Teenagers with visual impairment and new media: A world without barriers

Abstract

Mobile communication technology is an essential part of life of adolescents nowadays, and those with visual impairments are no exception. In focus group interviews with students from a school for the blind and the visually impaired in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, we found that, despite the visual nature of social media, they use and enjoy these resources as much as their sighted peers. These students are aware of the possibilities and constraints that social media might bring to them but, with the help of assistive technology, make the most of it. After listening to their voices, we noticed that it is high time we incorporate social media in our pedagogical practice, in order to develop their learning process and life skills.

Keywords

Facebook focus group mobile devices social media visual impairment WhatsApp

Introduction

Visual impairments (VI) affect 3.6% of the Brazilian population, according to the 2013 National Health Research (IBGE – Coordenação de Trabalho e Rendimento, 2015). In Brazilian legislation, patients are considered visually impaired when visual acuity is worse than 3/60 in the better eye (blindness); better than 3/60 and equal or worse than 3/10 in the better eye (low vision); or when the visual field is no greater than 60°, both eyes combined (Decreto No. 3.298, de 20 de Dezembro de 1999, 1999; Decreto No 5.296, de 2 de Dezembro de 2004, 2004).

VI is in many ways linked with social and academic disadvantages, and it is difficult to precise to which extent it may limit a child’s abilities (Khadka, Ryan, Margrain, Woodhouse, & Davies, 2012). Also, different people with different kinds of VI have varied and specific experiences and needs, since mobility, autonomy, the use of optical tools, of the Braille system, of adapted materials and of assistive technology (AT) vary depending on environmental conditions and past experiences (Laplane & De Batista, 2008). Because of this variety, we must provide people with VI with as many resources and experiences as possible, so that they gain autonomy to make choices according to their own needs and possibilities, and also the available resources.

Regarding communication, mobile technology has been changing the way we learn and communicate in society, education, business, and government (Guy, 2010). It refers to any device designed to provide access to information in any location or on the go, including but not limited to mobile phones, personal digital assistants (PDA), tablet computers, and laptops (Masrom & Ismail, 2010). Mobile devices serve a series of purposes, including voice and text messaging, calendar, watch, calculator, music and video platforms, Internet navigation, game center, health monitoring, and geolocation, among others (Katz, 2008), and combine communication and computing capabilities with mobility and personality (Jarvenpaa & Lang, 2005). Mobile technology is so widespread among adolescents, and mobile phones play such an important part in their lives that scholars even have a term for it: mobile youth culture (MYC) (Campbell & Park, 2008; Castells, Fernandez-Ardevol, Qiu, & Sey, 2007; Vanden Abeele, 2016). MYC refers to a culture in which adolescents appropriate and use mobile communication technology for their own purposes, as a means of expression and reinforcement (Castells et al., 2007). Adolescents with VI are also part of this culture, since they use online social networks as much as people without disabilities (Asuncion et al., 2012; Wu & Adamic, 2014), to strengthen existing relationships with family and friends and to establish new meaningful relationships (Bradley & Poppen, 2003; Dobransky & Hargittai, 2006).

Although studies describing how people with VI use the Internet and mobile social media are scarce (Qiu, Hu, & Rauterberg, 2015; Wu & Adamic, 2014), it is possible to assume that, despite accessibility issues, VI does not stop people from using the Internet and engaging in social media interactions. Asuncion et al. (2012) concluded that students with disabilities use social media for school- and non-school-related activities, like their non-disabled peers; Martiniello et al. (2012) found that students with VI access social media using mobile devices; and Wu and Adamic (2014), who compared large samples of VI (50K) and non-VI (160K) users, found that people with VI participate on Facebook as much as the general population, posting many more status updates and uploading slightly fewer photos. Also, within these samples, VI users give and receive more feedback (likes and comments), and when they ask questions they receive more response than the general population (Wu & Adamic, 2014).

In this article, we describe the results of two focus groups with Brazilian adolescent students who have VI. Since different forms of social media already popular in daily life are increasingly being adopted in the educational field (Asuncion et al., 2012), our aim was to better understand how these students use social media so that we can later plan educational initiatives exploiting the social media potential.

