PaperlayerView exact revision on arXiv

Source-linked AI summary

Inclusive AR/VR: Accessibility Barriers for Immersive Technologies

Chris Creed, Maadh Al-Kalbani, Arthur Theil, Sayan Sarcar, Ian Williams

arXiv:2304.13465v1cs.HC

TL;DR

Accessibility barriers in consumer AR/VR remain insufficiently understood despite the technology’s potential for communication and social interaction. The paper uses two multidisciplinary Sandpits with disabled people and other stakeholders to identify barriers across impairment groups and inform more inclusive development.

  • Problem

    Limited research has examined fundamental accessibility barriers in AR/VR experiences across physical, cognitive, visual, and auditory impairments.

  • Method

    The study conducted two multidisciplinary, participatory Sandpits with disabled people and stakeholders from research, industry, charities, education, and assistive technology.

  • Results

    The Sandpits identified entry, hardware, software, training, affordability, multitasking, and collaboration barriers affecting AR/VR use across impairment groups.

  • Takeaways & Limitations

    Inclusive AR/VR development should involve disabled users and stakeholders collaboratively across research and product-development stages.

  • Takeaways & Limitations

    Related research remains largely exploratory, and technologies developed with disabled users are usually not tested in long-term real-world settings.

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) hold significant potential to transform how we communicate, collaborate, and interact with others. However, there has been a lack of work to date investigating accessibility barriers in relation to immersive technologies for people with disabilities. To address current gaps in knowledge, we led two multidisciplinary Sandpits with key stakeholders (including academic researchers, AR/VR industry specialists, people with lived experience of disability, assistive technologists, and representatives from national charities and special needs colleges) to collaboratively explore and identify existing challenges with AR and VR experiences. We present key themes that emerged from Sandpit activities and map out the interaction barriers identified across a spectrum of impairments (including physical, cognitive, visual, and auditory disabilities). We conclude with recommendations for future work addressing the challenges highlighted to support the development of more inclusive AR and VR experiences.

1 DMT Lab, Birmingham City University

The preprint identifies its publication status, online Version of Record, and core topics.

  • The document states that the preprint has not undergone post-submission improvements or corrections.
  • The Version of Record is published in Universal Access in the Information Society.
  • The article is available online through its DOI link.
  • The listed keywords are accessibility, virtual reality, augmented reality, and inclusive design.

1 Introduction

AR/VR could expand social interaction and address aspects of the digital divide, but accessibility barriers remain insufficiently addressed across consumer platforms. The paper responds through multidisciplinary Sandpits involving disabled people and other relevant stakeholders.

  • AR/VR may create new opportunities for social interaction and help address the digital divide for people with disabilities.
  • Prior work has developed assistive AR/VR hardware and software for motor, cognitive, visual, and audio-related needs.
  • Limited work has examined fundamental accessibility barriers in readily available and emerging consumer AR/VR hardware and software platforms.
  • The paper led two multidisciplinary full-day Sandpits with disabled people, researchers, industry specialists, assistive technologists, charities, and special-needs institutions.
  • The work aims to help organisations address core challenges so people with disabilities are not excluded from immersive communication and social interaction.

2 Related Work

Related research demonstrates assistive AR/VR applications across impairment groups, but understanding of fundamental accessibility barriers remains incomplete. Existing barrier research is uneven, with particularly limited coverage for visual and auditory impairments.

  • Commercial AR/VR devices have received less attention as sources of fundamental accessibility barriers across a spectrum of impairments.
  • The related-work review argues that further research across all impairment types is needed to scope core barriers for inclusive AR/VR.
  • Research has explored assistive AR/VR applications and hardware for physical, visual, cognitive, and hearing-related needs.
  • Existing work lacks a clear and thorough understanding of barriers encountered when people with impairments first access or use immersive technologies.
  • Initial barrier research has concentrated substantially on physical impairments, especially wheelchair users, and on neurodiverse users’ sensory and interaction challenges.
  • Research on barriers for visual and auditory impairments remains much less developed, including limited support for blind or low-vision users in current virtual reality systems.

3 Methodology

The study used two participatory, multidisciplinary Sandpits to investigate accessibility barriers in head-mounted AR/VR and shared virtual environments. Discussions were organised around impairment experiences and analysed thematically into high-level barrier categories.

  • Two multidisciplinary Sandpits brought together academics, industry specialists, disabled people, charities, schools, colleges, and assistive technologists.
  • Both full-day events were conducted remotely on Microsoft Teams and focused on barriers in AR/VR experiences.
  • The first event emphasised AR/VR through head-mounted displays rather than mobile applications.
  • Participants were grouped to balance academic, disability, charity, and assistive-technology perspectives during discussions of accessibility barriers.
  • The second Sandpit structured groups around different impairments to support deeper discussion of specific barriers and challenges.
  • Participants discussed inclusive AR/VR experiences in the morning and inclusive communication and social interaction in shared virtual environments in the afternoon.

