Accessibility and usability of self-serve kiosks for blind and partially sighted Canadians

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Approximately 7.4% of Canadians over the age of 15 report being blind or partially sighted; this impacts their daily functioning in public spaces [1]. Technological advances have included the proliferation of self-serve kiosk in many consumer settings. However, absent from discussions of community accessibility is the experiences of Canadians who are blind or partially sighted.

OBJECTIVE:

To better understand the experiences of this population with self-serve kiosks.

METHODS:

A descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to analyze survey data collected as part of a survey by Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) of people who are blind, Deafblind partially sighted about their use of self-serve kiosks. 731 participants were surveyed, representing a response rate of 3.5% across Canada.

RESULTS:

64.14% of participants faced barriers in completing a task using self-serve technology. Human assistance was required to complete the tasks in most instances. 65.74% of participants reported they did not enjoy using self-serve kiosks and 60.90% of participants reported they would not continue to use self-serve kiosks in the future.

CONCLUSIONS:

The findings highlight a need to promote accessibility in the creation and implementation of self-serve kiosks in order to further their use and decrease exclusion of people who are blind and partially sighted.

Keywords

Self-serve kiosks blind or partially sighted disability accessibility

1. Introduction

Persons with disabilities represent one of the largest minority groups in Canada, making up to approximately 27% of the total Canadian population [1]. Approximately 7.4% of the Canadian population over the age of 15 identify as being blind or partially sighted [1]. Persons who are blind or partially sighted are more likely to be unemployed, have lower income and education, and face greater overall discrimination than people without [2, 3, 4, 5]. Employment status, level of income and education, and the experience of discrimination can also influence mental health and psychosocial well-being (Aitken et al., 2018, King et al., 2018) [6, 7]. There is a growing awareness of the significant costs associated with not being fully accessible to persons who are blind or partially sighted for individuals and employers, with the annual global costs of lost productivity estimated at over $411 billion USD [5]. Exploring ways in which community integration and social participation can be furthered among persons who are blind and partially sighted is of critical importance.

Access to technology such as self-serve terminals and kiosks, is an important area for consideration among persons who are blind and partially sighted. Self-serve technology can be found in many critical services, such as the healthcare industry, banking, travel, and grocery stores. The inherent visual nature of this technology may present significant barriers [8]. On the other hand, the advancement and sophistication of accessible technology, including the integration of artificial intelligence, could contribute to the potential for improved access among persons with various sensory disabilities [9]. Exploring the lived experience of persons who are blind and partially sighted could lead to improvements in services available in a variety of sectors.

There is no single consistent definition for self-serve kiosks, or self-serve technology; they are described as a form of technology that provides key services to the general population and are designed to sell users a product or provide information [10]. Hagen and Eika Sandnes provide examples of the various forms of self-serve kiosk technology that people might encounter in the community, such as: ticket sales, self-serve banking, photo-manipulation and printing, local navigation such as in shopping centres, low-cost Internet access such as in Internet cafes or travel centres, education tuition payment, check-ins for appointments and travel, and general information [11]. Therefore, self-serve kiosks are technology that many people encounter throughout their daily lives in the community.

In addition, present-day self-serve kiosks most commonly rely on interaction through touch-sensitive displays. This current practice of a best fit for all is not ideal for everyone, especially for those who are blind or partially sighted [11]. Moreover, the display screen can often be difficult to read because of issues associated font size, font style and back-lighting [11].

