Preferences and Opinions of Braille Users on the Development of a Multiline Braille Display
By Jeanine Martinez, Ed.D. and Cheryl Kamei-Hannan, Ph.D.
Jeanine Martinez, Ed.D., is a teacher of students with visual impairments and a former adjunct professor in the Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments (TSVI) Credential and Master of Arts Degree Program at California State University, Los Angeles. She holds a B.S. in Business Management from California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, and an M.A. in Special Education with an emphasis in visual impairments and blindness from California State University, Los Angeles. She also completed the Multicultural Women’s Executive Leadership Program at the University of Southern California and the Assistive Technology Applications Certificate Program at California State University, Northridge. Dr. Martinez later earned a Doctorate in Educational Leadership from California State University, Los Angeles, where she was recognized as a National Institutes of Health (NIH) scholar. Her dissertation focused on implementing culturally responsive pedagogy to provide equitable services for students with visual impairments and blindness. As part of her NIH-supported doctoral research, she collaborated with engineers to explore user experience in the development of a multiline refreshable braille display.
Cheryl Kamei-Hannan, Ph.D., is an internationally recognized expert in braille literacy and the use of technology to support reading and writing. Her research has focused on design, development, and implementation of technology in schools. She has led multi-disciplinary teams who have created web-based software including Braille Brain, a curriculum for learning Unified English Braille and Nemeth codes and the former IOS apps Reading and Writing Adventure Time Apps, designed to support braille literacy skills. Dr. Kamei-Hannan has published over 20 peer-reviewed journal articles with a focus on literacy and technology for students with VI. She is co-author of Reading Connections: Strategies for Teaching Reading to Students with Visual Impairments and co-editor of the Foundations of Education (3rd Ed.). Dr. Kamei-Hannan received her Ph.D. from the University of Arizona with an emphasis on Special Education, Visual Impairment and Blindness and minor in Language, Reading, and Culture. She holds dual certification in California as a Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments and Orientation and Mobility expert. As a credentialed practitioner with over 25 years of experience and a faculty member at Cal State LA, she understands the dynamics of educational systems and rehabilitation agencies needed to successfully conduct social behavior research. In addition, she has served as the Program Coordinator of the Teacher of Students with Visual Impairments (TSVI) Credential and Master of Arts degree Program for over 18 years. In this role, she has trained over 250 teachers currently working across California, who serve more than 5,000 children with visual impairments—the largest such population in the United States.
Abstract
Use of refreshable braille displays has been a core tool in a braille reader’s toolbox for decades (Dixon, 2000). These devices have revolutionized literacy within digital spaces by providing individuals with visual impairments and blindness with one line of braille text. However, the single line of text can be limiting, and technology development for multiline displays that can represent both text and graphics has stalled. With an attempt to propel refreshable braille displays into the future, the authors conducted a needs assessment to determine preferences and opinions of users who depend upon braille display technology. The results of the study revealed that current refreshable braille displays have many advantages, but still need much improvement in this digital age. These results may be used to inform future development of multiline displays.
Keywords
Technology, braille, literacy, refreshable braille
National Institutes of Health Grant Title: A High Resolution Tactile Display Based on Variable Stiffness Polymer and Pneumatic Actuation
Grant #: 1R01EY030246-01A1
Introduction
For many individuals with visual impairments and blindness, braille is the preferred literacy medium. Silverman and Bell (2018) asserted that braille not only contributes to the academic and vocational success of individuals with visual impairments and blindness, but it increases overall quality of life and well-being. Furthermore, braille has many benefits beyond literacy and employment, including enhancing an individual's ability to think critically and promote synthesis of information. As society continues to rapidly evolve in this technological age, digital literacy is integral to most people's daily lives and key to inclusion. Assistive technology, particularly braille devices, provides individuals with visual impairments and blindness digital literacy access at home, work, and recreationally (Mcnear & Farrenkopf, 2014).
A refreshable braille display is one of the main assistive technology devices used to access digital information. This device can be connected to numerous platforms (e.g., computers, tablets) and provides screen access via braille. Most displays use a Perkins style keyboard, support contracted and uncontracted braille, have built-in applications, allow access to various file formats, can be connected to multiple devices, and are compatible with screen readers. Some also use Active Tactile Control (ATC) technology and Human Interface Device (HID) technology. ATC is technology that enables the braille display to sense the user's reading position and recognize reading behaviors, where the user can adjust the sensitivity of the cells to match their reading style (Kipke, 2008; Handy Tech Elektronik GmbH, 2013). ATC also allows the user to control the PC (e.g., the screen reader) through their reading position (Kipke, 2008; Handy Tech Elektronik GmbH, 2013). HID enables plug and play support, allowing the seamless integration of refreshable braille displays across devices, eliminating the need to install software drivers. Most devices display a single line of braille ranging from 14-80 cells, with 20, 32 or 40 braille cells being the most common. Drawbacks of single line displays are that they may hinder reading speeds and do not display graphic images.
Although devices with multiple lines are available, they are scarce (see Table 1). Multiline refreshable braille displays are made with the same types of materials and have the same capabilities but also can display tactile graphics. Tactile graphics such as on the 2016 Graphiti multiline refreshable braille display use tactuator technology (Orbit Research, 2016) and a touch interface. Tactuator technology provides the ability to set each pin to four different heights to differentiate graphical elements, shades, and colors (Orbit Research, 2016). The touch interface feature enables users to draw on the display, and use touch finger commands, such as scrolling and multitouch gestures (Orbit Research, 2016).
