Assistive Navigation: a Study Incorporating the Use of Wi-Fi Networks to Provide 
Realtime, Interactive Wayfinding in Enclosed Structures for Individuals Who Have Visual 
Impairments 
 
by 
 
Benjamin Thorpe Puffer 
 
 
 
 
A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of 
Auburn University 
in partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the Degree of 
Master of Industrial Design 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
August 6, 2011 
 
 
 
 
Keywords: interactive wayfinding, dynamic wayfinding, visually-impaired, assistive technology, 
inclusive design, Wi-Fi  
 
 
Copyright 2011 by Benjamin Thorpe Puffer 
 
 
Approved by 
 
Tsai Lu Liu, Chair, Associate Professor of Industrial Design 
Christopher Arnold, Associate Professor of Industrial Design 
Shea Tillman, Associate Professor of Industrial Design 
  
 ii 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 
 
 
 Those who suffer from visual impairments can find their ability to integrate into 
mainstream society challenged in significant ways.  There are a variety of methods that aid an 
individual?s ability to navigate his/her way through unfamiliar environments.  However, many of 
these approaches are ineffective and impractical for use by those who are visually impaired.   
This thesis considers the feasibility of providing a dynamic wayfinding solution based on 
existing mainstream technology.  It also considers the design influence that conventional 
technologies may exert upon devices specific to the disabled community. The result is a solution 
that may empower individuals who are visually impaired and increase the level of their 
interaction in many environments while seeking to reduce negative stigma associated with 
disability.  Ultimately, this solution may prove to be attractive not only to individuals with 
disabilities, but also to the general public. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iii 
 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgments 
 
 
 There are many people I would like to thank for their valuable help and input.  Let me 
start with the students and staff at Auburn University?s Program for Students with Disabilities.  
Thank you for the time you have spent with me and your patience.  Your insights were incredibly 
helpful and undoubtedly inspired the direction of this work. 
 I would also like to thank my thesis committee: Tsailu ?Lu? Liu, Chris Arnold, and Shea 
Tillman.  Your unwavering assistance and expertise are much appreciated.  Your doors have 
been open whenever I needed, and I am also grateful for your good-natured demeanors that have 
helped take the edge off uncertain moments for me.  Lu, I must offer you special thanks for 
constantly pushing me to be better than I otherwise would have been on my own.  Thank you for 
keeping after me, and for being a true friend. 
I am intensely indebted to my supportive wife and children who have offered 
extraordinary encouragement along the way.   There is nothing that can lift one?s spirits at the 
end of a rough day quite like children who are happy to see you.  And my wife has quietly, 
patiently, and even cheerfully sacrificed so much, in ways that most will never know.  Without 
her, none of this would be possible.  Amanda, you have rarely received the praise you deserve.  
Please know that I am profoundly grateful for you. 
With all the sincerity of my heart, thank you all.  I hope this work makes you proud.   
 
 
 
