pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.07849 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-08 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: no theorem link

A Spatial Knowledge Acquisition Comparison Between Digital Visual Thematic Maps, Non-Visual Interactive Text Thematic Maps, and Tables

Brandon Biggs , Christopher Toth , James M. Coughlan , Bruce N. Walker
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 02:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords spatial knowledge acquisitioninteractive text mapsaccessibilityblind and low-vision usersthematic mapstablesWCAGMap Equivalent Purpose Framework
0
0 comments X

The pith

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines-compliant interactive text maps provide spatial information access comparable to visual maps, unlike tables.

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

The paper compares visual thematic maps, interactive text maps (ITMs), and tables for how well they help sighted and blind/low-vision users acquire spatial knowledge. Participants answered numeric, geographic, and combined questions with each format, and maps of both kinds outperformed tables on geographic questions while showing little difference on numeric ones. For sighted users, ITM performance on geographic questions was statistically similar to visual maps, suggesting the two can serve equivalent purposes. The results challenge the common accessibility practice of substituting tables that omit geographic relationships. Participants preferred map formats over tables even though ITMs carried higher perceived workload.

Core claim

Across sighted and blind/low-vision groups, both visual maps and ITMs significantly outperformed tables on geographic-based questions, while performance differences were minimal for numeric questions. Sighted participants showed no significant difference between visual maps and ITMs on geographic questions, supporting an equivalent purpose across these representations. These findings align with the Map Equivalent Purpose Framework and indicate that WCAG-compliant ITMs can convey spatial information in ways tables cannot.

What carries the argument

The Map Equivalent Purpose Framework, which tests whether a non-visual representation can fulfill the same functional role as a visual map in conveying spatial relationships and data.

If this is right

  • WCAG-compliant ITMs can serve as effective alternatives to visual maps for conveying spatial information.
  • Tables that lack geographic relationships are insufficient substitutes for thematic maps.
  • Both sighted and blind/low-vision users prefer map-based representations over tables for spatial tasks.
  • Accessibility guidelines and legislation that recommend or exempt tables as map alternatives should be reconsidered.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • ITMs could be applied to more complex or dynamic geographic datasets beyond the tested thematic maps.
  • Adoption of ITMs might improve accessibility for other forms of data visualization that currently rely on tables.
  • Larger-scale or real-world navigation studies could further test whether the observed equivalence holds outside controlled question sets.

Load-bearing premise

Performance on the study's specific questions generalizes to real-world spatial knowledge acquisition tasks and the tested ITM prototype represents the capabilities of general WCAG-compliant interactive text maps.

What would settle it

A follow-up experiment in which users cannot answer geographic relationship questions using ITMs at rates comparable to visual maps when the tasks involve different or more complex spatial configurations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.07849 by Brandon Biggs, Bruce N. Walker, Christopher Toth, James M. Coughlan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A visual image of a choropleth map showing different colors over different geographic features (states) over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A picture of a choropleth map of 20 irregular polygons showing statistical values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: A comparison of an Audiom choropleth map showing COVID statistics compared to the CDC website [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Digital maps are used to communicate generalized spatial information and relationships, yet are commonly made "accessible" using tables that lack geographic information. This study examines whether these tables and interactive text maps (ITMs) may be comparable to visual maps. Twenty sighted and 20 blind and low-vision individuals (BLVIs) performed tasks designed to compare visual maps, ITMs, and tables. Participants answered numeric, geographic, and combined numeric geographic questions using each representation, and performance, preference, and NASA-TLX were measured. Across both participant groups, map representations (visual and ITMs) significantly outperformed tables on geographic-based questions, while performance differences were minimal for numeric questions. For sighted participants, performance on geographic questions did not significantly differ between visual maps and ITMs, indicating that a larger powered study may find an "equivalent purpose" across these two conditions. Participants preferred map-based representations over tables. Perceived workload was highest for the ITM, intermediate for the visual map, and lowest for the table. Consistent with the Map Equivalent Purpose Framework, these findings indicate that Web Content Accessibility Guidelines-compliant ITMs can provide access to spatial information, unlike tables. These findings challenge prevailing accessibility practice that recommends tables lacking geographic information as map alternatives, and motivate reconsideration of accessibility legislation exempting digital thematic maps.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents an empirical comparison of digital visual thematic maps, non-visual interactive text thematic maps (ITMs), and tables for acquiring spatial knowledge. Twenty sighted and 20 blind/low-vision participants answered numeric, geographic, and combined questions using each format; performance, preference, and NASA-TLX workload were measured. Results show map formats outperform tables on geographic questions, no significant difference between visual maps and ITMs for sighted participants on geographic tasks, higher workload for ITMs, and preference for maps over tables. The authors conclude that WCAG-compliant ITMs enable spatial information access unlike tables, supporting the Map Equivalent Purpose Framework and challenging table-based accessibility practices.