According to various legislation across jurisdictions, there is a requirement for organizations to make their web-based content and apps accessible (e.g. the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act [AODA]) [12]. Inequitable access to self-serve technology has been explored in studies past research with a focus on persons who are blind or partially sighted [13, 14], and older adults [15]. While there are no specific studies focused on the use of self-serve kiosks for persons who are blind and partially sighted, there are studies about e-services and the applications on e-services can be similar to those in self-serve kiosks. One study conducted in Spain by Sala and colleagues showed that it was difficult for persons who are blind or partially sighted to complete tasks using various websites [14]. Sala and colleagues also found that this population required more human assistance, made more errors than the non-disabled group, and were more disoriented, as shown by coming across the same pages repeatedly [14]. In Finland, Immonen and colleagues found that individuals who needed support to use new e-services preferred having human interaction while using the service [15]. In Australia, Locke and colleagues conducted a survey asking persons who are blind and partially sighted about how they use smartphones [13]. These authors found that of the 845 individuals surveyed, 35% expressed their smartphone apps were not fully accessible, 65% wanted more information on the types of apps and smartphone features they could use, 65% wanted more training on how to use a smartphone, and 52% wanted more advocacy for the blind community to encourage smartphone and app developers to design technology with accessibility in mind. In summary, the population of people who are blind or partially sighted face accessibility challenges when using computers and smartphone technology. There is an urgent need to better understand how to improve accessibility features within self-serve technology given their prominent use across various sectors.

The existing research specific to self-serve kiosk technology and people who are blind or partially sighted is limited. Further, how self-serve kiosks act as barriers to community participation for people who are blind or partially sighted has not been studied. Exploring the experiences of this community with self-serve kiosks across Canada could provide information to improve these platforms.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this study was to better understand the experiences of Canadian adults who are blind, partially sighted, and Deafblind with self-serve kiosks. The secondary purpose of this study was to explore the extent to which income levels, gender, and education impact accessibility and usability needs, across sectors in which self-serve kiosks are encountered.

1.2 Research questions

The primary research question for this study was: What are the experiences of Canadian blind, Deafblind, and partially sighted adults with self-serve kiosks? We sought to explore the use of self-serve kiosks by people who are blind, Deafblind, or partially sighted, including how frequently they are using such technologies and in what sectors, and to identify some of the ongoing accessibility and usability needs.

1.3 Hypotheses

•
H₀: The medians of each group compared (i.e., income, education, gender) will be equal.
•
H_A: At least one group median of the groups compared (i.e., income, education, gender) will differ from the other group medians.

2. Methods

2.1 Study design

A descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to analyze survey data collected as part of a survey by Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) of people who are blind, Deafblind, and partially sighted about their use of self-serve kiosks.

2.2 Sample

We took an exploratory approach to this research, as the population of people who are blind, Deafblind, or partially sighted can be difficult to reach. The survey was sent specifically to people within CNIB’s expansive network across Canada and was open from March 24, 2023 until April 14, 2023. Individuals who had previously consented to be on CNIB’s research email list or given permission to be contacted by the CNIB Foundation were contacted by email with information about this research. A total number of 20 942 individuals were contacted. Inclusion criteria for participation in the survey included being: at least 18 years of age; a Canadian resident; blind, partial-sighted, or deaf-blind; able to understand and use English or French, and; have a device that connects to the Internet.

Initially, the target sample size was 300 to 500 individuals to properly capture the experiences of this population with self-serve kiosks. Literature from various countries suggests that experiences with, and attitudes toward, self-serve kiosks are heterogeneous and therefore a large sample is required to capture the diversity of opinions and needs [13]. Informed consent was obtained from within the online survey. A power calculation was not completed to determine recruitment, as this was an exploratory study.

2.3 Measures

The survey consisted of questions focused on the following domains: technology use, attitudes towards technology; disability, user needs; experience with type of technology; future intention to use; and general demographics. Participants rated their own ability to use technology as one of the following: basic user, intermediate user, proficient user, or advanced user. In terms of self-reported anxiety while using self-serve kiosks, participants rated their anxiety on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing “not at all” and 10 representing feeling anxious “all the time”. Self-reported confidence in using self-serve technology was also rated on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing “not at all confident” and 10 representing “completely confident”. All data collected was categorical, with the exception of year of birth. Please see Appendix A for a copy of the full English-language survey.

2.4 Data collection

Participants completed the online survey between March 24, 2023 and April 14, 2023. In order to participate, individuals clicked on a hyperlink in an email invitation circulated by the CNIB. The hyperlink opened an online survey via Survey Monkey consisting of a short screening survey to verify inclusion criteria. Eligible participants were then invited to click another hyperlink that redirected them to a longer survey that took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Participants could choose to skip questions or select “prefer not to answer” to any question.