 iv 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents 
 
Abstract ........................................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... iii 
List of Figures ............................................................................................................... viii 
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... xii 
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Problem ............................................................................... 1 
1.1 Problem Statement...................................................................................................................... 1 
1.2 Effects of Visual Impairments ................................................................................................... 4 
1.3 Need for Study ............................................................................................................................ 6 
1.4 Study Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 6 
1.5 Definition of Terms .................................................................................................................... 7 
1.6 Literature Review ..................................................................................................................... 10 
The Cost(s) of Insufficient Wayfinding..................................................................................... 11 
Essential Elements of Wayfinding. ............................................................................................ 13 
Chapter 2 Analysis of Wayfinding Methods..................................................................... 17 
2.1 Signage ...................................................................................................................................... 17 
2.2 Maps .......................................................................................................................................... 22 
2.3 Braille ........................................................................................................................................ 23 
2.4 Information Staff ...................................................................................................................... 24 
2.5 Interactive Wayfinding Approaches ........................................................................................ 25 
GPS Wayfinding. ........................................................................................................................ 25 
 v 
Infrared Wayfinding.................................................................................................................... 27 
RFID Wayfinding. ...................................................................................................................... 28 
Wi-Finding. ................................................................................................................................. 31 
2.6 The Evolution of Wayfinding .................................................................................................. 33 
Chapter 3 In-Depth Analysis Of Wi-Finding .................................................................... 34 
3.1 Third-Party Administered Wi-Fi Localization ....................................................................... 34 
3.2 Wi-Fi Fingerprint Databases .................................................................................................... 37 
3.3 Reduction of Fingerprint Database Requirements.................................................................. 40 
Cell Identification. ...................................................................................................................... 40 
Kriging. ........................................................................................................................................ 40 
3.4 Supplemental Tracking Methods ............................................................................................. 41 
Inertia Tracking. .......................................................................................................................... 41 
History-based Tracking. ............................................................................................................. 42 
3.5 Potential Ramifications ............................................................................................................ 43 
Chapter 4 Assistive Technology ...................................................................................... 45 
4.1  Examples of Proposed Assistive Technologies ..................................................................... 45 
Navbelt. ........................................................................................................................................ 45 
Smart-Robot. ............................................................................................................................... 46 
GuideCane. .................................................................................................................................. 46 
4.2 Flaws in Assistive Technology Design ................................................................................... 47 
Assumptions of User Abilities. .................................................................................................. 47 
Social Rejection of Assistive Technology Designs. ................................................................. 49 
Assistive Technology Stigma. .................................................................................................... 50 
 vi 
Self-Acceptance and Device Acceptance. ................................................................................. 54 
4.3 Positive Social Impacts of Assistive Technology................................................................... 55 
Chapter 5 Trends in Inclusive Design .............................................................................. 56 
5.1 Historical Design Approaches for Individuals with Disabilities ........................................... 56 
5.2 Inclusive Design Motivation .................................................................................................... 57 
5.3 Consumer Market Response .................................................................................................... 58 
5.4 Inclusive Design versus Assistive Technology ...................................................................... 60 
Inclusive Design Limitations. .................................................................................................... 63 
Chapter 6 Existing Technology and Consumer Use .......................................................... 64 
6.1 Wi-Finding Device Criteria ..................................................................................................... 64 
6.2 Smartphones .............................................................................................................................. 64 
6.2 Smartphone Market Penetration and Demographic Use ........................................................ 65 
6.3 Assistive Technology-Specific Device Relevance ................................................................. 69 
Chapter 7 Wayfinding Study ........................................................................................... 71 
7.1 Building Description ................................................................................................................ 71 
7.2 Introduction of Wayfinding System ........................................................................................ 74 
7.3 Haley Center Visitor Survey and Results................................................................................ 76 
7.4 Survey Results Analysis ........................................................................................................... 81 
7.5 Potential Survey Flaws ............................................................................................................. 82 
7.6 Haley Center Survey Conclusions ........................................................................................... 84 
7.7 Introduction of Airport Visitor Survey.................................................................................... 85 
7.8 Airport Survey Results ............................................................................................................. 89 
7.9 Airport Survey Results Analysis ............................................................................................. 93 
 vii 
7.10 Potential Survey Criticisms.................................................................................................... 98 
7.11 Survey Comparisons and Conclusions ................................................................................100 
Chapter 8 Concept Design and Implementation...............................................................102 
8.1  WiFinder Software Customization .......................................................................................102 
8.2 Smartphone Device Sketch Development.............................................................................103 
8.3 Smartphone Concept Design..................................................................................................106 
8.4 WiFinder App Functions ........................................................................................................108 
8.5 Potential for increased interaction through Wi-Fi approaches ............................................113 
8.6 Future Work ............................................................................................................................116 
8.7 Conclusion...............................................................................................................................117 
Bibliography .................................................................................................................119 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 viii 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Figures 
 