Significance. If the empirical findings hold after addressing statistical limitations, the work provides concrete evidence that interactive text maps can serve as viable alternatives to visual maps for spatial tasks, particularly benefiting accessibility for BLVI users. This has direct implications for revising WCAG guidelines and legislation that exempt maps from full accessibility requirements. The balanced participant groups and multi-measure design (performance plus workload) add practical value.

major comments (2)
  1. [Results] Results section on geographic questions for sighted participants: the claim of no significant difference between visual maps and ITMs is used to suggest potential equivalence under the Map Equivalent Purpose Framework, but with n=20 per group and no equivalence testing (e.g., TOST with pre-specified bounds), failure to reject the null does not establish equivalence; the authors note a larger study may be needed, making this interpretation load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Discussion] Discussion and abstract: the assumption that performance on the specific set of numeric/geographic/combined questions generalizes to real-world spatial knowledge acquisition (e.g., inferring dynamic relationships) is not tested or bounded, weakening support for applying the findings to the broader framework and ITM recommendations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section lacks explicit details on counterbalancing of map conditions, exact statistical tests used (beyond significance), and participant screening for prior experience with maps or ITMs, which would improve reproducibility.
  2. The ITM prototype is described as WCAG-compliant but no validation against existing tools or full specification of its implementation is provided, leaving the generalizability of the prototype unclear.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on statistical interpretation and scope of generalizability. We address each major comment below, agreeing where revisions are warranted to strengthen the manuscript without overstating our findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section on geographic questions for sighted participants: the claim of no significant difference between visual maps and ITMs is used to suggest potential equivalence under the Map Equivalent Purpose Framework, but with n=20 per group and no equivalence testing (e.g., TOST with pre-specified bounds), failure to reject the null does not establish equivalence; the authors note a larger study may be needed, making this interpretation load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the current wording risks implying equivalence despite our explicit note on sample size. The manuscript states only that performance 'did not significantly differ' and that 'a larger powered study may find an equivalent purpose,' without performing or claiming TOST-based equivalence. To prevent misinterpretation, we will revise the Results, Discussion, and abstract to remove any phrasing that could suggest equivalence, emphasize the absence of equivalence testing as a limitation, and explicitly recommend future studies use TOST with pre-specified bounds. This change clarifies that the data support the need for further investigation rather than establishing equivalence under the framework. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion] Discussion and abstract: the assumption that performance on the specific set of numeric/geographic/combined questions generalizes to real-world spatial knowledge acquisition (e.g., inferring dynamic relationships) is not tested or bounded, weakening support for applying the findings to the broader framework and ITM recommendations.

    Authors: The tasks were selected to assess core components of spatial knowledge acquisition (numeric values, geographic relations, and their integration) using established question types from prior map-reading research. We did not claim the results generalize to all real-world scenarios such as dynamic or temporal relationships. We will revise the Discussion and abstract to explicitly bound the conclusions to the tested task types, add a dedicated limitations paragraph noting that broader applications (e.g., dynamic inference) require additional validation, and qualify the framework support accordingly. This revision will make the scope of the claims more precise while preserving the core finding that ITMs outperform tables on geographic tasks. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical study with no circular derivation steps identified.