The main construction of braille displays has remained the same for decades and has been extremely costly (Bhatnagar et al., 2023; Bogda et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024; Dixon, 2000; Russomanno et al., 2015). A review of current single-line refreshable braille displays conducted in 2023 revealed an approximate price range of $515 (Innovision from 2017) to $11,750 (BAUM Retec AG from 2009), and a multiline refreshable braille display costing anywhere between $2,495 (Bristol Braille Technology from 2018) and $56,000 (Metec from 2018). Most commercialized displays are made with aluminum, steel base, and non-slip plastic, whereas the braille cells are made with piezoelectric materials (Bhatnagar et al., 2023; Bogda et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2023; Russomanno et al., 2015). An enormous amount of precision is required to manufacture the structure that causes pin actuation (Bogda et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2024). Due to the small size of a single pin and the necessity for dynamic motion, the manufacturing process is tedious (Chen et al., 2024) and leads to a high rate of unusable materials (i.e., scrap metal) that must be discarded (Bogda et al., 2011). The actuators and the manufacturing process required to make a braille display ultimately leads to their high cost (Bhatnagar et al., 2023; Bogda et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024; Russomanno et al., 2015). As Forcelini et al. (2018) emphasized, braille literacy is hindered by the pricey technology. Moreover, despite efforts to develop multiline displays, the technology has not kept up with the rapid advances of graphic literacy and interface.
In an effort to combat shortcomings of the current braille displays on the market and create equitable access, engineers have been working towards creating a multiline refreshable braille display that is low cost, compact and compatible with a smartphone and tablet. During the development process, engineers should not only focus on cost-effective materials, but also listen to the needs of its users. Thus, to promote quality and useful design of future products, researchers of this study set out to identify features that are most important for braille readers. The guiding research questions of this study were:
- What are the preferences, opinions, and advantages of using current braille displays on the market?
- What are the shortcomings or challenges that users face of current braille displays on the market?
- What are suggestions for future development of multiline refreshable braille displays for use with text and tactile graphics?
Method
A qualitative survey design methodology was used to assess preferences and opinions of braille users. The purpose was to inform engineers of user preferences during their development of a multiline refreshable braille display.
Participant Recruitment
The target population for the study included individuals with visual impairments and blindness who used braille as their primary literacy medium and sighted individuals who had experience using braille displays. Participants were recruited via professional networks and listservs such as the National Federation of the Blind, Braille-N-Teach, and Instagram. Snowball sampling also occurred, as potential participants forwarded the recruitment flyer to additional networks. Inclusion criteria were that they had to be 18 years of age or older with experience using braille displays. Participants were asked if they had low vision, were blind, a teacher of students with visual impairments, and/or worked with assistive technology devices specific to the visual impairments and blindness field. No compensation was offered to take part in this study. In accordance with California State University, Los Angeles’s Human Research Institutional Review Board, participants provided consent prior to participation, and after verifying they met the inclusion criteria.
Data Collection and Procedures
A researcher-designed, online questionnaire was used to collect the participants' demographics, preferences, advantages, shortcomings, and opinions of refreshable braille displays, including a focus on multiline displays. The questionnaire was imported into Qualtrics, and the survey link was provided to potential participants. A total of 15 questions were included, including both closed-ended and open-ended questions (see Table 2).
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the demographic data and closed-ended questions. Open-ended responses were exported from Qualtrics and directly imported into the MAXQDA software program (VERBI Software, 2021). Three main questions addressed the advantages of current braille displays, their shortcomings, and suggestions for creating a multiline braille display. Each main question was analyzed for overarching themes using MAXQDA. These overarching themes were used to group responses relating to a similar topic. For example, responses having to do with reading on the device mentioned having access to books or providing a means to literacy, as compared with responses related to the versatility of a device, which referred to its portability or its quietness. Within each overarching theme, identification of sub-themes emerged during the coding process, and secondary analysis led to sub-categorization within each of the themes.
Results
Demographics
A total of 371 participants responded to the survey. Of these participants, 9% (n = 33) had low vision, 89% (n = 318) were blind, and 5% (n = 20) did not have a visual impairment. Participants included teachers of students with visual impairments (13%, n = 45) and individuals who worked with assistive technology devices specific to the visual impairments and blindness field (51%, n = 182). As this was a national study, all participants were from across the United States.
Most participants had specified they had previously used a refreshable braille display (92%, n = 342). Results suggested the most common number of braille cells used on these devices were 40 cells (47%, n =173), 32 cells (26%, n = 95) and 20 cells (19%, n = 72). Regarding multiline refreshable braille displays, only 55 out of the 349 participants (16%) had ever used one. Seventeen participants (5%) indicated they had used one specifically with tactile graphics, eleven (3%) of whom used it during a demonstration, and four (1%) specifically testing the Canute 360, the Graphiti prototype by Orbit Research, and other demo-units trialed in the U.K. and Japan. Participants using the multiline refreshable braille displays also disclosed that they primarily used it for tactile graphics in home (n = 3), work (n = 1), and educational (n =1) settings, for a variety of purposes such as personal needs (n = 1), reading (n = 4), writing (n = 1), and for orientation and mobility (n =1).
Advantages
Participants were asked an open-ended question regarding the advantages of using refreshable braille displays. The analysis highlighted eight overarching advantages (see Table 3) and further detailed through secondary analysis in the following section.
Reading Accessibility.