 
Figure 1 Prevalence of blindness versus per capita income............................................................... 2 
Figure 2 Global distribution of blindness by age................................................................................ 2 
Figure 3 Projected age populations for the United States: 2010, 2030, and 2050............................ 3 
Figure 4 Employment of individuals who are visually impaired ...................................................... 5 
Figure 5 Dichotomy between population needs and ability to satisfy needs .................................... 6 
Figure 6 Visual overview provided by map ...................................................................................... 13 
Figure 7 Example of symmetrical building ? Natural History Museum, University College 
London................................................................................................................................................. 15 
Figure 8 Examples of signage ............................................................................................................ 18 
Figure 9 Cluttered signage ................................................................................................................. 19 
Figure 10 Extensive signage coding .................................................................................................. 20 
Figure 11 Examples of architecture posing a challenge to signage use .......................................... 21 
Figure 12 Examples of Maps ............................................................................................................. 22 
Figure 13 Braille signs ....................................................................................................................... 24 
Figure 14 Garmin 550t handheld GPS unit ....................................................................................... 26 
Figure 15 Illustration of Infrared Signals .......................................................................................... 27 
 ix 
Figure 16 Infrared signals .................................................................................................................. 28 
Figure 17 Passive RFID tag ............................................................................................................... 30 
Figure 18 Active RFID tag ................................................................................................................. 31 
Figure 19 Example of trilateration via Wi-Fi access points............................................................. 32 
Figure 20 Description of Wi-Fi localization from Skyhook Wireless ............................................ 35 
Figure 21 Example of Wi-Fi localization error................................................................................. 36 
Figure 22 Process of building fingerprint database .......................................................................... 38 
Figure 23 Position estimation via signal comparison with database fingerprints .......................... 38 
Figure 24 Navbelt and Smart-Robot.................................................................................................. 46 
Figure 25 A functional device may not be a socially acceptable device......................................... 50 
Figure 26 The use of atypical devices can lead to assumptions being made about the user.......... 52 
Figure 27 BT Big Button 100 ............................................................................................................ 60 
Figure 28 Apple iPhone with VoiceOver Software .......................................................................... 62 
Figure 29 Examples of smart devices................................................................................................ 65 
Figure 30 Data on individuals with only mobile telephone service by age .................................... 66 
Figure 31 Percentages of households with only mobile phone service........................................... 67 
Figure 32 U.S. Smartphone Penetration & Projections .................................................................... 68 
Figure 33 Haley Center Exterior........................................................................................................ 72 
Figure 34 Department-posted signage at Haley Center.................................................................... 72 
 x 
Figure 35 Haley Center: Main floor layout ....................................................................................... 73 
Figure 36 Examples of test signage installed at Haley Center......................................................... 75 
Figure 37 Examples of areas where test signage was posted........................................................... 75 
Figure 38 Haley Center survey .......................................................................................................... 77 
Figure 39 The majority of visitors at Haley Center find their way on their own ........................... 78 
Figure 40 Most respondents visit Haley Center many times a week .............................................. 78 
Figure 41 A majority find it is difficult to find one?s way at Haley Center.................................... 79 
Figure 42 Over 25% of participants did not observe posted test signage ....................................... 79 
Figure 43 Many found directions helpful, many did not pay attention ........................................... 80 
Figure 44 Most respondents prefer signage ...................................................................................... 80 
Figure 45 Airport survey .................................................................................................................... 86 
Figure 46 Survey participant distribution across the U.S. ............................................................... 88 
Figure 47 Signage is the dominant wayfinding tool participants have used in the past ................ 89 
Figure 48 Respondents find connecting airports to be the most challenging ................................. 90 
Figure 49 Signage is the primary wayfinding tool respondents desire; competitive results 
between information staff and Wi-Finding ....................................................................................... 90 
Figure 50 Respondents rank wayfinding preferences ...................................................................... 91 
Figure 51 Survey makeup by reason for flying ................................................................................ 91 
Figure 52 Survey makeup by participant flight frequency............................................................... 92 
Figure 53 Participant smartphone ownership.................................................................................... 92 
 xi 
Figure 54 Wayfinding preferences among non-smartphone owners ............................................... 96 
Figure 55 Wayfinding preferences among smartphone owners ...................................................... 96 
Figure 56 Non-smartphone owners rank wayfinding aids ............................................................... 97 
Figure 57 Smartphone owners rank wayfinding aids ....................................................................... 98 
Figure 58 WiFinder customization screens .....................................................................................103 
Figure 59 Exploratory sketches .......................................................................................................104 
Figure 60 Form Exploration in Rhinoceros ....................................................................................104 
Figure 61 Design exploration in Rhinoceros ..................................................................................105 
Figure 62 Concept development in Rhinoceros ..............................................................................106 
Figure 63 Concept design renderings in Bunkspeed Shot .............................................................106 
Figure 64 Explanation of design components .................................................................................107 
Figure 65 Compass and zoom locations on design.........................................................................108 
Figure 66 Description of WiFinder interface ..................................................................................109 
Figure 67 User process in WiFinder interface ................................................................................110 
Figure 68 Spatial orientation using WiFinder .................................................................................111 
Figure 69 User navigation with WiFinder ......................................................................................112 
Figure 70 Demonstration of location-based services .....................................................................114 
Figure 71 Example of wayfinding embedded within location-based services .............................115 
 