full rationale

The paper reports results from a user study involving performance measurements on spatial knowledge tasks across three representation types. Claims about ITMs providing access to spatial information are derived directly from participant accuracy data and statistical comparisons, not from any self-referential definitions, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations that reduce the result to prior inputs. The consistency statement with the Map Equivalent Purpose Framework is interpretive and does not constitute a derivation that loops back to the study's own data by construction. The work is self-contained through its experimental protocol and observed outcomes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

As an empirical human-subjects study, the central claims rest on standard experimental psychology and HCI assumptions about task validity and generalizability rather than new free parameters, mathematical axioms, or postulated entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The selected tasks and questions validly assess spatial knowledge acquisition
    The study design assumes that numeric, geographic, and combined questions measure the intended cognitive processes.
  • domain assumption The ITM implementation is representative of WCAG-compliant non-visual map alternatives
    The paper uses a specific ITM but generalizes to the class of such maps.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5545 in / 1519 out tokens · 57708 ms · 2026-05-11T02:39:22.594351+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

96 extracted references · 96 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Retrieved from https://www.ucgis.org/about-and-mission

    About and mission. Retrieved from https://www.ucgis.org/about-and-mission

    work page

  2. [2]

    American Printing House for the Blind. Monarch. Retrieved from https://www.aph.org/product/monarch/

    work page

  3. [3]

    Arundel and W Li

    Steven T. Arundel and W Li. 2021. The evolution of geospatial reasoning, analytics, and modeling. The Geographic Information Science & Technology Body of Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.22224/gistbok/2021.3.4

    work page doi:10.22224/gistbok/2021.3.4 2021

  4. [4]

    Brandon Biggs. 2020. Accessibility in digital maps - position paper. In W3C/OGC joint workshop series on maps for the web . Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/2020/maps/supporting-material-uploads/position-statements/Brandon_Biggs-Smith-Kettlewell.pdf

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Brandon Biggs. 2024. How to make detailed map text descriptions. XR Navigation . Retrieved from https://xrnavigation.io/how-to-make-detailed- map-text-descriptions/

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Coughlan, and Bruce N

    Brandon Biggs, Hannah Agbaroji, Christopher Toth, Tony Stockman, James M. Coughlan, and Bruce N. Walker. 2024. Co -designing auditory navigation solutions for traveling as a blind individual during the COVID -19 pandemic. Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research 14, 1. https://doi.org/10.5241/14-252

    work page doi:10.5241/14-252 2024

  7. [7]

    Coughlan, and Bruce N

    Brandon Biggs, James M. Coughlan, and Bruce N. Walker. 2025. Systematically evaluating digital map tools based on the WCAG. Journal on Technology and Persons with Disabilities 13. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12680/qn59qf178

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Brandon Biggs, James Coughlan, and Peter Coppin. 2019. Design and evaluation of an audio game -inspired auditory map interface. https://doi.org/10.21785/icad2019.051

    work page doi:10.21785/icad2019.051 2019

  9. [9]

    Brandon Biggs, Charity Pitcher -Cooper, and James Coughlan. 2022. Getting in touch with tactile map automated production: Evaluating impact and areas for improvement. Journal on Technology and Persons with Disabilities 10. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10065749/

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Giudice, James M

    Brandon Biggs, David Sloan, Brett Oppegaard, Nicholas A. Giudice, James M. Coughlan, and Bruce N. Walker. 2026. Systematicall y evaluating equivalent purpose for digital maps. Journal on Technology and Persons with Disabilities 14. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.05310

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Coughlan, and Bruce Walker

    Brandon Biggs, Christopher Toth, Tony Stockman, James M. Coughlan, and Bruce Walker. 2022. Evaluation of a non -visual auditory choropleth and travel map viewer. In International conference on auditory display. https://doi.org/10.21785/icad2022.027

    work page doi:10.21785/icad2022.027 2022

  12. [12]

    Brandon Biggs, Lena Yusim, and Peter Coppin. 2018. The audio game laboratory: Building maps from games. Retrieved from https://icad2018.icad.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ICAD2018_paper_51.pdf

    work page 2018

  13. [13]