Primarily, the majority felt access to reading was the biggest advantage mentioned by 59% of participants (n = 166). Among the 166 responses, many participants referred to using refreshable braille displays for accessing and engaging in various reading tasks (see Table 4). The top two reading tasks highlighted by participants included accessing books to read (20%, n = 34) and having access to text without speech output (19%, n = 32). In terms of accessing books to read, one respondent indicated that “refreshable braille displays are very helpful for reading books rather than trying to get them embossed and/or waiting for a hardcopy book to be sent to you.” As for access to text without speech output, two participants expressed, “a braille display permits me to read without disturbing or appearing to ignore others,” and, “I would much rather read to myself than be read to.” Additionally, other advantages participants mentioned included the ability to access information with a screen reader (11%, n = 18), the ability to analyze mathematical/numeric data (8%, n = 13), having access to developing literacy skills (7%, n =11), access to information on the internet (7%, n =11), the ability to read in different languages (6%, n = 10), the ability to adjust reading speed (3%, n = 5), having access to reading music notes (3%, n = 5), and having the ability to skim through books (2%, n = 3).
Versatility of the Device.
The second biggest advantage reported by 50% of participants (n = 140) was the versatility of refreshable braille displays (see Table 5). The top advantages being portability (42%, n = 59) and quietness (29%, n = 40). Regarding portability, one participant noted that refreshable braille displays allow them “to read books without having to carry large braille materials everywhere” they go, and another indicated that “instant access to braille in a portable format” was useful, and “print documents can be instantly converted to braille without the need for a certified braille transcriber, translation software, and embosser.” As for the theme of quietness, several participants expressed advantages such as having quiet access to braille (i.e., being able to take notes quietly, to deliver presentations without listening to speech-based notes, etc.). Other advantages regarding versatility of refreshable braille displays mentioned by participants included its ease of use (17%, n = 24), the convenience it provides to its users (16%, n = 23), the weight and size of the device (i.e., light and compact) (16%, n = 22), the speed and efficiency of the device (16%, n = 22), the option to multitask (9%, n = 13), the privacy it provides to its users (8%, n = 11), and the robustness (3%, n = 5) and reliability (3%, n = 5) of the device.
Accessible Writing Tasks.
The third advantage reported by 44% of participants (n = 122) was access to writing tasks (see Table 6). The top two writing tasks reported by participants were the ability to format/edit documents (35%, n = 43) and to check for spelling (30%, n = 36). In relation to formatting and editing, one participant indicated that refreshable braille displays allow for easier editing and the ability to see the formatting of some documents. Other participants noted, “braille displays make it so much easier to edit and proofread because there are some things that speech output doesn’t pick up,” and users are “easily able to edit any mistakes or make changes on the fly.” Regarding spelling, participants indicated that they can better see the spelling of words on the refreshable braille display as opposed to only having audio access. For example, one participant emphasized, “I think it’s a huge advantage in that you can always determine how something is spelled.” Other advantages mentioned by participants included access to word processing (24%, n = 29) and a notetaker (23%, n = 28), and the ability to check for grammar (7%, n = 8).
Braille Quality and Characteristics.
The fourth advantage reported by 25% of participants (n = 71) was related to the qualities and characteristics of braille on refreshable braille displays (see Table 7). The quality of the braille dots (e.g., “nice sharp braille,” “crisp braille,” “clear dots,” “sharpness of dots”) was reported as the biggest advantage by 44% of participants (n = 31), followed by the number of cells (25%, n = 18). However, the number of cells reported as an advantage differed depending on the task. For instance, two participants reported a preference for using a smaller refreshable braille display with 14 to 20 cells to pair with their phone “on the go,” to take notes, and send texts and emails. While other participants (14%, n = 10) indicated that they preferred using larger refreshable braille displays with 40 to 80 cells for activities such as reading books, researching information on a desktop computer, surfing the internet, word processing, and for file management. Other notable advantages included having real time output and input of braille (8%, n = 6) and the rapid refresh rate of braille dots (7%, n = 5). Regarding multiline displays, participants noted that they allow access to more information at once (11%, n = 8) and tactile graphics, math, and science applications (6%, n = 4).
Refreshable Braille Display Features.
The fifth advantage reported by 24% of participants (n = 67) related to specific features of refreshable braille displays (see Table 8). The top two features included USB/Bluetooth connectivity (30%, n = 20), and the cursor routing keys (18%, n = 12). Regarding USB/Bluetooth connectivity, the main advantage highlighted by participants was the ability to pair and switch between multiple devices simultaneously. Specifically, participants mentioned, “at the same time, I can connect it to my iPhone and iPad with Bluetooth,” “I have the ability to quickly switch to multiple connected devices,” and “my device can connect to more than one device, and I can switch to them with ease.” Participants (18%, n = 11) also noted cursor routing keys as the second top advantage. However, only a few mentioned reasons as to why. One respondent expressed the cursor routing keys make it “quicker to navigate the screen, and they are a must for editing,” whereas another respondent emphasized that “the advantages are numerous, but I would say the greatest advantage for me have been the cursor routing buttons giving me the ability to go directly to a given cell for making adjustments or corrections or aligning text.” Additional advantages of features highlighted by participants include the benefits of having panning keys (16%, n = 11), the QWERTY and Perkins keyboard (13%, n = 9), the ergonomics of refreshable braille displays (12%, n = 8), the internal storage space (10%, n = 7), the battery life (9%, n = 6), and standalone capability (6%, n = 4).
Compatibility with Other Devices.