Method

In order to learn how the target group uses social media, the focus group methodology was used. It involves group discussions about a topic selected by researchers and presented to participants most commonly as a set of questions, although other means may be used (Wilkinson, 1998). Focus groups are usually part of exploratory studies, and the data collected allows researchers to better understand a problem, formulate hypothesis, and gather information to build other research tools, although they may also be used to deeply investigate certain topics in qualitative research (Gil, 2008).

After receiving approval from the Ethics Committee of Instituto Oswaldo Cruz/Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Brazil, we used the snowball sampling methodology to recruit participants. Our target group consisted of students from fifth grade on, who are blind or have low vision, attend a school for the blind and the visually impaired located in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and use the school IT lab. Frequent users were invited to participate and encouraged to invite other students. The aim of the group was explained to the students individually upon invitations and we sent the consent form to parents/legal guardians.

Choosing adequate means for the consent form was an important issue for us, since participants showed different degrees of visual loss and few studies detail the process of obtaining informed consent from blind or visually impaired participants (Ashaye, Ajuwon, & Adeoti, 2006; Chlebowy, Hood, & LaJoie, 2010; França, 2013; Khadka et al., 2012; Morgado, Campana, & Tavares, 2012). After reviewing such studies and considering our experience with students with VI, we decided to make consent forms available in Braille, large print, audio files, and digital files which could be accessed via computer or mobile devices with the aid of screen readers. In doing so, each participant and parent/legal guardian could choose the mean which suited them best, making them more comfortable with the process and thus more inclined to participate.

Two mixed gender groups were conducted with a number of seven participants each (three blind students and four low vision students in each), from 12 to 19 years of age. Even though people with low vision and blind people differ in the way they use technologies, we decided not to form separate groups since they perform all pedagogical and social activities offered at school in mixed groups. Meetings were carried in the school IT lab and lasted about 45 min.

We designed a semi-structured interview, based on observations of students using mobile devices freely in the school, seeking to understand the following themes: how students use mobile devices to access the Internet, their favorite social media, obstacles they face when using mobile devices and social media, people who are part of their networks, and activities they perform online. Sessions were recorded in MP3 files and fully transcribed afterward for analysis, using the approach proposed by Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014). Responses to the questions helped us better understand our observations and new themes emerged from the discussion that followed each question.

Sometimes, one or more participants tended to dominate the conversation. When this was the case, we thanked or praised them for their contribution and addressed a different participant. Also, when a participant did not make any comments to a certain topic, he or she was kindly invited to do so.

Results and discussion

The formal consent

To start each of the meetings, we read aloud and explained the consent form to participants, allowing them to resolve any doubts. Discussing the consent form with participants beforehand was important because they were given not only the minimum amount of information enough to commit to the research but also the opportunity to question its aims and steps beforehand (Duckett & Pratt, 2001), making it easier for them to decide whether to accept or decline participation (Benitez, Devaux, & Dausset, 2002).

After this discussion, all participants agreed to take part in the study. Those who were able to sign the consent form did so, and those who could not were given two options: using fingerprints or giving an oral consent. All students who could not sign preferred to record an oral consent on an MP3 file, since it felt less embarrassing for them. Student A (blind) explained, “When we (blind people) use fingerprints, people think we are illiterate. They don’t realize that we are blind and can’t write the way they do.”

Illiteracy carries a social stigma (Maddox & Esposito, 2011) which they do not wish to be associated with. And since we want participants to feel comfortable enough to share their opinions and experiences with us, it is important to consider their needs from the very beginning of the planning.

