Jamie Ward, and Kai Kunze. 2022. Seeing Our Blind Spots: Smart Glasses-based Simulation to Increase Design Students’ Awareness of Visual Impairment. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User In...

    2022

  79. [87]

    Greg Welch and Gary Bishop. 1997. An Introduction to the Kalman Filter. (1997)

    1997

  80. [88]

    2024.Amsler grid

    Wikipedia contributors. 2024.Amsler grid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsler_ grid [Online; accessed 16-August-2024]

    2024

  81. [92]

    Michelle Zagar and Scott Baggarly. 2010. Low Vision Simulator Goggles in Pharmacy Education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 74, 5 (June 2010), 83

    2010

  82. [95]

    Yuxiang Zhang and Ricardo Codinhoto. 2020. Developing a Visually Impaired Older People Virtual Reality (VR) Simulator to Apply VR in the Aged Living Design Workflow. In 2020 24th International Conference Information Visualisation (IV). IEEE, Melbourne, Australia, 226–235. doi:...

    2020

  83. [96]

    Nail polish on glasses 0 n.a

    glaucoma, cataracts, AMD, diabetic retinopathy, and retinitis pigmen- tosa. Nail polish on glasses 0 n.a. no 2010

    2010

  84. [97]

    general loss of the ability to see fine detail, Glasses that occlude the vi- sion n.a. n.a. no 2013

    2013

  85. [98]

    diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, cataracts, AMD, and hemianopsia Glasses that occlude the vi- sion n.a. n.a. no unknown

  86. [99]

    yes 2022

    field loss, glaucoma, AMD Glasses occlusion with black color 0 n.a. yes 2022

    2022

  87. [100]

    yes 2018

    central scotoma Contacts occlusion with black color 0 n.a. yes 2018

    2018

  88. [101]

    yes 1981 –Desktop–

    central scotoma, Hemianopia, Pe- ripheral field loss Contacts occlusion with black color 0 n.a. yes 1981 –Desktop–

    1981

  89. [102]

    yes 2018

    Tunnel vision occlusion with white color 0 n.a. yes 2018

    2018

  90. [103]

    not mentioned Visual effects displayed on im- ages 0 n.a. no 2007

    2007

  91. [104]

    MD, glaucoma, Cataract, Hyperopia, Colour Vision Deficiencies, Night Blindness, Extreme Light Sensitiv- ity, Retinitis pigmentosa Visual effects displayed on ap- plications unknown n.a. no 2014

    2014

  92. [105]

    Blurring, Occlusion, Color modifi- cations Visual effects displayed on screenshot 0 n.a. no 2005

    2005

  93. [106]

    cataracts, nyctalopia, CVD, MD, glaucoma Visual effects displayed on screenshot 0 n.a. no 2019

    2019

  94. [107]

    unkown 2019

    micro-scotomas Visual effects displayed on screenshot 0 n.a. unkown 2019

    2019

  95. [108]

    unkown 2019 –VR/AR–

    AMD Visual effects displayed on screenshot 0 n.a. unkown 2019 –VR/AR–

    2019

  96. [109]

    cataracts Effects applied to 360 video 5 Showing visual- izations asking for descrip- tions yes 2020

    2020

  97. [110]

    yes 2023

    refractive errors, AMD, achro- matopsia, cornea Effects applied video–see- through AR 0 n.a. yes 2023

    2023

  98. [111]

    glaucoma Effects applied video–see- through AR 1 description of impair- ment yes 2020

    2020

  99. [112]

    self- reported symptoms yes 2018

    glare, blur, CVD, infilling, distor- tions Effects applied video–see- through AR n.a. self- reported symptoms yes 2018

    2018

  100. [113]

    MD, diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, cataracts, color blindness, diplopia Effects applied video–see- through AR 0 n.a. no 2015

    2015

  101. [114]

    cataracts, diabetic retinopathy, glau- coma Effects applied to VR environ- ment 0 n.a. no 2021

    2021

  102. [115]

    AMD, cataract, myopia, glaucoma Effects applied to VR environ- ment 0 n.a. no 2018

    2018

  103. [116]

    cataracts, glaucoma, MD, color blind, Effects applied to VR environ- ment 0 n.a. no 2020

    2020

  104. [117]

    yes 2024

    Tunnel vision Effects applied to VR environ- ment 0 n.a. yes 2024

    2024

  105. [118]

    cataracts, glaucoma Effects applied to XR environ- ment 0 n.a. no 2018

    2018

  106. [2003]

    Com- mun

    Focusing on the Essential: Considering Attention in Display Design. Com- mun. ACM 46, 3 (March 2003), 60–66. doi:10.1145/636772.636799

    2003

  107. [2017]

    Rehabilitation Psychology 62 (March 2017)

    Crip for a Day: The Unintended Negative Consequences of Disability Simulations. Rehabilitation Psychology 62 (March 2017). doi:10.1037/rep0000127

    2017 doi

  108. [2019]

    Journal of Vision 19, 6 (June 2019), 18

    Caricaturing Can Improve Facial Expression Recognition in Low-Resolution Images and Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Journal of Vision 19, 6 (June 2019), 18. doi:10.1167/19.6.18

    2019 doi

  109. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20)

    Towards Inclusive External Communication of Autonomous Vehicles for Pedestrians with Vision Impairments. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20) . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/331383...

    2020

  110. [2024]

    WatchCap: Improving Scanning Efficiency in People with Low Vision through Compensatory Head Movement Stimulation. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 8, 2, Article 47 (May 2024), 32 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3659592

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.