The sixth advantage reported by 17% of participants (n = 48) was the compatibility of refreshable braille displays with other devices. Of the 48 responses, participants specifically cited phone compatibility (75%, n = 36), computer compatibility (63%, n = 30), and tablet compatibility (6%, n = 3) as major advantages. As for phone compatibility, several participants mentioned, “I can read and write text on my iPhone,” while another respondent mentioned, “I extensively use my current refreshable braille display in connection with my iPhone, and that enables me to use the iPhone more efficiently.” In terms of computer and tablet compatibility, several participants noted that the compatibility of the refreshable braille display with their phone and computer enables them to have access to print information on the screen. Additionally, participants (20%, n = 10) specifically emphasized the benefit of having access to presentations and their notes when paired with their computer.
Connect and Communicate.
The seventh advantage reported by 9% of participants (n = 26) was the ability to connect and communicate with others through text messaging (n = 16), email (n = 11), on the phone (n = 3), through social media platforms (n = 2), and with the use of telebraille (n = 1). Most participants indicated the main advantages as being the ability to send, read, and reply to text messages and emails. Subsequently a few participants mentioned the ability to look up or dial a number easily to speak to others over the phone, and to interact through social media platforms. One respondent specifically expressed an advantage as the “ability to post to Facebook and other places and easily edit before posting.” Lastly, regarding the use of telebraille, one respondent highlighted “on a ‘telebraille’ (I am also deaf) I used it for telecommunications and face-to-face communication.”
Access to Device Applications.
Lastly the eighth advantage reported by 8% of participants (n = 22) was having access to onboard applications on their refreshable braille displays. The onboard applications highlighted by participants include the calendar to set notifications and schedule appointments (18%, n = 4), the clock to check the time and to use the stopwatch (9%, n = 2), having access to a calculator (5%, n = 1), and access to book reader applications to download books (5%, n = 1).
Shortcomings
Participants were then asked an open-ended question regarding the shortcomings of using refreshable braille displays. The analysis highlighted eight overarching shortcomings of using a refreshable braille display. Additionally, secondary analysis regarding the specifics are described below. As seen in Table 9, some shortcomings were also reported as advantages. For example, the versatility of the device had both advantages, as described above, but also disadvantages which will be described below.
Quality and Characteristics of Braille.
Shortcomings of refreshable braille displays were numerous (see Table 10). The biggest shortcoming indicated by 59% of participants (n = 160) was categorized as issues related to braille, which was also noted as an advantage and further discussed in the results section. Several noted disadvantages of braille included only having a single line of text (61%, n = 98), not having enough cells (19%, n = 30), and the lack of access to graphics (19%, n = 30). The single line of text was reported to be the biggest disadvantage regarding braille, with 31 participants explicitly stating that there are not enough cells on a single line. Participants reported that the single line of text and the limited number of cells make it difficult to accommodate things such as reading an entire sentence, having access to charts, graphs, maps, or graphics of any kind, which is limiting how much information a user can get at one time. Moreover, not enough cells were reported as a major shortcoming. Participants stated there are not enough braille cells to represent the page or screen, and not enough braille cells to read without scrolling/panning seemingly constantly. The lack of access to graphics was also highlighted, mentioning that many displays do not accommodate charts, tables, graphs, or graphics of any kind, also making it difficult to compare data. Other braille shortcomings included lack of access to graphics (19%, n = 30), constant braille cell malfunction (15%, n = 24), the quality of the braille dots (13%, n = 21), issues with formatting documents (8%, n = 12), limitations in viewing mathematical/numeric data (6%, n = 10), and braille input issues (5%, n = 8).
Versatility of the Device.
The second shortcoming mentioned by 49% of participants (n = 133) was versatility of the device (see Table 11). Primarily, participants expressed concern with the high expense (35%, n = 47) of braille displays. One respondent stated that braille displays are “too expensive for the average person, the braille dots go bad and are expensive to fix,” and another said, “braille is expensive, making it impossible for many blind people to afford.” One respondent even pointed out “the more cells, the more cost.” Navigation difficulty was also indicated as another versatility shortcoming by participants (17%, n = 23). Participants stated difficulties with knowing where they are on the screen, not always knowing where the cursor is, difficulty with going back to a previous spot to locate information and navigating not being intuitive. As for difficulty with pairing, participants (14%, n = 18) indicated “occasionally difficult to pair via Bluetooth,” “keeping them paired,” and “not always reliable connecting to other devices.” Additional shortcomings of the versatility of the device included the noise (i.e., noisy and loud) of the device when in use (13%, n = 17), how the device is not reliable (12%, n = 16), the weight and size (i.e., heavy and big) of most refreshable braille displays (11%, n = 4), the lack of durability (10%, n = 13), the short battery life (9%, n = 12), its lack of portability (5%, n = 7), the lack of an external memory option (e.g., an SD card; 5%, n = 6), the device is outdated in this digital age (4%, n = 5), and the inability of refreshable braille displays to standalone (3%, n = 4) like a computer, phone, or tablet does.
Speed.