Internet access, devices, and social networks

Although studies argue that people with disabilities benefit from the use of information communication technology (ICT) (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2006; Kaye, 2000; Laabidi, Jemni, Ayed, Brahim, & Jemaa, 2014; Seymour & Lupton, 2004; Smedema & McKenzie, 2010), especially when it comes to communication and social interaction (Bradley & Poppen, 2003; Seymour & Lupton, 2004), they also suggest that there is a “disability divide,” that is, access to ICT resources is unequal when we compare people with and without disabilities due to affordability, motivation and attitudes, skills, usage, and other aspects (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2006; Vicente & López, 2010). Nevertheless, all participants in this study have Internet access, using desktop or laptop computers running Windows and mobile devices (smartphones and tablets) running Android, and they use broadband, Wi-Fi, and 3G/4G connections to have Internet access. Surfing the Internet is so commonplace for them that when asked whether they did it, Student B (blind) replied, “This was the worst question . . . of course we surf the internet!”

School provides Internet access within the desktop computers of the IT lab and all participants have smartphones with Internet connection. At home, most of them have broadband connections used in computers or mobile devices, though the smartphone is the device of choice for all. According to these students, smartphones are better than computers because they are easier to carry around and because screen readers work better in smartphones. Student C (blind) explained that is

because of the touchscreen, it’s . . . a lot easier. Like, we have to use the (computer) keyboard, it’s difficult. And many people here, me, for example, I don’t know all the shortcuts, it’s really difficult, you know? And with the touchscreen, I just use my fingers and that’s it.

Student D (blind) agreed, saying that “when you use the computer, there are so many different commands, different shortcuts, keys that we don’t normally use . . . On the smartphone you find things more easily.”

Social networks are highly visual; however, these participants use them as much as people with no VI. They enjoy being part of social networks and their main reasons for using them are being in contact with friends and family, and talking about daily life and common interests. Similar results were found by Fuglerud, Tjostheim, Gunnarsson, and Tollefsen (2012), who stated that the use of mobile apps among people with VI is at the same level as the rest of the population in Norway and that friends, peers, and real time are among the factors which motivate people with VI to use social media. Wu and Adamic (2014) stated that people with VI engage with social networks as much as other people do, and the major conclusion from an exploratory study with Canadian postsecondary students with disabilities carried by Asuncion et al. (2012) was that these students use social media as much as those without disabilities.

Our participants choose what social media to use mainly according to accessibility, since their access depends greatly on the help of AT, and several studies reinforce the evidence that accessibility is a key factor in the decision of using or not ICT (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2006; Fuglerud et al., 2012; Kane, Jayant, Wobbrock, & Ladner, 2009; Martiniello et al., 2012; Murphy, Kuber, McAllister, Strain, & Yu, 2008; Smedema & McKenzie, 2010; Tollefsen, Dale, Berg, & Nordby, 2011).

Recent researches show that Facebook is the social network of choice for the majority of people with VI who use social media (Brady, Zhong, Morris, & Bigham, 2013; Qiu et al., 2015; Tjostheim, Solheim, & Fuglerud, 2011), but the participants of this research prefer WhatsApp. Student C (blind) explained that “WhatsApp is way better, because Facebook is gone. It’s boring, you know? People post boring things on Facebook.” A research about media usage released in September 2015 (Presidência da República, Secretaria de Comunicação Social, 2015) reported Facebook and WhatsApp as Brazilians’ favorite social networks. According to this research, 92% of the Brazilian Internet users have an active profile in at least one social network, and Facebook, WhatsApp, and YouTube are the most accessed ones (Presidência da República, Secretaria de Comunicação Social, 2015). A study about the use and non-use of social media platforms in India has also shown that Facebook and WhatsApp are people’s favorite social networks (Vashistha, Cutrell, Dell, & Anderson, 2015), and other studies show Facebook as the most popular network among people with VI (Fuglerud et al., 2012; Qiu et al., 2015; Tjostheim et al., 2011), probably because it is one of the most accessible forms of social media (Asuncion et al., 2012). The Brazilian research also showed that, due to social network use, there has been an increase in the number of people who access the Internet via mobile devices, from 40% in 2014 to 66% in 2015 (Presidência da República, Secretaria de Comunicação Social, 2015).