2.5 Data analysis

Frequencies and percentages were calculated for categorical data. Means and standard deviations were calculated for non-categorical data. Data was inspected for outliers by plotting data from each group being compared (i.e., income groups, gender groups, and education groups) on a box plot, and calculating the median. A Shapiro-Wilk test was completed to test for normality between groups. A Kruskal-Wallis test, a nonparametric test, was completed to check for statistical significance within groups for each variable. Post-hoc Wilcoxson rank-sum tests were completed for each comparison to look for statistical significance between groups. A post hoc test with a Bonferroni correction was applied to the outcome of each post-hoc Wilcoxson rank-sum test result to reduce the risk of type I error. The approach also included Kruskal Wallis tests to explore how other social determinants of health, such as income, education, and sexual identity impact one another, as the literature has found that these variables are relevant to the use of technology [16]. STATA BE version 17.0 was used for all statistical calculations, with an alpha level set at 0.05.

2.6 Theory

The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) guided exploration of the experiences described by the blind, partially sighted, and Deafblind community, and to explore options for moving forward [17]. This theory proposes that the likelihood of adopting technology is dependent on performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating conditions. Performance expectancy is defined as the degree to which a person believes that the technology will help them perform. Effort expectancy is the degree of ease associated with use of the technology. Social influence is the degree to which a person perceives others think they should use the new technology. Lastly, facilitating conditions are defined as the degree to which a person believes that the infrastructure and support exists to use the technology. All four of these components are moderated by age, gender, experience, and voluntariness of use [17]. The Social Model of Disability [18] was also considered when developing survey questions, completing the analysis, and formulating recommendations. This model proposes that people are limited by disabling environments and stigmatizing attitudes, rather than an impairment within the individual [18].

3. Results

3.1 Sample size

Initially, there were 679 (92.89%) English-language and 52 (7.11%) French-language individuals who started the survey, for a total of 731 participants. Participants dropped out at various points in the survey process. A total of 23 participants were excluded from the survey because they did not meet inclusion criteria for age, and 13 participants were excluded because they did not identify as being blind, Deafblind, or partially-sighted.

3.2 Demographic information

Table 1
Income distribution

Income	Frequency	Percent
Less than $20 000	72	15.62
$20 000 to $34 999	77	16.70
$35 000 to $49 999	61	13.23
$50 000 to $74 999	64	13.88
$75 000 to $99 999	43	9.33
Over $100 000	54	11.72
Prefer not to answer	90	19.52

A total of 465 participants inputted their year of birth, with a mean age of 59 years (SD $=$ 16.35), and median age of 57 years. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 99 years. Gender was reported by 477 participants, with 266 (55.77%) identifying as a woman, 195 (40.88%) identifying as a man, 4 (0.84%) identifying as gender non-binary or non-conforming, and 12 (2.52%) preferring not to answer. Education and income were reported by 476 and 461 participants respectively. The majority of participants (59.43%) reported an income of less than $74 999 (see Table 1).

Table 2

Education level distribution

Education	Frequency	Percent
Less than high school	17	3.57
High school	90	18.91
CEGEP	9	1.89
College, vocational school, or trade school	144	30.25
University undergraduate studies	119	25
Post graduate studies	83	17.44
Prefer not to answer	14	2.94

Most participants (72.69%) had at least a college diploma, vocational school, or trade school education (see Table 2 for a breakdown of descriptive statistics).

472 (92.55%) of the 510 participants answering the initial question about type of visual disability identified as being blind or partially sighted, 20 participants (3.92%) identified as being Deafblind, 13 (2.55%) of participants reported they did not have a seeing disability and were excluded from the survey, and 5 participants (0.98%) preferred not to answer.