 
 
 xii 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Abbreviations 
 
 
A-GPS  Assisted Global Positioning System 
AP  Access Point 
AT  Assistive Technology 
CDC  Centers for Disease Control 
GPS  Global Positioning System 
LBS  Located-Based System 
OS  Operating System 
RFID  Radio Frequency Identification 
UW  University of Washington 
WAI  Web Accessibility Initiative 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Problem 
1.1 Problem Statement 
The World Health Organization (2006) estimates that, worldwide, more than 161 million 
people are visually impaired.  Among these individuals, 124 million have low vision and 37 
million are blind.  In the United States alone, 1.3 million are legally blind and 11.4 million 
individuals suffer from visual impairment.  Despite society?s continuing medical advancements, 
an increase of one to two million cases of blindness occurs each year (Thylefors, 1998). 
Blindness is a condition describing a significant loss of vision, usually in the range of 
20/200 or less.  20/200 eyesight would be the equivalent of a person observing at a distance of 20 
feet what can be observed by the general population at a distance of 200 feet.  Often, the term is 
used to describe a condition where an individual possesses very little or no functional use of 
vision.   Outside this group are other individuals who are not legally blind, but possess only 
partial sight.  The sight of these individuals is stated to be between the range of 20/70 and 20/200 
(American Foundation for the Blind, 2011).  It is fitting that both groups of people are 
considered collectively when everyday challenges they face are weighed. 
Historically, lagging economic development has been the primary indicator of the 
prevalence of vision impairments among the world?s population (Figure 1).  However, vision 
impairment is also largely a function of age (Figure 2).  Seventy percent of people who possess 
severe visual impairments are age 65 or older.  Fifty percent of that group are legally blind 
(World Health Organization, 2006).  As age demographics within the most advanced economies 
of the world change, blindness will become most prevalent among their populations.   
 2 
 
Figure 1 Prevalence of blindness versus per capita income (Ho & Schwab, 2001) 
 
 
Figure 2 Global distribution of blindness by age (World Health Organization, 1995) 
 
One reason for this change can be tied to life expectancy, which was 55 years in 1920 and 
has increased to over 80 years today (Commission of the European Communities, 2007). The 
early stages of an aging population have already begun:  between 1990 and 2002, the world 
 3 
population increased 18.5%, but the population of those age 50 and older increased 30% 
(Resnikoff, et al., 2004).  By 2050, it is projected that the general U.S. population will grow 
41.6%, but the population aged 65 and older will grow 120.1% (Figure 3) ? nearly three times as 
fast (Vincent & Velkoff, 2010).  As a result, the U.S. and other aging populations will be 
affected more profoundly by vision loss than in the past.  These changes could pose serious 
socioeconomic consequences (Frick & Foster, 2003). 
 
Figure 3 Projected age populations for the United States: 2010, 2030, and 2050 (Vincent & 
Velkoff, 2010) 
 
 4 
1.2 Effects of Visual Impairments 
Visual impairment strikes a profound toll upon its victims because sight is an important 
indicator of health and quality of life (Swanson & McGwin, 2004).  It is generally recognized 
that vision loss and its subsequent effects cause unique difficulties in the emergence of a positive 
self-image (Cook-Clampert, 1981).  Results from a number of population-based studies and 
hospital-based studies indicate that visual impairment is associated with higher rates of 
depression (Bazargan & Hamm-Baugh, 1995; Black, 1999; Carabellese, et al., 1993; Rovner & 
Ganguli, 1998; Rovner & Shmuely-Dulitzki, 1997; Rovner, Zisselman, & Shmuely-Dulitzki, 
1996; Valvanne, Juva, Erkinjuntti, & Tilvis, 1996; Wahl, Heyl, Oswald, & Winkler, 1998; Woo, 
et al., 1994) and a greater risk of physical injury (Roberts & Norton, 1995; Zwerling, Whitten, 
Davis, & Sprince, 1998).  Those suffering from vision loss are affected in so many ways that it 
would be impossible to delineate every effect it takes upon its victims.  It may be feasible, 
however, to establish general categories where the effects of vision loss are known and can even 
be measured.  It has been suggested that impairments and disabilities may disadvantage an 
individual by limiting or preventing the fulfillment of six important ?survival? roles: orientation, 
physical independence, mobility, occupation, social integration and economic self-sufficiency 
(Bickenbach, Chatterji, Badley, & Ust?n, 1999).   
For example, a 1997 study comparing students who were blind, low-vision, and sighted 
found that students who had visual impairments had limited opportunities for social integration 
with, and acceptance by, sighted age mates.  Students who had vision loss and held friendships 
with sighted friends had to work harder to maintain those relationships than they did to maintain 
their friendships with peers who had visual impairments.  These same students required more 
 5 
support than sighted students, but had fewer friends that could provide the needed support 
(Wolffe & Sacks, 1997).   
While vision impairments bestow losses upon the affected individual, impacts also 
reverberate among the general population.  As seen in Figure 4, The American Foundation for 
the Blind states that, in the U.S., approximately 74% of working age people who are blind are 
unemployed (American Foundation for the Blind, 2009), relying on their families for financial 
assistance (American Foundation for the Blind, 2008).  A study performed by Wagner et al. 
found that youths who suffered from vision loss were likely to be unemployed and became more 
socially isolated the longer they were out of school, with nearly 50 percent of them still living 
with family members three to five years after they had left school (1992).  On a more general 
note, it is estimated that excess, informal (unpaid) care for individuals who have visual 
impairments totals $5.48 billion annually (Prevent Blindness America, 2007).  The estimated 
lifetime cost of support and unpaid taxes for an individual who suffers from blindness has been 
tallied at $916,000 (Willis & Helal, 2005).  The reference to this data is by no means intended as 
a slight towards those who experience visual impairments; rather, it is intended to demonstrate 
that society has largely failed to implement approaches that could moderate the strain upon these 
individuals and encourage their interaction within the general population. 
 