What these students like about Facebook is being in touch with people. They use the Facebook messenger app more than the social app, and according to Student K (low vision), they do so “only to get people’s phone numbers to add to WhatsApp.” However, they also enjoy going through their timeline and knowing what is going on in their friends’ lives, although they do not post content very often. In a study conducted with blind and visually impaired smartphone users from Hong Kong, Qiu et al. (2015) found that participants’ main activity was also reading posts from others and occasionally posting content.

In our study, participants explained that they prefer WhatsApp mainly because it can be used with small private groups, and because text and audio are more frequent than images, unlike Facebook. According to Student C (blind), this is because

. . . it is more personal, our friends are there, you know? WhatsApp is much better. Oh, and there’s another thing: Facebook is not so good for us, who have visual impairments, you know why? Because Facebook is more visual, you know? For us it’s not very good because there are photos, how are we going to see the photos?

This shows that audio description is an important issue for people with VI. These students are aware of what their devices can do and while Student I (blind) explained that “When you use Facebook, there are emoticons, and the screen reader says like . . . a love face, a grey cat . . . it describes the emoticon,” Student J (blind) said that

reading an image is not the same as reading something written on the screen. To read something written on the screen you give a command and the screen reader reads it. But there isn’t such a command for images, how can the screen reader read an image if there’s no command for it?

Nevertheless, they feel bothered by people’s lack of attention to this issue. Student J (blind) said that “People think it’s a simple thing, like, there’s a reader, it’ll read anything,” and Student I (blind) remembered that people with VI have to educate sighted people about it.

Usability is a characteristic that they also like about WhatsApp. Student D (blind) stated that “WhatsApp is nice because it’s easy to use,” and Student L (blind) mentioned that getting in touch with people is quicker when using WhatsApp, because “(on Facebook) you have to write and it takes time, on WhatsApp you can just send an audio.” But although audio messages facilitate communication, some students complained about the amount of audio messages and video files sent within WhatsApp groups. This was mainly because although sending messages through WhatsApp does not generate any extra cost than that of their Internet data plan, they use their data bucket and might run out of it. According to Student C (blind), “the only bad thing about it is that people think audio messages are easier for us who can’t see, and sometimes our internet connection gets slow,” and Student F (low vision) said that “we also waste our data bucket.” Students are worried about data consumption and the relevance of their conversations may be measured by the extent to which they are willing to spend their data bucket. As Student C (blind) said, “I won’t use my precious internet to waste time listening to nonsense.”

Besides social interaction, some students also use social networks to study. They reported having WhatsApp groups to exchange information about homework, help students who missed classes, and Student G (low vision) explained how they use it to study: “I use WhatsApp to study with the girls in my class. Seriously, I study with them. I ask, they ask . . . I ask questions, they answer . . . When we have to study for the tests.” First-year students from a university in Austria also use both Facebook and WhatsApp for learning purposes, but because WhatsApp is focused primarily on synchronous communication, it is more extensively used than Facebook (Ebner, Nagler, & Schon, 2015). However, teachers from the school have not yet incorporated these technologies in their pedagogical practices or to interact with students outside the classroom, although Student D (blind) reported having used it in an educational context: “I attend English lessons (in a course, not at school) and use WhatsApp to practice the language.”

Something also worth noting is the fact that these students are aware of privacy issues in social networks. They know they are responsible for what they post, and Student J (blind) said that he has “never used Facebook, but even though I can’t compare because I’ve never used it, I think we have more privacy in WhatsApp, because on Facebook things are a lot more exposed.” Student L (blind) explained that “You post on Facebook only what you want to,” and Student K (low vision) added to that saying that “Facebook is for those who don’t want privacy, you post all your things there, photos, videos . . . ” In a study with Norwegian people with VI, Fuglerud et al. (2012) found that 93% of respondents considered carefully what kind of personal information they publish on social media.

Students are aware of the power of social networks when it comes to communication and mobilizing people around a cause. Student J (blind) explained that

Facebook may not give us much privacy, but if we want to do something like . . . something which reaches a great number of people, for example, if we want to launch a petition, not only with people who are near, you know? The largest possible number . . . Then we draw it up, explain it on Facebook, and we’ll reach more people. [ . . . ] If you want to do something in which union is strength, than Facebook wins, no doubt.