The third shortcoming stated by 24% of participants (n = 65) was that refreshable braille displays impact speed (see Table 12). Specifically, participants pointed out that current refreshable braille displays slow down their reading speed (42%, n = 27), because they must continually advance (i.e., use the panning keys) to access information (37%, n = 24). The single line of braille and few numbers of cells, although categorized under braille, also were highlighted as contributing factors in delaying reading speeds. Participants commented, “only one line of braille at a time can create a delay in fluency when reading in braille,” “there is only one line of braille, which I believe affects my braille reading speed,” and, “fewer cells slow down the reading process.” For the need to continually advance, participants stressed too much panning is required and it makes reading feel unnatural. One respondent complained, “I have to keep moving the line down instead of just reading,” and another stressed, “you often lose context switching lines so often.” Other shortcomings regarding the speed of the display included the slow processing speed (14%, n = 9), the slow refresh rate of the braille dots (9%, n = 6), the input of braille is slow (i.e., slows writing speed) (3%, n = 2), and the applications on the device run slow (3%, n = 2).
Maintenance/Repair.
Maintenance was highlighted as the fourth major shortcoming by participants (17%, n = 45; see Table 13). Inconsistent performance (33%, n = 15), the need for constant maintenance (25%, n = 11), and the lack of technical support (2%, n = 9) were reported to be the top issues. It was mentioned that the displays sometimes will freeze, they don’t always keep books that have been loaded, files that are being worked on will erase, and they tend to have connectivity issues. Regarding the need for constant maintenance, participants indicated that “one bad cell can make the machine useless until repair,” they are “difficult and costly to have repairs done,” and, “try to get one of these repaired and you might as well just buy another.” One respondent emphasized the need for constant maintenance as the main shortcoming because the pins constantly need cleaning, and “it is a nonstop round-and-around cycle.” Additional maintenance issues that came up include the lack of technical support (20%, n = 9), high repair/maintenance costs (18%, n = 8), lack of updates to keep up with modern technology (i.e., computers, phones, tablets; 18%, n = 8), lack of availability replacements (15%, n = 7), difficult to clean (13%, n = 6), firmware/software issues (11%, n = 5), wait time for repair (6%, n = 3), and lack of instructional manuals (4%, n = 2).
Features.
Features were highlighted as the fifth major shortcoming by participants (16%, n = 44; see Table 14). The Perkins Style Keyboard, cursor routing buttons, and ergonomics were reported as the top three issues. Several participants mentioned there are too many key commands to learn, making it difficult and time consuming for them. Participants also pointed out it “takes time to learn the keyboard commands to use this device,” “hard keyboard commands,” and “lots of extra commands to remember.” One respondent noted that “‘chording’ [executing commands that use a braille letter combined with the spacebar] is not as easy as typing.” As for the cursor routing keys, several participants (9%, n = 4) mentioned that some displays do not have cursor routing buttons, “making more precise editing a pain.” With respect to ergonomics, participants (45%, n = 10) mentioned the positioning of keys as a shortcoming. One respondent stated that the Perkins style keyboard was “not-so-well designed,” thus slowing down their typing process. Another respondent stated the “braille keyboard keys are too squished together, requiring an unnatural hand typing position and causing typing errors and very slow typing to prevent errors.” Additionally, participants reported that the placement of the keys on the keyboard caused them wrist discomfort. For instance, one participant expressed, “ergonomic issues (crossing over body midline or extension to far left/right of body midline; positioning of controls).”
Issues with Wi-Fi Connectivity.
Wi-Fi connectivity was highlighted as the sixth shortcoming by participants (5%, n = 13). One participant mentioned they had challenges getting the refreshable braille display to connect to websites, while others noted things such as “hard to connect to Wi-Fi,” “they don’t always download information via Wi-Fi,” and “until you get used to a certain display’s quirks with wireless connectivity, I find it frustrating to work with just about any of them.”
Lack of Compatibility with Android and IOS.
The lack of compatibility with Android and IOS was highlighted as the seventh shortcoming by participants (1%, n = 3). One participant mentioned the limitations of the refreshable braille display with the Android operating system. Other participants emphasized, “I would love to be able to control both Android and IOS with a display” and that the refreshable braille display is “not compatible with Android OS.”
Web Accessibility Issues.
Lastly website accessibility was highlighted as the eighth shortcoming by one participant (<1%, n = 1), which accounted for less than 1% of responses. This participant suggested “sometimes not all websites are compatible with a braille display and it’s important to reach out to the developer (if possible) and encourage accessibility.”
Suggestions
One closed-ended question and three open-ended questions were posed for participants to give feedback on features they would like to see on a multiline refreshable braille display and how to improve braille display technology. First, participants were asked to imagine a device that would attach to a smartphone with multiple lines of refreshable braille, and tactile graphics. They were then asked to read seven characteristics and rank them in the order of most important to least important. Of the 293 participants that responded to this question, 81% (n = 240) ranked ease of use first, whereas 77% (n = 225) of participants ranked the number of braille cells as second. Participants ranked the refresh rate (73%, n = 213) as third, robustness (70%, n = 205) as fourth, area of display for graphics (51%, n = 150) as fifth, the raised dot height (47%, n = 139) as sixth, and lastly the amount of input keys (34%, n = 100) as seventh. Several suggestions were made in response to open-ended questions concerning the development of a multiline refreshable braille display. One question asked about suggestions for haptic features. Out of the 224 participants that responded the most common response to this question was to have vibration features (25%, n = 57), display tactile graphics (19%, n = 42), allow more feedback (15%, n = 33), and provide easier navigation (12%, n = 27).
Another open-ended question asked about features and functions that future products should have. Of the 224 participants that responded to this question, the majority (15%, n = 33) mentioned features and functions that would make the device affordable. Several also emphasized the need for multiple lines of braille (14%, n = 31), adjustable features (i.e., the height of the dots, dot firmness; 14%, n = 31), multiple modes of connection (13%, n = 28), a display that is compact/lightweight (8%, n = 19), onboard functionality/standalone capability (8%, n = 18), and tactile graphics (7%, n = 17). The missing percentile includes additional responses that were either not repeated or less than 1%. Surprisingly, 21% of participants were unsure of how to respond.