3.3 Encounters with self-serve kiosks

Table 3
Types of self-serve kiosks used in the last 6 months

Types of self-serve kiosks	Frequency
Retail (grocery store or clothing)	255
Banking or financial institutions	245
Food industry (fast food, bar, restaurant)	147
Transportation (airport, train stations, etc.)	147
Healthcare (doctors’ offices/clinics or hospitals)	93
Government offices (Federal, Provincial, or Municipal)	49
Tourism and hospitality (hotel, resort, parking, box offices, etc.)	51
Other	13

A wide range of encounters with self-serve kiosks in different service sectors were documented by participants (See Table 3). The most commonly encountered self-serve kiosks were located in retail (245 participants) or banking/financial institutions (255 participants).

3.4 Comfort with technology and use of self-serve kiosks

Table 4
Reasons for not using self-serve kiosk technology

Reasons for not using self-serve technology	Frequency	Percent
I prefer an in-person agent instead	159	26.37
I find the technology difficult to use	104	17.25
I have unmet accessibility needs	78	12.94
I use or rely on other mechanisms	58	9.62
I have never interacted with these technologies by personal choice	33	5.47
I am not able to find these technologies	27	4.48
I prefer using a specific technology only	7	1.16
All of the above	109	18.08
Other	28	4.64

A total of 163 (26.94%) of participants identified as basic or low-users of technology, 128 (21.16%) identified as intermediate users of technology, 169 (27.93%) identified as proficient users, and 145 (23.97%) identified as advanced users of technology. Participants reported a variety of reasons for not using self-serve kiosks, with most citing they prefer in-person assistance instead (26.37%), find the technology difficult to use (17.25%), and have unmet disability needs (12.94%) (see Table 4).

A total of 601 participants responded that the frequency with which they required human assistance when using a self-serve kiosk was “always” (332 participants, 55.24%), “sometimes” (196 participants, 32.61%), “rarely” (49 participants, 8,15%), and “never” (24 participants, 3.99%).

Table 5

Confidence in using new technology

Technology self-efficacy	Frequency	Percent
0 $=$ not at all confident	27	5.60
1	17	3.53
2	13	2.70
3	34	7.05
4	22	4.56
5	67	13.90
6	42	8.71
7	78	16.18
8	73	15.15
9	54	11.20
10 $=$ completely confident	55	11.41

In terms of confidence, Table 5 outlines how confident participants reported they felt in using new technology. Of the 482 participants who responded. 78 participants, or 16.18%, indicated a confidence level of 7. This was the median and also the most common response.

Table 6

Anxiety using new technology

Technology anxiety	Frequency	Percent
0 $=$ not at all	51	10.45
1	34	6.97
2	37	7.58
3	49	10.04
4	38	7.79
5	93	19.06
6	45	9.22
7	39	7.99
8	38	7.79
9	25	5.12
10 $=$ all the time	39	7.99

A total of 488 participants responded to the question about anxiety and using new technology; responses to this question are outlined in Table 6. The most common response, which was also the median, was that people experienced at least a 5 out of 10 on the anxiety scale (93 participants, 19.06%), with 0 representing not at all anxious and 10 representing experiencing anxiety all of the time.

Only 285 people answered the question about the level of difficulty in using self-serve kiosks, with 1 equating to not at all difficult and 5 meaning extremely difficult. The median response to the level of difficulty using self-serve kiosks was 3 out of 5. The table below summarizes the results of this question.

Table 7

Level of difficulty using self-serve technology

Level of difficulty using self-serve technology	Frequency	Percent
Unsure	7	2.46%
1 (not at all difficult)	26	9.12%
2	57	20%
3	76	26.67%
4	61	21.40%
5 (extremely difficult)	58	20.35%

Table 8

Reasons for task incompletion

Reasons for task incompletion	Frequency
Poor colour contrast and font size	109
Lack of audio instructions and screen reading capabilities	104
Human assistance was not available or helpful	92
Time limits for actions	77
Technology was confusing for me to use	47
Physical barriers	32
Technical malfunction	16
None of the above	10
Other	22

Ninety-nine participants (34.14%) responded that they were able to complete their desired task using self-serve technology, while 186 (64.14%) indicated they were unable to do so. Various reasons were given for why participants were unable to complete their tasks (see Table 8). Though frequencies were calculated for participant responses, percentages of participant responses could not be calculated because participants were only asked to select which reasons applied to them so we do not know the total number of respondents for this question. Most commonly, participants reported poor colour contrast and font size (109 participants), lack of audio instructions and screen reading capabilities (104), and human assistance not being available or helpful (92) as the primary reasons for task incompletion.