4 Results

Thematic analysis identified physical-impairment barriers across software usability, hardware usability, ethics, and collaboration/interactions. Key concerns included involuntary movement, fatigue, loss of physical awareness, limited movement, inadequate support, and poor integration with mobility aids.

  • Hardware usability: AR/VR systems often lack personalization and dynamic mapping of user reality for users with specific software and hardware needs.Participants identified customization and dynamic mapping as a distinct barrier to using AR/VR.
  • Hardware usability: Users with limited physical movement may struggle to wear AR/VR devices securely and accurately, while current systems provide insufficient support for device use, navigation, menus, and buttons.These barriers can arise both before and during AR/VR use.
  • Collaboration and interaction: Poor compatibility and integration with existing mobility aids can restrict access to physical communication and assistive aids during AR/VR use.The resulting suppression of communication was identified as a key barrier for users with physical impairments.
  • Software usability: Involuntary limb or eye movements can hinder navigation, interaction, and collaboration when AR/VR relies on targeted body or eye movements.Participants also identified physical, mental, and temporal fatigue during prolonged immersive use as a barrier.
  • Software usability: Full immersion can reduce awareness of balance, physical aids, and limb position, elevating physical and mental injury risks.Participants linked this loss of real-world awareness with disengagement from immersive experiences.

Hardware Usability

Hardware-related barriers span secure device use, physical interaction, accessibility-aid compatibility, audio and menu access, and ethical concerns about representation and safety. Participants also emphasized the need for more inclusive device design and support.

  • Hardware usability: Limited movement and dexterity can make headsets difficult to wear securely and controllers difficult to operate, leading some users to stop using immersive experiences.Lack of support during AR/VR use was also identified as a barrier.
  • Hardware usability: AR/VR devices may be incompatible with crutches, wheelchairs, glasses, canes, and hearing aids, making movement and interaction restrictive.Participants linked these constraints to multitasking, interaction speed, and reduced confidence.
  • Ethics: Ethical barriers include unclear psychological and emotional impacts, potential harm from altering realities, discrimination, cyberbullying, exclusion, and unknown algorithmic effects.Participants also raised the need to prepare users to enter and interact safely within AR/VR environments.
  • Representation: Avatar choice and physical representation require careful design because body image, identity sharing, and representation can affect collaborative AR/VR experiences.Participants called for greater freedom of avatar choice while emphasizing care around identity representation.
  • Hardware usability: Difficulties with head, manual, bimanual, and limb interactions reflect device assumptions that users can move body parts with high dexterity.Participants reported that current controllers do not accommodate many users with physical impairments.
  • Visual accessibility: The lack of binaural audio and integrated audio descriptions creates barriers to navigation and interaction in immersive environments.Participants called for audio integrated into systems, environmental description, and navigational support.
  • Visual accessibility: Participants identified inaccessible menus, limited voice activation, and insufficient built-in accessibility features as barriers for users with visual impairments.They preferred accessibility to be integrated into mainstream devices rather than provided only through add-ons.

Software Usability

Software usability barriers for visual impairments include missing audio support, inaccessible menus, limited built-in features, poor customization, and unclear representation in collaborative environments. Participants also connected add-on accessibility to cost and exclusion from design processes.

  • Audio and navigation: AR/VR systems lack integrated binaural audio and environmental audio descriptions needed for navigation and interaction.Participants identified system-integrated audio, environmental description, and navigational audio as priorities for further research.
  • Interface access: Voice activation and accessible menu design remain insufficient for users with visual impairments.Participants specifically highlighted inaccessible menus as a barrier to using AR/VR systems.
  • Accessibility features: Built-in accessibility features are lacking, while add-on solutions are considered undesirable by users with visual impairments.Participants urged headset manufacturers to develop accessibility features directly into devices.
  • Customization: Limited customization prevents users from adjusting sensory information and accessibility features to their disability and lived reality.Participants identified this inability to adapt immersive environments as a key barrier.
  • Inclusive design: Participants called for standardized, dedicated headsets with adaptable settings and disabled people centered in hardware and software design.They also noted that current guidelines and protocols for inclusive consumer products are insufficient.
  • Ethics and representation: Unclear representation of visual impairments in collaborative environments can contribute to misunderstanding, while cyberbullying, harassment, and exclusion pose additional ethical barriers.Participants stressed representation as a way to mitigate these concerns.
  • Inclusive development: Accessibility features are often added later because of high costs, limited inclusion of disabled users in development, and missing knowledge or voices from disabled communities.Participants linked this add-on trend to unequal access to features alongside non-disabled consumers.

Collaboration and Interaction

Participants identified barriers affecting collaboration and interaction before, during, and after immersive experiences, including limited environmental awareness, device setup difficulties, overload, discomfort, and social risks.

