BLV TACTILE

INTERFACES

An ongoing research project exploring tactile interfaces for blind or low vision (BLV) students.

Overview

SUMMARY

I serve as a UX Researcher for a project addressing the inaccessibility of STEM classrooms for blind and low-vision students, turning user needs into actionable insights that guide engineering prototypes.

The result is a research backed direction toward affordable, durable, multimodal tactile interfaces using mechanical braille modules, shifting away from fragile, high-cost piezoelectric arrays.

ROLE

Spring 2025 | RESEARCH ASSISTANT

Summer - Present | UX RESEARCHER

  • Reviewed over 30 academic papers on tactile and multimodal accessibility.

  • Benchmarked existing devices (DotPad, BrailleNote, tactile overlays) through competitive analysis.

  • Designed and facilitated semi-structured interviews with assistive tech users.

  • Transcribed and analyzed interviews using thematic coding and affinity diagramming.

  • Synthesized findings into insights that informed engineering prototypes.

What is the Project?

CONTEXT

In STEM classrooms, blind and low-vision (BLV) students are often left behind when instructors introduce graphs, charts, or diagrams. Existing tools like braille displays are too costly, fragile, or slow to support real-time learning.

Our project aims to bridge this gap by studying BLV students’ needs and translating them into design solutions. Through academic research and user interviews, we’re guiding the creation of affordable, durable, and multimodal technology — built for inclusion in everyday classrooms.

Create a product that enables BLV students to follow along with graphs and diagrams in classrooms.

CHALLENGE

SOLUTION

Our project explores affordable, and multimodal solutions that translate digital graphs/diagrams into accessible formats for BLV students. By combining tactile overlays with audio feedback, the system makes it possible to follow classroom visuals in real time.

A tactile interface for real-time learning

Interview Design Protocol

CONSENT + ETHICS

  • Plain-language consent form

  • Remote-friendly sessions

  • Paid compensation for participants’ time.

OBJECTIVES

  • Understand assistive tech use

  • Identify challenges and successes

  • Confirm feature priorities & design criteria

EXAMPLE QUESTIONS

  • Could you tell us about your experience with braille displays?

  • What challenges do you face when accessing visual information?

  • Rank these characteristics: Affordability, Accuracy, Portability, etc.

  • Could you describe the ideal assistive tool?

Summary of User Research

LITERATURE REVIEW

Recurring challenges: high cost, limited portability, lack of multimodality.

Engineering novelty often diverges from user priorities

COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS

1. DotPad: High-resolution tactile display, but fragile and prohibitively expensive.

2. BrailleNote Touch Plus: Effective for text navigation, limited for diagrams.

3. Tactile overlays: Low-cost and accessible, but static and difficult to align with digital content.

INTERVIEWS

2 completed (5 target)

Designed for accessibility: plain language consent, optional audio recording, participant compensation.

Sessions (~30 minutes) focused on lived experiences with assistive tech, daily challenges, and thoughts regarding early ideas.

Research Insights

COMPETITIVE + ACEDMIC ANALYSIS: PAIN POINTS

Affordability: High device costs make adoption infeasible.

Portability: Bulky hardware was distracting and discouraged daily use.

Single-Modality: Multi-modal feedback is most effective

How might we balance affordability, speed, and portability in tactile interfaces while integrating audio feedback?

DESIGN QUESTION

INTERVIEWS: AFFINITY MAPPING

After transcribing and coding the interviews for recurring themes, affinity mapping revealed four non-negotiable priorities voiced across participants:

Key Insights Callout

Persona + User Journey

PERSONA

To ground the findings in lived experience, I developed a persona based on recurring themes.

Persona: Alex, a BLV biology student representing common goals, frustrations, and needs

USER JOURNEY

Mapping Alex’s classroom experience highlighted the gap between current tools and an ideal inclusive future.

User Journey Map: Current vs. Ideal classroom experience, showing how accessibility gaps create delays

Research Impact

  • Moved from piezoelectric pin arrays —> Hackaday electromechanical braille modules.

  • Committed to combing tactile + audio feedback

  • Focused on portability, repairability, and classroom viability.

Comparative Diagram: Piezoelectric vs. Hackaday modules

CAD render of Hackaday electromechanical braille module selected for prototyping

Reflection (Ongoing)

LEARNING

  • Learned to design accessible research protocols.

  • Strengthened skills in qualitative analysis.

  • Recognized balance between engineering and user needs.

  • Improved at translating user priorities into engineering constraints.

NEXT STEPS

Research: Conduct 3 more interviews

Prototyping:

  • Shift role from UX designer —> Product designer

  • Design prototypes with Hackaday modules

  • Test tactile + audio integration.

  • Usability testing with prototypes

Scaling: Apply for funding; publish results in accessibility and robotics venues.

TAKEAWAYS

  • Inclusive research requires designing the research process itself to be accessible.

  • User priorities (affordability, durability, usability) don’t always align with technical resolution.

  • Accessibility research is iterative and each cycle reveals new insights.

TIMELINE

Previous

UW Lost & Found | Web App Design (HCDE 310)