    Bocoup. 2022. Maps for HTML research summary - external version for comms. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX- 1vRXTxEOqP6xmdgPEmqir8r-kDvwVfA8oTC4vvv_XhoRk9mClLtzMx0BdoMaPIctwftkWI3U7yTS3Bkq/pub#h.daspzm7dxtbd

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Anke M Brock and Christophe Jouffrais. 2015. Interactive audio -tactile maps for visually impaired people. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 113: 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2850440.2850441

    work page doi:10.1145/2850440.2850441 2015

  15. [15]

    Anke M Brock, Philippe Truillet, Bernard Oriola, Delphine Picard, and Christophe Jouffrais. 2015. Interactivity improves usability of geographic maps for visually impaired people. Human–Computer Interaction 30, 2: 156–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370024.2014.924412

    work page doi:10.1080/07370024.2014.924412 2015

  16. [16]

    Neil Burgess, Eleanor A Maguire, and John O’Keefe. 2002. The human hippocampus and spatial and episodic memory. Neuron 35, 4: 625 –641. Retrieved from https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(02)00830-9

    work page 2002

  17. [17]

    Matthew Butler, Leona Holloway, Kim Marriott, and Cagatay Goncu. 2017. Understanding the graphical challenges faced by vision-impaired students 22 in australian universities. Higher Education Research & Development 36, 1: 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2016.1177001

    work page doi:10.1080/07294360.2016.1177001 2017

  18. [18]

    Retrieved from https://www.section508.gov/buy/

    Buy accessible products and services. Retrieved from https://www.section508.gov/buy/

    work page

  19. [19]

    Dustin Carroll, Suranjan Chakraborty, and Jonathan Lazar. 2013. Designing accessible visualizations: The case of designing a weather map for blind users. In Universal access in human -computer interaction. Design methods, tools, and interaction techniques for eInclusion: 7th international conference, UAHCI 2013, held as part of HCI international 2013, las...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39188-0_47 2013

  20. [20]

    Nic Chan and Robert Linder. 2021. Web map tools WCAG 2.1 evaluation. Retrieved from https://github.com/Malvoz/web-maps-wcag- evaluation/blob/master/README.md

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Colorado OIT-GIS. 2024. Colorado GIS accessibility guidelines. Retrieved from https://gis.colorado.gov/accessibility/?pa

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Erin C Connors, Elizabeth R Chrastil, Jaime Sánchez, and Lotfi B Merabet. 2014. Virtual environments for the transfer of navigation skills in the blind: A comparison of directed instruction vs. Video game based learning approaches. Frontiers in human neuroscience 8: 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00223

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00223 2014

  23. [23]

    Megan Conway, Brett Oppegaard, and Tuyet Hayes. 2020. Audio description: Making useful maps for blind and visually impaired p eople. Technical Communication 67, 2: 68–86. Retrieved from https://www.stc.org/techcomm/2020/04/28/audio-description-making-useful-maps-for- blind-and-visually-impaired-people/

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Franco Delogu, Massimiliano Palmiero, Stefano Federici, Catherine Plaisant, Haixia Zhao, and Olivetti Belardinelli. 2010. Non -visual exploration of geographic maps: Does sonification help? Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology 5, 3: 164 –174. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483100903100277

    work page doi:10.3109/17483100903100277 2010

  25. [25]

    Careers in geography and geosciences: A world of possibilities

    Department of Geography and Geosciences, Salisbury University. Careers in geography and geosciences: A world of possibilities . Retrieved from https://www.salisbury.edu/academic-offices/science-and-technology/geography-and-geosciences/_files/careers-in-geosciences.pdf

    work page

  26. [26]

    Digital map market

    2019. Digital map market. Retrieved from https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/digital-map-market-174129746.html

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Julie Ducasse, Anke M Brock, and Christophe Jouffrais. 2018. Accessible interactive maps for visually impaired users. Mobility of Visually Impaired People: Fundamentals and ICT Assistive Technologies : 537–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54446-5_17

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54446-5_17 2018

  28. [28]

    European Commission. 2017. European accessibility act. Retrieved from https://eur -lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019L0882

    work page 2017

  29. [29]