Interestingly, human assistance was reported to have been requested “always” by 119 (41.03%) participants, compared with 138 (47.59%) of participants needing human assistance “sometimes”, 30 participants (10.34%) selecting “rarely”, and 4 participants (1.03%) “never” requesting human assistance. As outlined in Table 8, however, human assistance was not always available or helpful.

3.5 Future and user needs

Table 9
Features to address needs with self-serve kiosks

Accessibility features	Frequency
Audio and audible instructions	431
Clear and easy to follow instructions and menus	344
Enlarge information on screen and enlarge fonts	304
Multiple mechanisms to request human assistance	303
Feedback and cues on important actions and error correction	296
Oversize and special emphasis on important features	261
Easy to approach	235
Tactile information and guidance	233
Connect and operate with my devices and smartphone applications	198
Physical adjustability and maneuverability if locked	172
Physical space for mobility aids, service animal, children, strollers, other patrons, or technology	159
Hands-free operation and with minimal effort or touch	141
None of the above	43

A number of accessibility features were identified as addressing participants’ needs with using self-serve kiosks and are listed in Table 9. Of note, the most commonly reported desired accessibility features were audio and audible instructions (431 participants), clear and easy to follow instructions and menus (344 participants), enlarged information on screen and enlarged fonts (304 participants), multiple mechanisms to request human assistance (303 participants), and feedback and cues on important actions and error correction (296 participants).

Participants reported a number of features as being important in the development and implementation of self-serve kiosks. The accessibility features identified as being most important (rating of 5 out of 5) by the majority of participants were, in order of preference: protection of personal information, security and privacy (403 participants, 84.49%), seeking input from clients with all disabilities at the decision-making stage prior to purchase or implementation of the technology (295 participants, 62.37%), ability to increase or decrease the font size (288 participants, 60.50%), braille, large print and easy to read instructions (258 participants, 54.43%), automatic audio speech output for screens & touchscreens (259 participants, 54.41%), extra time to process instructions and complete tasks (250 participants, 52.19%), immediate in-person guidance from company regardless of disability (244 participants, 51.59%), tactile keyboards or features to help orientation and important buttons (238 participants, 50.21%).

3.6 Future and intention to use

The majority of participants (65.7%) reported they did not enjoy using self-serve kiosks, and 61% reported they would not continue to use self-serve kiosks in the future.

3.7 Data comparisons

3.7.1 Income and ability to use technology

Groups with higher income generally rated their ability to use technology significantly higher than the groups with lower income. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in ability to use technology scores in at least two of the income groups, chi² with ties (6) $=$ 21.24, $p=$ 0.017. The post hoc Wilcoxson rank sum tests and Bonferroni corrections demonstrated that groups with a higher income generally rated their ability to use technology significantly higher than groups with a lower income. The one exception to this finding was that participants who made less than $20 000 reported their ability to use technology as higher than the $20–$34 999 group, $p<$ 0.05. There was no significant difference found between the remaining income groups, $p>$ 0.05.

3.7.2 Income and confidence with new technology

The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to reveal that there was no statistically significant difference in confidence using new technology between income groups, chi² with ties (6) $=$ 7.016, $p=$ 0.3193.

3.7.3 Education and ability to use technology

Groups with higher levels of education rated their ability to use technology significantly higher than the groups with lower levels of education. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in ability to use technology scores in at least two of the education groups, chi² with ties (6) $=$ 23.854, $p=$ 0.0006. The post hoc Wilcoxson rank sum tests and Bonferroni corrections demonstrated that the higher the level of education, the significantly greater the perceived ability to use technology, $p<$ 0.05.