  • Collaboration and Interaction: Limited awareness of surroundings and other users can hinder collaboration in immersive environments, while visual impairments may create barriers before collaboration begins.Participants specifically noted difficulty locating headset controls such as the power button.
  • Collaboration and Interaction: Cybersickness, disorientation, lagged immersion, and sudden environmental changes can create stress and uncertainty during or after AR/VR use.Reported changes included brightness, avatars, and movements.
  • Collaboration and Interaction: Non-customisable sensory, information, and cognitive overload can reduce usability in immersive environments.
  • Collaboration and Interaction: Device weight, tightness, prolonged-use pain, incompatibility with assistive aids, and setup difficulties create hardware and access barriers.Participants also reported that assistance is often needed to set up, wear, and adjust devices comfortably.
  • Collaboration and Interaction: Immersion raises concerns about physical and mental injury, detachment from the real environment, protection of vulnerable users, hyper-realism, abuse, exclusion, peer pressure, and addiction.

Software Usability

For neurodiverse and cognitively impaired users, software usability barriers include stress from detachment, cybersickness, overload, difficult interaction demands, and concerns about hyper-realism and social harms.

  • Software Usability: Complete detachment from the real environment and physicality during full immersion was identified as a major source of stress for neurodiverse users.
  • Software Usability: Cybersickness and aftereffects such as motion sickness, simulator sickness, disorientation, and a lagged feeling of immersion were reported as key barriers.
  • Software Usability: Neurodiverse users may experience barriers from difficult device setup, adjustment, and software learning, with assistance often needed for comfortable use.Participants described AR/VR technologies as not easy to learn, limiting access even when devices are available.
  • Software Usability: Abuse, cyberbullying, exclusion, peer pressure, and excessive use were identified as ethical and social barriers to immersive technologies.
  • Software Usability: Hyper-realism and difficulty separating virtuality from reality raised concerns about the physical and mental wellbeing of neurodiverse users.Participants called for more research and questioned whether increasing realism is necessarily user-centred.
  • Software Usability: Multitasking and processing multiple stimuli, people, or avatars can overwhelm neurodiverse users in collaborative AR/VR settings.

Auditory Impairments

Auditory-impaired users face entry, navigation, hardware, customisation, community-acceptance, and visual communication barriers in AR/VR environments.

  • Auditory Impairments: Low AR/VR literacy, limited community acceptance, unclear audio instructions, and reliance on audio cues create entry and software barriers for users with hearing impairments.Participants indicated that visual prompts are preferable when audio navigation cues may be missed.
  • Auditory Impairments: Head-motion navigation, unclear sound sources, and non-standardised subtitles can make navigation and interaction difficult for users with hearing impairments.Existing subtitles were considered helpful but insufficient to fully describe immersive environments.
  • Auditory Impairments: Bulky devices may lack space for hearing aids, while microphone feedback and poor assistive-device compatibility can make AR/VR uncomfortable or unusable.
  • Auditory Impairments: Haptic alternatives can be tiring, costly, time-consuming to set up, and difficult to use for prolonged periods.Participants also identified lack of customisation as a barrier.
  • Auditory Impairments: Deaf communities may not adopt shared virtual spaces unless the technology is accepted by the community and supports a sense of belonging.
  • Auditory Impairments: Poor avatar rendering and visual information can impede lip reading and sign-language interpretation, causing critical conversational information to be lost.

5 Discussion

The discussion consolidates cross-impairment barriers and argues for participatory, better-supported, and more practically deployed AR/VR research and development.

  • 5 Discussion: The paper presents barriers identified through a user-centred participatory design involving people with impairments and other relevant stakeholders.
  • 5 Discussion: Entry barriers recur across impairment groups, including limited access, low AR/VR literacy, inadequate accessibility features, and unavailable software, hardware, and training.These barriers reinforce the digital divide for users with impairments.
  • 5 Discussion: Disabled users should inform AR/VR research and product development across concept, design, and development stages.The discussion points to participatory methods and inclusive study designs as a promising shift.
  • 5 Discussion: Academic AR/VR concepts often remain within universities, while studies commonly rely on able-bodied participants and lack long-term real-world testing with disabled users.
  • 5 Discussion: Affordability and equal pricing of accessibility tools matter for adoption, while poor integration of physical aids and quick, dexterous interactions make multitasking overwhelming across impairments.
  • 5 Discussion: Future work should address technical barriers through collaboration with people with lived experience and wider partnerships involving charities, schools, colleges, and disability organisations.

6 Conclusion

The work deepens understanding of technical, societal, and economic barriers experienced by people with disabilities in immersive technologies. Mapping challenges to impairments provides a platform for future accessibility research.

  • The work identifies technical, societal, and economic barriers affecting people with lived experiences of disability in immersive technologies.
  • Mapping key challenges to different forms of impairment creates a platform for the wider research community to address accessibility barriers.
  • Future approaches and innovative techniques should be explored collaboratively to address the identified accessibility challenges.
Loading 2304.13465v1…