    Nicholas A Giudice. 2018. Navigating without vision: Principles of blind spatial cognition. In Handbook of behavioral and cognitive geography . Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717544.00024

    work page doi:10.4337/9781784717544.00024 2018

  30. [30]

    Nicholas A Giudice, Benjamin A Guenther, Nicholas A Jensen, and Kaitlyn N Haase. 2020. Cognitive mapping without vision: Comparing wayfinding performance after learning from digital touchscreen -based multimodal maps vs. Embossed tactile overlays. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.00087

    work page doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.00087 2020

  31. [31]

    Reginald G Golledge, R Daniel Jacobson, Robert Kitchin, and Mark Blades. 2000. Cognitive maps, spatial abilities, and human w ayfinding. Geographical review of Japan, Series B. 73, 2: 93–104. https://doi.org/10.4157/grj1984b.73.93

    work page doi:10.4157/grj1984b.73.93 2000

  32. [32]

    Wade H Goodridge, Natalie L Shaheen, Anne Therese Hunt, and Daniel Kane. 2021. Work in progress: The development of a tactile spatial ability instrument for assessing spatial ability in blind and low-vision populations. In 2021 ASEE virtual annual conference content access . https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--38203

    work page doi:10.18260/1-2--38203 2021

  33. [33]

    Government of Canada. 2025. Regulations amending the accessible canada regulations: SOR/2025 -255. Canada Gazette, Part II 159 . Retrieved from https://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2025/2025-12-17/html/sor-dors255-eng.html

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    João Guerreiro, Dragan Ahmetovic, Kris M Kitani, and Chieko Asakawa. 2017. Virtual navigation for blind people: Building sequential representations of the real-world. In Proceedings of the 19th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility , 280 –289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.102369

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.102369 2017

  35. [35]

    Sabine Hennig, Fritz Zobl, and Wolfgang W Wasserburger. 2017. Accessible web maps for visually impaired users: Recommendation s and example solutions. Cartographic Perspectives, 88: 6–27. https://doi.org/10.14714/cp88.1391

    work page doi:10.14714/cp88.1391 2017

  36. [36]

    Wilko Heuten, Niels Henze, and Susanne Boll. 2007. Interactive exploration of city maps with auditory torches. In CHI’07 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems , 1959–1964. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240866.1240932

    work page doi:10.1145/1240866.1240932 2007

  37. [37]

    Wilko Heuten, Daniel Wichmann, and Susanne Boll. 2006. Interactive 3D sonification for the exploration of city maps. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing roles, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1145/1182475.1182492

    work page doi:10.1145/1182475.1182492 2006

  38. [38]

    Tina Iachini, Gennaro Ruggiero, and Francesco Ruotolo. 2014. Does blindness affect egocentric and allocentric frames of refer ence in small and large scale spaces? Behavioural brain research 273: 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.07.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.07.032 2014

  39. [39]

    Dan Jacobson

    R. Dan Jacobson. 1998. Cognitive mapping without sight: Four preliminary studies of spatial learning. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, 3: 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1998.0098

    work page doi:10.1006/jevp.1998.0098 1998

  40. [40]

    Sergio Juan-Armero and Sergio Luján-Mora. 2019. Using SVG to develop web maps for people with visual disabilities. Enfoque UTE 10, 2: 90 – 106

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    KMSOC. 2024. Comment 3. Retrieved from https://github.com/atbcb/ICTTestingBaseline/issues/477#issuecomment -2223501226

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Julian Kreimeier, Pascal Karg, and Timo Götzelmann. 2020. BlindWalkVR: Formative insights into blind and visually impaired pe ople’s VR locomotion using commercially available approaches. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM international conference on PErvasive technologies related to assistive environments, 1–8

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    J. B. Krygier. 1994. Sound and geographic visualization. In Modern cartography series . 2, Academic Press, 149 –166. Retrieved from 23 https://makingmaps.net/2008/03/25/making-maps-with-sound/

    work page 1994

  44. [44]

    Daniël Lakens, Anne M Scheel, and Peder M Isager. 2018. Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances in methods and practices in psychological science 1, 2: 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918770963

    work page doi:10.1177/2515245918770963 2018

  45. [45]