Enjolras, Steen-Johnsen, and Wollebaek (2013) claimed that Facebook is a supplement to mainstream media when it comes to providing information and facilitating mobilization, which means social media is a powerful tool to encourage both online and offline participation.

Conversely, when asked about whether Facebook could be used to discuss possible solutions to problems around them, students were not so sure about the power of social media. Student D (blind) said that it is no use talking about problems, because “talking about what you think doesn’t mean someone will listen to, people don’t care about it,” but Student C (blind) argued that “it’s exactly the opposite, we should speak our minds, we should fight, because things have to change, they’re only getting worse.” In 2013, Brazilians staged a series of demonstrations against the current political situation (Gohn, 2014), but because there has not been much change since then, this might explain why students are in two minds about the power of social media to produce changes in our quality of life.

Conclusion

Regardless of the visual nature of social media, our students with VI in Brazil, as in others countries, use and enjoy them as much as their sighted peers. There are some technical constraints, but they are not afraid of trying and, with the help of AT, manage to use social media to get connected to the world and to express themselves. These students experience no major difficulties in using mobile devices, and this technology is helping them in a two-way communication, in which they both produce and receive content, talking about their daily life as people with disabilities in a big city and as teenagers who wish to fit in and find a place in the world, just like every single teenager. They acknowledge social networks might raise the visibility of their cause, besides helping remove some of the stigma related to people with VI.

Despite the limitations of this study, such as the size and background of the sample, we believe that it may contribute to further discussion about the role of ICT and AT in the communication and learning processes of people with VI. Although previous studies have shown that people with disabilities may benefit from the use of technology in many different ways (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2006), teachers at this school have not included AT and ICT in their practices yet. The fact that our students use social media to study independently took us by surprise and indicates it is high time both the school as an institution, which has a voice in public policies for people with VI, and the teachers as individuals, who are in daily contact with these students, engaged in massive use of ICT and AT if students are expected to benefit from them. Teachers play a significant role in facilitating access to learning both technologies themselves and with technologies, and professional development programs are of great importance to their pedagogy, beliefs, and practices, which affect student learning outcomes (Wong & Cohen, 2016). Students with VI are likely to require support at different levels in order to adopt and/or to keep up to date with technologies (Wong & Tan, 2012), and teachers’ engagement may be an important way to build up students’ confidence and skills to use AT and ICT. We need to be aware of this and to find innovative and meaningful ways to include mobile technologies in our practices, in order not only to enhance learning of school subjects, but also of life skills.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ashaye

Ajuwon

A. J.

Adeoti

(2006). Perception of blindness and blinding eye conditions in rural communities. Journal of the National Medical Association, 98, 887–893. Retrieved from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2569369&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract

Asuncion

Budd

Fichten

C. S.

Nguyen

Barile

Amsel

(2012). Social media use by students with disabilities. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 16, 30–35. Retrieved from http://www.adaptech.org/migrated_publications/pubs/AEQSocialMediaUse.pdf

Benitez

Devaux

Dausset

(2002). Audiovisual documentation of oral consent: A new method of informed consent for illiterate populations. The Lancet, 359, 1406–1407. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08361-7

Bradley

Poppen

(2003). Assistive technology, computers and Internet may decrease sense of isolation for homebound elderly and disabled persons. Technology and Disability, 15, 19–25. Retrieved from http://iospress.metapress.com/index/142vnadejaj5e9up.pdf

Brady

E. L.

Zhong

Morris

M. R.

Bigham

J. P.

(2013). Investigating the appropriateness of social network question asking as a resource for blind users. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 1225–1236). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2441776.2441915

Campbell

Park

Y. J.

(2008). Social implications of mobile telephony: The rise of personal communication society. Sociology Compass, 2, 371–387. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00080.x

Castells

Fernandez-Ardevol

Qiu

J. L.

Sey

(2007). Mobile communication and society: A global perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chlebowy

D. O.

Hood

LaJoie

A. S.

(2010). Facilitators and barriers to self-management of type 2 diabetes among urban African American adults: Focus group findings. The Diabetes Educator, 36, 897–905. doi:10.1177/0145721710385579

Decreto No 3.298, de 20 de Dezembro de 1999 (1999). Retrieved from http://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/decret/1999/decreto-3298–20-dezembro-1999–367725-normaatualizada-pe.pdf

10.