Figure 4 Employment of individuals who are visually impaired (American Foundation for 
the Blind, 2009) 
 
 6 
1.3 Need for Study 
Shifting age demographics will force society to quickly come to terms with the needs of 
individuals who possess vision impairments.  If the status quo approach continues, a burgeoning 
population with increasingly unmet needs (as a function of age) will stand in contrast to a 
proportionately contracting population that is expected to deliver more assistance than ever 
before (Figure 5).  This does not paint a rosy picture.  However, any practical response will 
likely demand a move away from labor-intensive approaches that the general population may not 
be capable of offering as abundantly on an individual basis.  Practical solutions to this dilemma 
may likely require knowledge-based approaches or technologically advanced methods that 
provide more efficient results.  
 
Figure 5 Dichotomy between population needs and ability to satisfy needs 
 
1.4 Study Objectives 
 The objective of this work is to evaluate the effectiveness of traditional navigation 
systems (such as signage) and, where necessary, identify a directional navigation solution in 
indoor environments for individuals who are visually impaired.  Daily interactions that occur 
Frequency of needs within 
general population General population's ability to meet needs
 7 
within these facilities (worksites, shopping malls, medical and educational facilities, airports, 
etc.) are a foundational part of life in advanced societies, often providing individuals with the 
means to accomplish significant tasks.  The research will consider the shortcomings of many 
traditional means of navigation direction, and will consider whether more advanced methods are 
capable of responding to the needs of individuals with vision loss.  The social aspects of the 
solution will also be contemplated, in an effort to provide a response that is not only functional, 
but delivers a satisfying approach that individuals who suffer from visual impairments are 
willing to adopt.  
1.5 Definition of Terms 
Accelerometer: A device that measures acceleration (i.e., movement). 
Access Point:  A device that allows connection to a wired network via Wi-Fi. 
Algorithm: A mathematical procedure that reduces the solution to a series that generates the best 
or closest-matching answer. 
Application (?App?): A shortened or narrow software application designed to perform tasks on 
smartphones and smart devices. 
Assistive Technology (AT): Any device or system that allows an individual to perform a task 
that they would otherwise be unable to do, or increases the ease and safety with which the 
task can be performed. 
Braille: A system of writing and printing for individuals with vision impairments.   Braille 
employs a pattern of raised dots, representing letters and numerals, which are read by 
touch.   
Database: An organized collection of data used for signal comparison. 
 8 
Disability: A condition affecting the physical movements, senses, or activities.  This term will be 
used interchangeably with impairment, impaired, disabled, and vision loss in this work. 
Feature Phone: A low-end mobile phone with minimum computing ability. 
Fingerprint: A unique beacon signature representing a specific point or position. 
Global Positioning System (GPS): A navigational system based on the reception of signals from 
an array of orbiting satellites. 
Inertia Tracking: A process used to estimate current position, based on last known position (or 
fix) and advancing that position based upon known or estimated speeds over elapsed 
time, and course.  Also called Dead Reckoning. 
Information Staff: Individuals who are employed for the purpose of providing information and 
assistance, such as directions, locations, etc. 
Infrared: An invisible, electromagnetic wavelength that can be used to transmit information. 
Kriging: A geostatistical technique used to construct the value(s) at an unobserved location, 
using known observations gained from nearby points. 
Localization: The process of determining the location of an individual or object. 
Location-Based System: A tool used to establish the location of an individual or object. 
Map: A diagrammed representation of an area, showing physical features and pathways. 
Navigation: The process of ascertaining one?s position and establishing a route. 
Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID): A small, electronic device consisting of an antenna and 
a chip (typically referred to as a ?tag?) that is capable of storing information and relaying 
the same.   
Smart device: A small, handheld device that offers advanced computing ability and may or may 
not offer the ability to make phone calls. 
 9 
Smartphone: A mobile phone that offers more advanced computing ability and connectivity than 
a feature phone. 
Signage: The use of signs as a means of providing direction and/or instruction. 
Sonar: A technique using sound propagation to detect the presence of nearby objects. 
Spatial Orientation: The process of establishing a relationship between the perception of the 
environment and the knowledge of the environment, stored in memory as a cognitive 
representation. 
Spatial Updating: The ability to preserve orientation and relationship while in movement. 
Spoofing: A situation in which one person or program masquerades as another by falsifying data. 
Stress: Physical, mental, or emotional strain or tension. 
Symbol: A shape used to represent something else or to convey information without the use of 
written language.  Synonymous with the term graphic in this work.   
Trilateration: The process of determining absolute or relative location by measurement of 
distances, using the geometry of spheres. 
Ultrasonic (ultrasound): The use of sound waves with a frequency above the upper limit of 
human hearing to detect the presence of nearby objects. 
Visual Impairment: The absence of vision to the extent that it causes significant functional 
challenges for the individual.  Synonymous with the terms visually-impaired, vision loss, 
and vision impairment in this work.  Blindness will also fall within the definition of these 
terms. 
Wayfinding: The act or process of finding one?s intended destination.  Additional definitions of 
this term will be further developed and discussed in the work. 
 10 