    Steven Landau and Karen Gourgey. 2001. Development of a talking tactile tablet. Information Technology and Disabilities 7, 2

    work page 2001

  46. [46]

    Miljenko Lapaine, Terje Midtbø, Georg Gartner, Temenoujka Bandrova, Tao Wang, and Jie Shen. 2021. Definition of the map. Advances in Cartography and GIScience of the International Cartographic Association 3: 9. Retrieved from https://ica-adv.copernicus.org/articles/3/9/2021/ica- adv-3-9-2021.pdf

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Jaewook Lee, Jaylin Herskovitz, Yi -Hao Peng, and Anhong Guo. 2022. ImageExplorer: Multi -layered touch exploration to encourage skepticism towards imperfect AI-generated image captions. In CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , 1 –15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501966

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501966 2022

  48. [48]

    Retrieved from https://www.levelaccess.com/

    LevelAccess.com: ADA Compliance, 508 Compliance, WCAG, VPAT. Retrieved from https://www.levelaccess.com/

    work page

  49. [49]

    Esther Loeliger and Tony Stockman. 2014. Wayfinding without visual cues: Evaluation of an interactive audio map system. Interacting with Computers 26, 5: 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwt042

    work page doi:10.1093/iwc/iwt042 2014

  50. [50]

    Paul A Longley, Michael F Goodchild, David J Maguire, and David W Rhind. 2011c. Cartography and map production. In Geographic information systems and science (Third). John Wiley & Sons

    work page

  51. [51]

    Paul A Longley, Michael F Goodchild, David J Maguire, and David W Rhind. 2011a. INTRODUCTION. In Geographic information systems and science (Third). John Wiley & Sons

    work page

  52. [52]

    Paul A Longley, Michael F Goodchild, David J Maguire, and David W Rhind. 2011b. A gallery of applications. In Geographic information systems and science (Third). John Wiley & Sons

    work page

  53. [53]

    Matteo Manzoni, Sergio Mascetti, Dragan Ahmetovic, Ryan Crabb, and James M Coughlan. 2025. MapIO: A gestural and conversational interface for tactile maps. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3566286

    work page doi:10.1109/access.2025.3566286 2025

  54. [54]

    Mapbox. 2020. Mapbox. Retrieved from https://www.mapbox.com/

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Material UI SAS. 2026. Material UI: React components that implement material design. Retrieved from https://mui.com/material-ui/

    work page 2026

  56. [56]

    Krista McCall Jessica AND McPherson. 2024. Accessibility essentials for GIS and mapping. ArcGIS Blog . Retrieved from https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/instant-apps/mapping/accessibility-essentials-for-gis-and-mapping

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Newcombe

    Nora S. Newcombe. 2024. Spatial Cognition. In Open Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science , Michael C. Frank and Asifa Majid (eds.). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.21428/e2759450.f1b0237e

    work page doi:10.21428/e2759450.f1b0237e 2024

  58. [58]

    NV Access. 2017. NVDA 2017.4 user guide. Retrieved from https://www.nvaccess.org/files/nvda/documentation/userGuide.html

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    William O’Donnell. 2014. An analysis of employment barriers facing blind people. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umb.edu/mspa_capstone/23/

    work page 2014

  60. [60]

    Loes Ottink, Bram Van Raalte, Christian F Doeller, Thea M Van der Geest, and Richard JA Van Wezel. 2022. Cognitive map formation through tactile map navigation in visually impaired and sighted persons. Scientific reports 12, 1: 11567. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-15858-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-022-15858-4 2022

  61. [61]

    Konstantinos Papadopoulos, Marialena Barouti, and Eleni Koustriava. 2018. Differences in spatial knowledge of individuals with blindness when using audiotactile maps, using tactile maps, and walking. Exceptional Children 84, 3: 330–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918764300

    work page doi:10.1177/0014402918764300 2018

  62. [62]

    Lorenzo Picinali, Amandine Afonso, Michel Denis, and Brian FG Katz. 2014. Exploration of architectural spaces by blind people using auditory virtual reality for the construction of spatial knowledge. International Journal of Human -Computer Studies 72, 4: 393 –407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.12.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.12.008 2014

