|
 |
Features &
Articles : Solutions
and Dissolution : Designing for the Visually Impaired
|
page: 1 2 3 4
To
Beep or not to Beep (or to Chirp or Whistle?)
Audible signals are one hot issue in the visually impaired community.
"A major problem for vision impairments is the decision process in
crossing the road," says Lois Thibault, Transporation Researcher at
the Washington, D.C.-based Access Board. "Sighted pedestrians get
information from the pedestrian greens that signal before the vehicle
greens are given." To give visually disabled pedestrians the same
access to this information, many cities have implemented audible signals.
Although many have found sound cues-- such as beeps, tones, or chirping
noises-- to be helpful in signalling safe crossing, many who responded
to the National Association for the Blind's survey voiced opinions
to the contrary. Some were unable to localize the sound and confused
it with another intersection. Some found it difficult to distinguish
the sound at all during periods of heavy traffic. And some literally
thought the sound was a real bird!
Dottie Neal is among those who find the the chirping cues to be detrimental.
"If you're not trained in mobility anyway, you're not going to be
able to use those. . . You really need good mobility training and
even then it can be dangerous. There's only one place I've found that
sound source to be helpful in my experience. When I lived in St. Louis
there was a T intersection where they used it. All the traffic stopped
in both directions so you knew you could cross. And everybody knew
about it, it was a generally known thing."
Many transportation researchers agree that chirping signals may not
be the answer. But other audible signals may be- if used correctly.
Says Lois Thibault, "One of the current bees in my bonnet is the lack
of usable information for visually impaired pedestrians. This survey
and others like it [finding that signals are confusing] simply show
that more information—more salient, consistent, standardized
information is required. The reasons that it is not is that we as
an industry have not really looked at these needs. It used to be that
we looked at factors in transportation depending on how many people
they were relevant to. In doing so, we ignored a significant portion
of the population. "Sidewalks and street crossings are confusing enough
for all of us. The right of way is not clearly defined. Most blind
people don't get mobility training. To expect them to be accustomed
to the differences in the ways that audible cues and other devices
are used all over the country is just unrealistic."
Transportation facilities for the visually impaired vary hugely from
city to city. Where some cities may have a few isolated intersections
with audible cues or pedestrian "walk" buttons, others have highly
advanced, user-friendly systems.
Both Thibault and Barbara McMillen, Transportation Specialist for
the FHWA's Environmental Planning, commend the city of San Francisco,
Calif. for their easy-to-use transportation facilities. "San Francisco
has installed talking signs in their BART system and in downtown street
crossings. They list street names and tell pedestrians when it's safe
to cross. Municipal building signs list the names of the tenants on
each floor. The talking signs are an expensive system to install,
however. Cities should make sure that improvements work with their
existing systems."
McMillen notes other cities with better facilities systems for the
visually impaired, such as Austin, Tex. for its willingness to experiment
with latest research improvements, Seattle, Wa., for its geometric
layout, and Clearwater, Fla., a smaller city that has recently installed
audible signals.
next
page: "I
think we're asking a lot of blind and visually impaired pedestrians..."
|
|