With regard to the resolution/pixelation of tactile graphics when creating a refreshable braille display, the top suggestion was to create a display that allows variability in the height and spacing of the dots which could be used to distinguish features within a graphic (15%, n = 31). Followed by the simplification of graphics (7%, n = 14), preference for clear and distinct graphics (7%, n = 14), and descriptors/indicators (5%, n = 11). Participants also suggested options to switch between views, the ability to zoom in and out and scale the graphic, and a way to determine what part of an image is being viewed with a toggle of some kind to help the user identify what portion of the image is being shown. Regarding braille dots in tactile graphics, participants suggested there should be a choice of different dot densities and heights to approximate things such as textures, lines, and shapes. Surprisingly, 25% of participants (n = 52) reported being unsure or having no suggestions, and 44% did not respond to the open-ended question (n = 166).
Discussion
Themes highlighted by participants indicate current refreshable braille displays have many advantages, but still need much improvement. Given that braille is a primary literacy medium for individuals who are blind, it is no surprise that data shows participants are using refreshable braille displays mainly for reading and writing tasks. Currently they allow users to have access to information, stay connected, communicate with others, and be independent across various settings. In analyzing the data, similar themes were noted by participants in both advantages and shortcomings (i.e., braille and versatility), which may highlight their importance. For instance, the number of cells was reported as an advantage and a disadvantage. This seemingly contradictory finding may be attributed to users wishing to choose the display size based on the task (e.g., longer displays for reading books and shorter displays for text messaging). Those wishing to use the display for tasks such as text messaging friends on their cell phones reported less braille cells displays as an advantage, versus those using it for longer reading tasks, graphics, or math and science apps desired a longer or multiline display. This finding emphasizes the need to have multiple devices which can be used for a variety of tasks.
One vital finding was that refreshable braille displays allow users access to information through their preferred, indispensable literacy medium of braille. However, the single line of text, not enough cells, lack of access to graphics, and slow device performance can be restrictive. If devices used by those who are sighted, such as computers, tablets, and phones had these shortcomings, they would most likely not be marketable. A device only displaying a single line of print showing just a few letters at a time with a lack of access to pictures, inefficient refresh rates, need to constantly advance text, and inconsistent performance would not be feasible for the everyday demands in this digital age. This may explain why the need for multiline refreshable braille displays with tactile graphics was stressed by many participants. They pointed out that this would allow them to read longer texts without constantly scrolling line by line, and have access to spreadsheets, music notes, tables, charts, graphs, and calendars. Data also relates to previous research which showed that a 40-cell display was the most commonly used refreshable braille display, and that the length of the display predicted reading speeds (McCarthy et. al., 2022). If readers had access to an affordable multiline braille display, then perhaps it would have a positive impact on reading speeds. The lack of suggestions for a future device may be attributed to the fact that most participants have never used one or even been exposed to using one for tactile graphics. However, participants did note that as great as a multiline refreshable braille display with tactile graphics on a phone sounds, current devices are too costly, and adding more cells will only make them more expensive and less accessible to the average person. Therefore, this further indicates the demand for affordable displays.
Limitations
There are several limitations to this qualitative, survey-based study. First, all data is self-reported, and thus presents some bias. Furthermore, the researchers developed the survey instrument, which may have led to researcher bias. Moreover, there is a limitation to the sample, in that it was distributed electronically, thus perhaps limiting the number of participants, and not capturing voices of those who are not networked into a digital community. However, the voices of those who use technology most may provide the best insight into development of future technology products. Finally, although 371 participants were recruited, this is a relatively small sample, a common problem of research in low incidence fields. Finally, future research may want to consider capturing more in-depth responses by conducting focus groups or interviews of braille users.
Implications
Based on the results of this study and the collective body of literature, the authors assert that it is imperative that development of braille displays continue to evolve. They must be affordable, easy to use, and provide immediate connectivity and access to information. Braille displays are the primary digital access tool for braille readers. There is a desperate need for multiline displays that provide text and graphic information. Braille is relevant now more than ever. It is the avenue to independence and employment. We must provide better services and technology tools to overcome braille literacy barriers. Furthermore, given the pervasive nature of high-tech devices in society, individuals with visual impairments and blindness should be guaranteed equitable standards in procuring technology.
References
Bhatnagar, T., Higgins, A., Marquardt, N., Miodownik, M., & Holloway, C. (2023). Analysis of product architectures of pin array technologies for tactile displays. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(ISS), 135-155. https://doi.org/10.1145/3580422
Bogda, G., Vishoot, B., & Grider, C. (2011). Design and testing of a low-cost refreshable braille display actuation technology. Journal of Engineering Technology, 28(1), 26–32.
Chen, D., Zhang, Y., Hu, X., Chen, G., Fang, Y., Chen, X., Liu, J., & Song, A. (2024). Development and evaluation of refreshable braille display and active touch-reading system for digital reading of the visually impaired. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSRE.2024.3363495
Chen, H., Tao, W., Liu, C., Shen, Q., Wu, Y., Ruan, L., & Yang, W. (2023). Novel refreshable braille display based on the layered electromagnetic driving mechanism of braille dots. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 16(1), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2023.3241952
Dixon, J.M. (2000). Refreshable braille displays: Their origins and evolution. In J. Dixon (Ed.), Braille into the next millennium (Part II, pp. 348-373). National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped.