3.7.4 Education and confidence with new technology

Overall, higher education is associated with an increased confidence among participants with new technology. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in at least two of the education groups, chi² with ties (6) $=$ 17.507, $p=$ 0.0076. The post hoc Wilcoxson rank sum tests and Bonferroni corrections demonstrated that there was a statistically significant difference between the group with less than a high school education and the group with a university undergraduate education, $p=$ 0.021; between the group with less than a high school education and the group with post-graduate studies education, $p=$ 0.0396; between the group with a high school education and the group with a university undergraduate education, $p=$ 0.0093; between the group with a high school education and the group with post-graduate studies education, $p=$ 0.0414. There was no significant difference found between the remaining education groups, $p>$ 0.05.

3.7.5 Gender identity and ability to use technology

Participants identifying as gender nonbinary or non-conforming reported significantly higher ability to use technology when compared with males and females. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that there was a statistically significant difference in at least two of the gender identity groups, chi² with ties (3) $=$ 10.160, $p=$ 0.0173. The post hoc Wilcoxson rank sum tests and Bonferroni corrections demonstrated that there was a statistically significant difference between male and gender nonbinary or non-conforming identities for ability to use technology, $p=$ 0.0222, and between female and gender nonbinary or non-comforting identities for ability to use technology, $p=$ 0.0414.

3.7.6 Gender identity and confidence with new technology

The Kruskal-Wallis test showed that there was no statistically significant difference in any of the gender identity groups for confidence with new technology, chi² with ties (3) $=$ 7.403, $p=$ 0.0601.

4. Discussion

There was a wide distribution of participant responses related to comfort with using technology, confidence in using technology, and anxiety with using technology. Most participants reported having at least a college education and a moderate amount of anxiety using self-serve kiosks. The majority of participants reported they were unable to complete their task using self-serve technology for a variety of reasons such as poor colour contrast and font size, lack of audio instructions and screen reading capabilities, and human assistance not being available or helpful. Furthermore, most of the participants reported they needed human assistance at least sometimes, yet also noted human assistance was often inadequate or unavailable.

There was a wide range of encounters with self-serve kiosks in different service sectors documented by participants. The most commonly encountered self-serve kiosks were located in retail and banking/financial institutions. The majority of participants reported they did not enjoy using self-serve kiosks and most participants reported they would not continue to use self-serve kiosks in the future. The findings from this research are consistent with the existent literature that suggests that income and a person’s perceived ability to use technology are correlated [19], and that level of education can impact the adoption of technology [20]. Participants with lower incomes and less education generally reported a statistically significant reduced ability to use self-serve kiosks. Participants with less education also reported less confidence with self-serve kiosks.

Participants identified several helpful accessibility features to address their needs with using self-serve kiosks. Of note, the most commonly reported accessibility features that participants desired were audible instructions, clear and easy to follow instructions and menus, enlarged information on screen and enlarge fonts, and multiple mechanisms to request human assistance. Protection of personal information, security and privacy, and seeking input from clients with all disabilities at the decision-making stage prior to purchase or implementation of the technology were the two most commonly reported user needs by participants.

Given the lack of literature regarding self-serve technology as a whole, we examined how the findings from this paper relate to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [17] and Social Model of Disability [18]. Our survey found that participants who are blind, partially sighted, or Deafblind did not want to continue self-serve kiosks in the future. Effort expectancy, or the degree of ease associated with use of the technology, could be seen as being related to enjoyment using self-serve kiosks; this population generally reported that they did not enjoy using them and did not want to continue to use them. Effort expectancy also relates to the number of reports by participants indicating they required at least some human assistance while using self-serve technology, as well as often not being able to complete their designated task. Although we did not directly survey participants on social influence, or the degree to which a person perceives that others believe they should use the new technology, it can be argued that as the trend of automation continues, it is likely that self-serve technology will become more prevalent and used by others. Facilitating conditions are defined as the degree to which a person believes that the infrastructure and support exists to use the technology. These conditions can be compared to the significant accessibility issues participants had using self-serve kiosks. Lastly, social moderators, such as income and education, were found to have an impact on participants’ confidence and ability to use technology.