Decreto No 5.296 de 2 de Dezembro de 2004 (2004). Retrieved from https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2004-2006/2004/Decreto/D5296.htm

11.

Dobransky

Hargittai

(2006). The disability divide in internet access and use. Information, Communication & Society, 9, 313–334. doi:10.1080/13691180600751298

12.

Duckett

Pratt

(2001). The researched opinions on research: Visually impaired people and visual impairment research. Disability & Society, 16, 815–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590120083976

13.

Ebner

Nagler

Schon

(2015). Why Facebook swallowed WhatsApp! In World conference on educational multimedia, hypermedia and telecommunications (pp. 1383–1392). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Ebner2/publication/279753355_Why_Facebook_Swallowed_WhatsApp!/links/559a09c308ae5d8f393649b7.pdf

14.

Enjolras

Steen-Johnsen

Wollebaek

(2013). Social media and mobilization to offline demonstrations: Transcending participatory divides? New Media & Society, 15, 890–908. doi:10.1177/1461444812462844

15.

França

D. N. O.

(2013). Sexualidade da pessoa com cegueira: da percepção à expressão. Revista Brasileira De Educação Especial, 19, 583–596. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbee/v19n4/v19n4a08.pdf

16.

Fuglerud

K. S.

Tjostheim

Gunnarsson

B. R.

Tollefsen

(2012). Use of social media by people with visual impairments: Usage levels, attitudes and barriers. In SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 565–572). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31522-0_85

17.

Gil

A. C.

(2008). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social [Methods and techniques for social research] (6^a). São Paulo, Brazil: Editora Atlas.

18.

Gohn

M. G.

(2014). A sociedade brasileira em movimento: vozes das ruas e seus ecos políticos e sociais [Brazilian society in movement: voices from the streets and their social and political echoes]. Caderno CRH, 27, 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-49792014000200013

19.

Guy

(2010). Preface. In Guy

(Ed.), Mobile learning: Pilot projects and initiatives (p. xi). Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Press.

20.

IBGE – Coordenação de Trabalho e Rendimento. (2015). Pesquisa Nacional de Saúde 2013: Ciclos de vida: Brasil e grandes regiões [National Health Research 2013: Life Cycles: Brazil and its macro regions]. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: IBGE. Retrieved from http://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv94522.pdf

21.

Jarvenpaa

S. L.

Lang

K. R.

(2005). Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology. Information Systems Management, 22(4), 7–23. doi:10.1201/1078.10580530/45520.22.4.20050901/90026.2

22.

Kane

S. K.

Jayant

Wobbrock

J. O.

Ladner

R. E.

(2009). Freedom to roam: A study of mobile device adoption and accessibility for people with visual and motor disabilities. In Proceedings of the 11th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 115–122). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/1639642.1639663

23.

Katz

J. E.

(2008). Introduction. In Katz

J. E.

(Ed.), Handbook of mobile communication studies (pp. 1–11). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi:10.1201/9781420053890

24.

Kaye

H. S.

(2000). Computer and internet use among people with disabilities. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED439579

25.

Khadka

Ryan

Margrain

T. H.

Woodhouse

J. M.

Davies

(2012). Listening to voices of children with a visual impairment: A focus group study. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 30, 182–196. doi:10.1177/0264619612453105

26.

Laabidi

Jemni

Ayed

L. J.

Brahim

H. B.

Jemaa

A. B.

(2014). Learning technologies for people with disabilities. Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences, 26, 29–45. doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2013.10.005

27.

Laplane

A. L. F.

De Batista

C. G.

(2008). Ver, não ver e aprender: a participação de crianças com baixa visão e cegueira na escola [To see, not to see and to learn: participation of children with low vision and blindness at school]. Cadernos CEDES, 28, 209–227. doi:10.1590/S0101-32622008000200005

28.