Wi-Fi: A technology allowing wireless connectivity to a local area network (LAN) via radio 
waves, based on IEEE 802.11 standards.  It allows device-to-device communication and 
information transfer. 
Wi-Finding: The process of establishing user location through the use of Wi-Fi access points. 
1.6 Literature Review 
A pivotal requirement of everyday life is the ability to successfully navigate through 
one?s surrounding environment.  This action is essentially known as wayfinding.   There are 
many definitions of wayfinding, one holding it as ??knowing where you are in a building or an 
environment, knowing where your desired location is, and knowing how to get there from your 
present location? (University of Michigan, 2011, para. 1).  This definition suggests that 
wayfinding is a mental state that exists only when an individual understands how to get from a 
present location to a desired locale, whether through the aid of external features or not.  
Operating under this definition, a successful interaction with the environment cannot take place 
until this mental state has been achieved.  Successful wayfinding can be very challenging for 
individuals who suffer from visual impairments. 
Another definition holds that wayfinding is ??the organization and communication of 
our dynamic relationship to space and environment? (Mayor's Office for People with 
Disabilities, 2001, 4.1c, para. 1).  The term dynamic is an important one:  it reinforces the idea 
that individuals possess an ever-changing relationship to their environment, with each 
individual?s needs being unique to the whole.  Wayfinding aids should allow every individual to 
develop a plan to take them from his/her location to the intended destination and negotiate any 
required changes while executing the plan (Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities, 2001).  
This is a dynamic process.  However, many wayfinding approaches are not dynamic, but static, 
 11 
providing information in fixed contexts that may meet the needs of many, but not the needs of 
all.  Despite this limitation, static wayfinding approaches continue to thrive, which can be a 
detriment to those whose needs remain unmet.   
The Cost(s) of Insufficient Wayfinding.  Even for the general population, wayfinding 
applications often fall short of basic needs.  It is sad to report that ?? wayfinding receives less 
than its due in planning, research, and building evaluation? (Hunter, 2009, para. 10).  
Wayfinding elements are an important feature of a successfully functioning locale, but these 
have historically been relegated to afterthoughts or low-priority budget items (Gerber, 2009).  
The uptake of this issue by architects and designers has stalled (Hunter, 2009), leading to undue 
burdens upon society.   
There are a number of theories that explain why wayfinding often takes a back seat in 
design and architecture.  One thought suggests that wayfinding suffers because the author of a 
work might not fully understand the context of how the design will be used (Muller, 2007).  
Another holds that architects and designers may possess an intimate knowledge of the 
environment they have created, but they are then unable to divorce themselves from that 
knowledge, instead extending special demands upon others who do not have the luxury of a 
known locale (MacMinner, 2002).  It is not uncommon to hear of new building or design projects 
in which the general public invests considerable hope, only to have those aspirations largely 
shattered due to nightmarish wayfinding results.  These inadequacies can prove to be distractions 
for otherwise commendable architectural achievements (Carlson, 2010).   
In many cases, wayfinding systems are not considered adequately until a serious problem 
occurs (Hunter, 2009).  This is a risky approach because a loss of some sort must transpire before 
 12 
there is any rectification.  These losses are not always immediately apparent, but they can be 
significant, and include the following: 
? lost staff time 
? reduced staff concentration caused by the need to provide directions or other 
interventions 
? lost business and dissatisfaction due to frustration and ill-will of users 
? costly missed appointments or delayed meetings  
? additional security staff and traffic management costs 
? compensatory environmental communications systems 
? potential lawsuits surrounding lack of safety and accessibility 
? anger to users wandering into limited access areas of buildings 
? injury and death during emergency situations 
(Arthur & Passini, 1992; Carpman & Grant, 2002; Zimring, 1990) 
Several studies have shown these risks are more than simple theory.  Both Carpman and 
Grant (2001) as well as Huelat (2004) noted effects caused by problematic wayfinding in 
complex environments that included raised blood pressure, headaches, increased physical 
exertion, and fatigue.  Another study conducted at a regional 604-bed hospital found the 
hospital?s annual wayfinding system cost in excess of $220,000 per year ($448 per bed), largely 
because the actual wayfinding system fell short of patient/visitor needs.  The measured effects of 
insufficient wayfinding included lost staff time when employees (other than information staff) 
were required to supply direction, among other setbacks.  Losses added up to more than 4,500 
staff hours annually ? more than two full-time staff positions (Zimring, 1990).  
 13 
Essential Elements of Wayfinding.  Well-delivered wayfinding must provide users with 
essential starting points that serve as the foundation for further interaction.  One crucial piece of 
wayfinding is an ordered environment ? one that holds a clear possibility of choice and a starting 
point for acquisition of further information (Hunter, 2009).  This need can account for the 
confusion some may experience when they are thrust into the heart of a wayfinding system that 
may not offer a clear starting point (such as disembarking a flight in the middle of an airport 
terminal).   Visitors must also be provided with a clear visual sweep of the site or building upon 
entering to provide them an overview of their surroundings.  The intent is to let individuals 
observe a large number of elements and their relationships (Figure 6), at the same time giving 
them a sense of their relation to the whole (Lynch, 1960).   
 