  63. [63]

    Hrishikesh V Rao and Sile O’Modhrain. 2020. 2Across: A comparison of audio -tactile and screen-reader based representations of a crossword puzzle. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376207

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376207 2020

  64. [64]

    React: A JavaScript library for building user interfaces

    2018. React: A JavaScript library for building user interfaces. Retrieved from https://reactjs.org/

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    Jonathan Rowell and Simon Ungar. 2003. The world of touch: An international survey of tactile maps. Part 2: design. British Journal of Visual Impairment 21, 3: 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/026461960302100304

    work page doi:10.1177/026461960302100304 2003

  66. [66]

    Jonathan Rowell and Simon Ungar. 2003. The world of touch: An international survey of tactile maps. Part 1: production. British Journal of Visual Impairment 21, 3: 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/026461960302100303

    work page doi:10.1177/026461960302100303 2003

  67. [67]

    Jonathan Rowell and Simon Ungar. 2005. Feeling our way: Tactile map user requirements -a survey. In International cartographic conference, la coruna

    work page 2005

  68. [68]

    Ben Satterfield, Karen Milchus, Patricia Griffiths, Salimah LaForce, Bruce Walker, Lizanne DeStefano, and Matthew Blake. 2025. Mastery of assistive technology: What is it? How do we measure it? Assistive Technology 37, sup1: S113–S124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2024.2362136

    work page doi:10.1080/10400435.2024.2362136 2025

  69. [69]

    Gian-Luca Savino, Miriam Sturdee, Simon Rundé, Christine Lohmeier, Brent Hecht, Catia Prandi, Nuno Jardim Nunes, and Johannes Schöning. 2021. MapRecorder: Analysing real-world usage of mobile map applications. Behaviour & Information Technology 40, 7: 646 –662. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2020.1714733

    work page doi:10.1080/0144929x.2020.1714733 2021

  70. [70]

    Susanna Schmidt, Carla Tinti, Micaela Fantino, Irene C Mammarella, and Cesare Cornoldi. 2013. Spatial representations in blin d people: The role of strategies and mobility skills. Acta psychologica 142, 1: 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.11.010 2013

  71. [71]

    Screen reader user survey 10 results

    2024. Screen reader user survey 10 results. Retrieved from https://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey10/#intro

    work page 2024

  72. [72]

    Alexander W Siegel and Sheldon H White. 1975. The development of spatial representations of large -scale environments. Advances in child development and behavior 10: 9–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2407(08)60007-5 24

    work page doi:10.1016/s0065-2407(08)60007-5 1975

  73. [73]

    David Sloan. 2020. Accessible digital map experiences: A mountain climb or a walk in the park? TPGi Blog . Retrieved from https://www.tpgi.com/accessible-digital-map-experiences/

    work page 2020

  74. [74]

    John B Smelcer and Erran Carmel. 1997. The effectiveness of different representations for managerial problem solving: Compari ng tables and maps. Decision Sciences 28, 2: 391–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01316.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01316.x 1997

  75. [75]

    The Institute of Education Sciences. 2026. Assessments - geography | NAEP. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/geography/

    work page 2026

  76. [76]

    The public sector bodies (websites and mobile applications) (no

    2018. The public sector bodies (websites and mobile applications) (no. 2) accessibility regulations 2018. Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2018/952/made

    work page 2018

  77. [77]

    Types of thematic maps

    2017. Types of thematic maps. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/maps/gisx/resources/thematic -maps.html

    work page 2017

  78. [78]

    The UniDescription project

    UniDescription. The UniDescription project. Retrieved from http://www.unidescription.org/

    work page

  79. [79]

    Retrieved from https://unidescription.org/unid-academy

    UniDescription academy. Retrieved from https://unidescription.org/unid-academy

    work page

  80. [80]

    Retrieved from https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_newcaserateper100k

    United states COVID-19 cases, deaths, and laboratory testing (NAATs) by state, territory, and jurisdiction. Retrieved from https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_newcaserateper100k

    work page

Showing first 80 references.