The Social Model of Disability [18] proposes that blind, partially-sighted and Deafblind people are limited by disabling environments. Unfortunately, self-serve technology as it currently stands, is yet another environmental barrier that can restrict community participation for many people who are blind and partially sighted. There is a need to address the accessibility concerns highlighted by this population.

4.1 Limitations

Participants were recruited via an email circulated through CNIB; they completed a single online survey. As a result, the population of participants from this study is potentially subject to selection bias. For example, the participants in this study all had an email address with which they received the survey, meaning that they likely have at least some confidence or ability to use technology. In addition, as this was an exploratory study with a purposive convenience sample, no power calculation was completed a priori. Although we achieved our goal of obtaining a sample size of at least 500 people, this sample is not necessarily representative of the 7.4% of Canadians who are blind or partially sighted. There was missing data with several questions, as participants had the option of skipping questions they did not wish to answer. As with any survey, all data was self-reported. The survey did not actually define the concept of a self-serve kiosk at the beginning of the survey and instead relied on participants having an understanding of what this entails; the multiple examples of self-serve technology that participants were asked about were provided closer to the end of the survey. This may have impacted participants’ responses to the survey questions. Finally, this study only analyzed a portion of the circulated survey; further analysis of the complete dataset and a complete gender analysis would be helpful.

4.2 Recommendations

There are significant barriers to using self-serve kiosk technology for people who are blind and partially sighted. The results of this study suggest that the following findings should be considered in order to promote inclusion and accessibility:

There should be adequate policy in place to guide self-serve technology training for users with disabilities and training to promote understanding of how disability can impact its use for agencies designing and employing this technology. Currently, Accessibility Standards Canada CSA/ASC B651.2 has updated their policies to include accessible design for self-serve interactive devices. However, this policy does not include training and instead focuses more on the overall physical design of the technology.

Training for users may be particularly important for those who have lower levels of income, education, comfort with technology, and confidence with technology.

Incorporate a diverse group of people who are blind or partially sighted in the development of training for service providers and service users. This collaborative approach is critical to ensure relevance of training on how to use this technology. One consideration to this point is who would conduct this training; people who are blind or partially sighted should be able to take on this role. More research is needed on what this training should entail, in what context it should be delivered, and who would be responsible. However, the results of this study suggest that the population of people who are blind or partially sighted should lead the development of this training through disability organizations.

Agencies should have adequate numbers of staff on site to assist people with disabilities should they require assistance. This is particularly important in circumstances wherein there is a lack of privacy and when there are no other options but self-serve kiosk. In addition, in-person interactions with staff serve functions in addition to its original purpose. For example, there are social functions related to its use; it is not just a matter of efficiency of the product. This is yet another reason for human assistance to be offered.

If self-serve kiosks have audio output, concern for privacy is important. This becomes a multi-layered issue when the user is dependent on others for assistance; those in need of help should not have to give up their privacy in return for assistance. The results from this study suggest that Bluetooth technology, options to integrate personal technology such as a tablet, and headphone jacks are some ways to protect personal privacy.

The process of development and integration of self-serve technology is important to consider; people with disabilities should be consulted in advance of its implementation.

Overall, self-serve technology is not accessible to many people who are blind or partially sighted. There is a need to ensure that people who are blind, partially sighted, and Deafblind, are consulted in the development and implementation of self-serve kiosks in different settings in order to develop best practice guidelines for accessibility. Until then, organizations and vendors utilizing self-serve kiosks should have alternative means for people to complete their tasks. Future research could examine the accessibility of other ICT technological platforms commonly used in everyday life to develop best practice guidelines and remove barriers; longitudinal studies to track impact of changes over time would also be helpful.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest

The authors listed above declare that the results of this study are presented honestly, without conflict of interest or data manipulation.