Figure 6 Visual overview provided by map (Transport for London, 2011) 
 
 
 14 
This connection is important to navigation because it allows an individual to develop and 
maintain spatial orientation.  Spatial orientation can be defined as the process of establishing a 
relationship between the perception of the environment and the knowledge of the environment, 
stored in memory as a cognitive representation (Peruch & Savoyant, 1993).  Spatial orientation 
requires the ability to localize one?s position, identify the position of buildings or features, and 
keep track of movements in the environment through moment-to-moment interactions within the 
surroundings.  The ability to preserve orientation and relationship while in movement is often 
referred to as spatial updating (Easton & Choll, 1995; Farrell & Robertson, 1998; Pick & Rieser, 
1982; Presson & Montello, 1994; Rieser, 1998), which reemphasizes that wayfinding is a 
dynamic endeavor, constantly evolving and transforming as the individual is in motion.   
The proper advancement of one?s relationship in a changing environment is not always 
easy to maintain.  One reason is that individuals have been shown to retrieve spatial information 
more effectively from experienced perspectives than from new perspectives (Iachini & Logie, 
2003).  When users are thrust into a position of a familiar environment from a different 
perspective, wayfinding can become problematic.  A 2003 study by Iachini and Logie discovered 
that when users experience a large-scale, real environment by way of direct exploration, an 
orientation-dependent representation in memory is created.  They found that perspective 
constitutes a primary interface between individuals and environment.  Based on their findings, 
re-experiencing an environment from a known perspective is likely to lead to more successful 
wayfinding results.   
This can present a tricky situation when users who possess previous experience from one 
perspective in a symmetrical environment are asked to find their way from another perspective 
from which they have no experience.  Symmetrical buildings ? while seemingly straightforward 
 15 
in plan view ? often possess similar appearances from multiple perspectives (Figure 7), and may 
lack features that can assist in the development of spatial orientation (windows through which to 
observe the environment outside, artwork, etc.).  This can prove confusing to visitors unless 
areas of the structure are clearly differentiated (Salmi, 2007).  For these reasons, wayfinding aids 
must provide a constant flow of information (spatial updating) so that spatial orientation is 
preserved. 
 