Forcelini, P. G., García, L. S., & Schultz, E. P. B. (2018). Braille technology beyond the financial barriers: A braille literacy platform to effectively combat the braille literacy crisis. DSAI ’18: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-Exclusion, 41-46. https://doi.org/10.1145/3218585.3218590
Graves, A. (2018). Braille literacy statistics research study: History and politics of the “braille reader statistic”: A summary of AFB leadership conference session on education. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 112(3), 328-331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1811200314
Handy Tech Elektronik GmbH. (2013). Active braille. https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1243593/Handy-Tech-Active-Braille.html#manual
Kipke, S. (2008). Sensitive braille displays with ATC technology (active tactile control) as a tool for learning braille. In K. Miesenberger, R. Manduchi, M. C. Rodriquez, P. & Penaz (Eds.), Computers helping people with special needs (pp. 843-850). Springer-Verlag.
McCarthy, T., Holbrook, C., Kamei-Hannan, C., & D’Andrea, F. M. (2022). Speed and accuracy measures of school-age readers with visual impairments using a refreshable braille display. Journal of Special Education Technology, 38(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434221131775
McNear, D., & Farrenkopf, C. (2014). Assistive technology. ECC essentials: Teaching the expanded core curriculum to students with visual impairments, 187-247.
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388-400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x07309471
National Federation of the Blind. (2009). The braille literacy crisis in America: Facing the truth, reversing the trend, empowering the blind. https://nfb.org/images/nfb/documents/pdf/braille_literacy_report_web.pdf
Orbit Research. (2016). Graphiti® – A breakthrough in non-visual access to all forms of graphical information. https://www.orbitresearch.com/product/graphiti/
Russomanno, A., O’Modhrain, S., Gillespie, R. B., & Rodger, M. W. M. (2015). Refreshing refreshable braille displays. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 8(3), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2015.2423492
Silverman, A. M., & Bell, E. C. (2018). The association between braille reading history and well-being for blind adults. Journal of Blindness Innovation & Research, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.5241/8-141
VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA 2022 [Computer software]. https://www.maxqda.com/
Table 1
Multiline Refreshable Braille Displays
Device |
Year |
Vendor |
|---|---|---|
Hyperbraille |
2007 |
Metec |
Canute 360 |
2018 |
Bristol Braille Technology |
Graphiti |
2020 |
Orbit Research |
Orbit Slate 340 |
2022 |
Orbit Research |
Orbit Slate 520 |
2022 |
Orbit Research |
DotPad |
2022 |
Dot Incorporation |
Monarch |
2022 |
American Printing House for the Blind |
Graphiti Plus |
2023 |
Orbit Research |
Table 2
Survey Questionnaire
Questions |
Response Options |
|---|---|
1. If you wish to participate in this survey please select "I choose to participate," if you do not wish to participate, please select "I do not choose to participate" |
|
2. I am 18 years of age or older |
|
3. Please select all that apply: |
|
4. Do you use, or have you used, a refreshable braille display? |
|
5. If so, how many braille cells did, or does, it have? |
Text entry |
6. Have you ever used a multiline refreshable braille display? |
|
7. Have you ever used graphics on a multiline refreshable braille display? |
|
8. In what setting(s) and for what purpose(s)? |
Text entry |
9. What have been advantages of the refreshable braille displays you have used? |
Text entry |
10. What have been the shortcomings of the refreshable braille displays you have used? |
Text entry |
11. Imagine a device that had multiple lines and would both display refreshable braille and tactile graphics for your smartphone. Which characteristic(s) would be of most importance? |
|
12. What haptic features do you envision being useful in a multiline refreshable braille display? |
Text entry |
13. Given the resolution/pixelation of graphics, what suggestions do you have for creating tactile graphics on a refreshable braille display? |
Text entry |
14. Given the current refreshable braille displays in the market, what features and functions do you feel are needed for future products? |
Text entry |
15. In creating a multiline refreshable braille display with graphics for a smartphone, do you have any other comments you'd like to add for our developers? |
Text entry |
Table 3
Advantages of Using a Refreshable Braille Display
Advantages |
n |
% |
|---|---|---|
Reading Accessibility |
166 |
59% |
Versatility of the Device |
140 |
50% |
Accessible Writing Tasks |
122 |
44% |
Braille Quality & Characteristics |
71 |
25% |
Refreshable Braille Display Features |
67 |
24% |
Compatibility with Other Devices |
48 |
17% |
Connect and Communicate with Others |
26 |
9% |
Access to Devices Applications |
22 |
8% |
Note. N = 279 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named advantage, % = the percentage of participants out of 279.
Table 4
Reading Accessibility
Advantages |
n |
% |
|---|---|---|
Access Books to Read |
34 |
20% |
Access to Text without Speech Output |
32 |
19% |
Access to a Screen Reader |
18 |
11% |
Access to Mathematic/Numeric Data |
13 |
8% |
Access to Develop Literacy Skills |
11 |
7% |
Access to Information on the Internet |
11 |
7% |
Access to Different Languages |
10 |
6% |
Ability to Adjust Reading Speed |
5 |
3% |
Access to Music Notes |
5 |
3% |
Ability to Skim through Books |
3 |
2% |
Note. N = 166 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named advantage of reading accessibility; % = the percentage of participants out of 166.