Maddox

Esposito

(2011). Sufficiency re-examined: A capabilities perspective on the assessment of functional adult literacy. Journal of Development Studies, 47, 1315–1331. doi:10.1080/00220388.2010.509788

29.

Martiniello

Budd

Nguyen

M. N.

Tibbs

Asuncion

Barile

. . .Fichten

(2012). Accessibility of social media for students who are blind or have low vision. Canadian Blind Monitor, 32. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

30.

Masrom

Ismail

(2010). Benefits and barriers to the use of mobile learning in education: Review of literature. In Guy

(Ed.), Mobile learning: Pilot projects and initiatives (pp. 9–26). Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Press.

31.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

Saldaña

(2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

32.

Morgado

F. F. R.

Campana

A. N. N. B.

Tavares

M. C. G. C. F

. (2012). Aplicabilidade do Grupo Focal com Pessoas Cegas [Applicability of focus groups with blind people] . Revista Benjamin Constant, 1–12. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259480206_Aplicabilidade_do_Grupo_Focal_com_Pessoas_Cegas

33.

Murphy

Kuber

McAllister

Strain

(2008). An empirical investigation into the difficulties experienced by visually impaired internet users. Universal Access in the Information Society, 7, 79–91. doi:10.1007/s10209-007-0098-4

34.

Presidência da República, Secretaria de Comunicação Social. (2015). Pesquisa Brasileira de Mídia 2015: hábitos de consumo de mídia pela população brasileira [Brazilian Media Research 2015: media consumption habits of the Brazilian population]. Brasília, Brazil: Secom. Retrieved from http://www.secom.gov.br/atuacao/pesquisa/lista-de-pesquisas-quantitativas-e-qualitativas-de-contratos-atuais/pesquisa-brasileira-de-midia-pbm-2015.pdf

35.

Qiu

Rauterberg

(2015). Mobile social media for the blind: Preliminary observations. In International Conference on Enabling Access for Persons with Visual Impairment (pp. 152–156). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272789786

36.

Seymour

Lupton

(2004). Holding the line online: Exploring wired relationships for people with disabilities. Disability & Society, 19, 291–305. doi:10.1080/09687590410001689421

37.

Smedema

S. M.

McKenzie

A. R.

(2010). The relationship among frequency and type of internet use, perceived social support, and sense of well-being in individuals with visual impairments. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32, 317–325. doi:10.3109/09638280903095908

38.

Tjostheim

Solheim

Fuglerud

K. S.

(2011). The importance of peers for visually impaired users of social media. In Proceedings of the 6th IASTED International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 23–30). doi:10.2316/P.2011.747-015

39.

Tollefsen

Dale

Ø.

Berg

Nordby

(2011). Connected! A paper about the disabled and the use of social media. Retrieved from http://www.medialt.no/dokumenter/956.aspx

40.

Vanden Abeele

. (2016). Mobile youth culture: A conceptual development. Mobile Media & Communication, 4, 85–101. doi:10.1177/2050157915601455

41.

Vashistha

Cutrell

Dell

Anderson

(2015). Social media platforms for low-income blind people in India. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (pp. 259–272). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2700648.2809858

42.

Vicente

M. R.

López

A. J.

(2010). A multidimensional analysis of the disability digital divide: Some evidence for Internet use. The Information Society, 26, 48–64. doi:10.1080/01615440903423245

43.

Wilkinson

(1998). Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1, 181–203. doi:10.1080/13645579.1998.10846874

44.

Wong

M. E.

Cohen

L. G.

(2016). Access and challenges of assistive technology application: Experience of teachers of students with visual impairments in Singapore. Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development, 26, 138–154. doi:10.5463/dcid.v26i4.450

45.

Wong

M. E.

Tan

S. S. K.

(2012). Teaching the benefit of smartphone technology to blind consumers: Exploring the potential of the iPhone. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 106, 646–650.

46.

Adamic

(2014). Visually impaired users on an online social network. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3133–3142). New York, NY: ACM. doi:10.1145/2556288.2557415