Ethics approval

This survey study was reviewed and approved by two university/hospital based ethics review boards. Upon completion of the longer survey, participants were asked if they would like to be included for a draw of one of three $100 Amazon gift cards.

Appendix A: English survey instrument and consent form

Survey Instrument and Consent Form.

Accessibility and Usability of Self-Serve Kiosks for Canadians with Sensory Disabilities.

Research Team and Project Overview

References

New data on disability in Canada, 2022. 2023 December 1. Available from: https//www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2023063-eng.htm.

Emerson

Madden

Graham

Llewellyn

Hatton

Robertson

. The health of disabled people a nd the social determinants of health. Public Health. 2011; 125: 145-7.

Frier

Barnett

Devine

Barker

. Understanding disability and the ‘social determinants of health’: how does disability affect peoples’ social determinants of health? Disabil Rehabil. 2018; 40(5): 538-47.

Gupta

Sukhai

Wittich

. Employment outcomes and experiences of people with seeing disability in Canada: an analysis of the Canadian survey on disability 2017. PLOS ONE. 2021; 16(11): e0260160. World Health Organization. (2022). Blindness and vision impairment. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-impairment.

Aitken

Simpson

Gurrin

Bentley

Kavanagh

. Do material, psychosocial and behavioural factors mediate the relationship between disability acquisition and mental health? A sequential causal mediation analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2018; 47: 829-40.

King

Aitken

Milner

Emerson

Priest

Karahalios

, et al. To what extent is the association between disability and mental health in adolescents mediated by bullying? A causal mediation analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2018; 47(5): 1402-13.

Alajarmeh

. Non-visual access to mobile devices: a survey of touchscreen accessibility for users who are visually impaired. Displays. 2021; 70.

Harper

Yesilada

. Emerging technologies and web accessibility: research challenges and opportunities focussing on vision issues. Disability Rehabilitation Assistive Technology. 2012; 7(1): 1-19.

Peters

Jackson

. Accessibility and use of touchscreens by black and ethnic minority groups in the three cities project. Ethnicity and Health. 2005; 10(3): 199-211.

10.

Hagen

Sandnes

. Toward accessible self-service kiosks through intelligent user interfaces. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 2010; 14: 715-21.

11.

New AODA requirement for Ontario websites: Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act; November 23, 2020. Available from: https://wwwaoda.ca/new-aoda-requirement-for-ontario-websites/#:∼text=Under%20the%20Information%20and%:20Communications,WCAG)%202.0%2C%20Level%20AA.

12.

Locke

McRae

Peaty

Ellis

Kent

. Developing accessible technologies for a changing world: understanding how people with vision impairment use smartphones. Disability and Society. 2022; 37(1): 111-28.

13.

Sala

Arrue

Perez

Espin-Tello

Moreno

. Accessibility design issues beyond the standards of government e-services for people with low vision. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction; 2023.

14.

Immonen

Sintonen

Koiveniemi

. The value of human interaction in service channels. Computers in Human Behaviour. 2018; 78: 316-25.

15.

Galyani Moghaddam

. “Information technology and gender gap: toward a global view”. The Electonic Library. 2010; 28(5): 722-33.

16.

Venkatesh

Morris

Davis

. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly. 2003; 27(3): 425-78.

17.

Goering

. Rethinking disability: the social model of disability and chronic disease. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine. 2015; 8(2): 134-8.

18.

Reuland

Godage

Valenzuela-Araujo

Dominguez-Cortez

Polk

Ross-DeCamp

. Information and communication technology access and use among low-income Latino immigrant parents. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2021; 25: 1807-13.

19.

Riddell

Song

. The role of education in technology use and adoption: evidence from the Canadian workplace and employee survey. CLSSRN working papers. 2011. (Vancouver School of Economics).

20.

Accessibility Standards Canada and CSA group collaborate to publish three new accessibility standards: Government of Canada; February 16, 2023. Available from: https://accessiblecanada.ca/news/accessibility-standards-canada-and-csa-group-collaborate-publish-three-new-accessibility.