Table 5
Versatility of the Device
Versatility |
n |
% |
|---|---|---|
Portability |
59 |
42% |
Quietness |
40 |
29% |
Ease of Use |
24 |
17% |
Convenience |
23 |
16% |
Weight & Size |
22 |
16% |
Speed/Efficiency |
22 |
16% |
Option to Multitask |
13 |
9% |
Privacy |
11 |
8% |
Robustness |
5 |
3% |
Reliability |
5 |
3% |
Note. N = 140 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named advantage of versatility; % = the percentage of participants out of 140.
Table 6
Accessible Writing Tasks
Accessible Writing Tasks |
n |
% |
|---|---|---|
Format/Edit Documents |
43 |
35% |
Check for Spelling |
36 |
30% |
Word Processing |
29 |
24% |
Use of Notetaker |
28 |
23% |
Check for Grammar |
8 |
7% |
Note. N = 122 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named advantage of accessible writing tasks; % = the percentage of participants out of 122.
Table 7
Braille Quality and Characteristics
Braille Quality and Characteristics |
n |
% |
|---|---|---|
Quality of Braille Dots |
31 |
44% |
Number of Cells |
18 |
25% |
Multiple Lines |
8 |
11% |
Real Time Output & Input |
6 |
8% |
Refresh Rate |
5 |
7% |
Tactile Graphics |
4 |
6% |
Note. N = 71 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named advantage of the braille quality and characteristics; % = the percentage of participants out of 71.
Table 8
Advantages of Features
Features |
n |
% |
|---|---|---|
USB/Bluetooth Connectivity |
20 |
30% |
Cursor Routing Keys |
12 |
18% |
Panning Keys |
11 |
16% |
Keyboards (QWERTY/Perkins) |
9 |
13% |
Ergonomics |
8 |
12% |
Internal Storage Space |
7 |
10% |
Battery Life |
6 |
9% |
Standalone Capability |
4 |
6% |
Note. N = 67 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named advantage of features; % = the percentage of participants out of 67.
Table 9
Shortcomings of Using a Refreshable Braille Display
Shortcoming |
n |
% |
|---|---|---|
Quality and Characteristics Braille |
160 |
59% |
Versatility of the Device |
133 |
49% |
Speed |
65 |
24% |
Maintenance/Repair |
45 |
17% |
Features |
44 |
16% |
Wi-Fi Connectivity |
13 |
5% |
Compatibility with Android and IOS |
3 |
1% |
Web Accessibility Issues |
1 |
<1% |
Note. N = 272 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named shortcoming; % = the percentage of participants out of 272.
Table 10
Braille Shortcomings
Braille |
n |
% |
|---|---|---|
Single Line of Text |
98 |
61% |
Not Enough Cells |
30 |
19% |
Lack of Access to Graphics |
30 |
19% |
Braille Cell Malfunction |
24 |
15% |
Quality of Braille Dots |
21 |
13% |
Formatting Issues |
12 |
8% |
Math Limitations |
10 |
6% |
Input Issues |
8 |
5% |
Missing Percentile: Additional Responses Not Repeated or <1% |
||
Note. N = 160 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named shortcoming of braille; % = the percentage of participants out of 160.
Table 11
Versatility of the Device
Versatility of the Device |
n |
% |
|---|---|---|
Expense |
47 |
35% |
Navigation Difficulty |
23 |
17% |
Difficulty Pairing |
18 |
14% |
Noise |
17 |
13% |
Lack of Reliability |
16 |
12% |
Weight and Size |
14 |
11% |
Lack of Durability |
13 |
10% |
Short Battery Life |
12 |
9% |
Lack of Portability |
7 |
5% |
Lack of External Memory Option |
6 |
5% |
Device is Outdated |
5 |
4% |
Inability to Standalone |
4 |
3% |
Missing Percentile: Additional Responses Not Repeated or <1% |
||
Note. N = 133 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named shortcomings of versatility; % = the percentage of participants out of 133.
Table 12
Speed
Speed |
n |
% |
|
|---|---|---|---|
Slows Reading Speed |
27 |
42% |
|
Need to Continually Advance |
24 |
37% |
|
Slow Processing Speed |
9 |
14% |
|
Slow Refresh Rate |
6 |
9% |
|
Slows Writing |
2 |
3% |
|
Slow Applications |
2 |
3% |
|
Note. N = 65 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named shortcoming of speed; % = the percentage of participants out of 65.
Table 13
Maintenance of Shortcomings
Maintenance |
n |
% |
|---|---|---|
Inconsistent Performance |
15 |
33% |
Need for Constant Maintenance |
11 |
25% |
Lack of Technical Support |
9 |
20% |
High Repair/Maintenance Costs |
8 |
18% |
Lack of Updates |
8 |
18% |
Lack of Replacement Availability |
7 |
15% |
Difficult to Clean |
6 |
13% |
Firmware/Software Issues |
5 |
11% |
Wait Time for Repair |
3 |
6% |
Lack of Instructional Manuals |
2 |
4% |
Note. N = 45 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named shortcoming of maintenance/repair; % = the percentage of participants out of 45.
Table 14
Feature Shortcomings
Features |
n |
% |
|---|---|---|
Perkins Style Keyboard |
22 |
50% |
Cursor Routing Buttons |
12 |
27% |
Ergonomics |
10 |
23% |
Note. N = 44 Individuals responded to the question; n = the number of people who mentioned the named shortcoming of features; % = the percentage of participants out of 44.
The Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research is copyright (c) 2025 to the National Federation of the Blind.