Figure 7 Example of symmetrical building ? Natural History Museum, University College 
London (Tuuraan78, 2010) 
 
 
Each wayfinding element ? an ordered environment with a starting point, spatial 
orientation, and spatial updating ? is vital to the success of wayfinding.  The omission of any can 
create problematic issues for visitors to a building.  For this reason, it is necessary to evaluate 
how effective wayfinding methods are in fulfilling the evolving needs of dynamic individuals.  
An effective wayfinding approach should resolve the wayfinding needs of not only the general 
 16 
population, but those who may have unique needs, such as individuals who are visually impaired 
or otherwise disabled.  This would encourage increased interaction and equitable access for all.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 2 Analysis of Wayfinding Methods 
2.1 Signage 
There are a number of traditional methods in practice that respond to important 
wayfinding needs.  By far the most popular is signage (Figure 8).  In many circles, wayfinding 
and signage are held as transposable terms.  While signage is an important part of wayfinding, 
the scope of wayfinding is much larger than signage alone.  Perhaps the roots of this 
misconception can be attributed to the context in which the term wayfinding was first coined.  
Urban planner Kevin Lynch first used the term in his 1960 book, Image of the City, wherein he 
referred to maps, street numbers, and directional signs as way-finding devices.  Indeed, a great 
deal of literature devoted to the topic of wayfinding focuses on traditional developments in this 
subject matter.  Definitions aside, signage presents one of the simplest and most straightforward 
wayfinding tools.  In large-scale man-made environments, signage is often the first alternative 
that visitors will turn to fulfill wayfinding needs.  Signage provides an opportunity to place 
needed information in areas where the information is relevant and necessary, often necessitated 
by building design (Hunter, 2009).  
 18 
Figure 8 Examples of signage (Visual Impact, 2011) 
 
 
While in no way diminishing the benefits of signage, it is also important to note that it 
does possess its share of drawbacks.  Where wayfinding needs exist, the knee-jerk reaction may 
often be to display additional signage in an effort to relay information where it is anticipated 
individuals will experience wayfinding needs.  This can lead to displaying too many signs, 
creating clutter and visual overload (Figure 9).  On the other hand, when not enough signage is 
present, the temptation may be to list as much information as possible on existing signage.  This 
tradeoff can result in seemingly unimportant information being relegated further down in the 
information hierarchy, making it difficult for those who require this information.  Details may 
end up buried and may not be perceived at all, or they may be screened out and not remembered.  
 19 
It has been stated that ?? information at the wrong place is as good as no information at all? 
(Arthur & Passini, 1992, p. 34).  This is a substantial challenge for signage systems. 
 
Figure 9 Cluttered signage (Canadian Public Transit Discussion Board, 2011) 
 
 
Another hurdle is created when the user does not read, or reads in a language other than 
what has been used to convey building information.  Where individuals speak numerous 
languages, such as in the context of an international airport, signage and directory information 
that is provided in all-text format is also a barrier which limits access to the ?contents? of the 
building (Salmi, Ginthner, & Guerin, 2002; Salmi & Guerin, 2007).  Even those who possess a 
strong command of language skills can be puzzled by signage, such as when directories require 
decoding ability (Figure 10) or when densely-packed text is difficult to decipher (Salmi, 2007). 
 
 20 
Figure 10 Extensive signage coding (Salmi, 2007) 
 
 
Yet another challenging aspect of signage is the use of symbols and graphics.  Currently, 
there are no international symbol standards (Gerber, 2009).  Often, there is also no systematic 
format agreed upon for location and placement of signs (Schintlmeister, 2010).  Building code 
requirements can even dictate certain signage characteristics or placements that, when compared 
to the overall wayfinding system, seem ill-fitted to the environment and/or the wayfinding detail.  
Another challenge posed by signage occurs during transitional periods, such as when a building 
is remodeled, or when signage systems are updated.  Older or obsolete signage should be 
removed in these instances, but often times, previous signage is simply left in place, creating 
clutter and perhaps even contradiction.  An analysis of London?s pedestrian sign system in 2006 
found the remnants of more than 34 different signage systems, some of which were ineffective 
and often confusing, creating situations where travelers often turned to maps located in subway 
stations underground to navigate their way above ground (Reising, 2010).  This is a situation to 
avoid. 
As a final note on signage, some buildings simply are not designed in a manner that 
invites signage as the central method of providing wayfinding direction.  Werner and Schindler 
 21 
(2004) found that environments with perpendicular intersecting hallways gave better wayfinding 
performance than those with angled intersections.  In other words, hallways and features 
intersecting at non-perpendicular angles may prove difficult to navigate.  Ruddle and P?ruch 
(2004) came to the conclusion that well-designed signs can be ineffective in highly complicated 
buildings that do not enable natural movement.  As seen in Figure 11, wayfinding needs in 
complex environments may not always be met by the traditional use of signs (Rooke, 
Tzortzopoulos, Koskela, & Rooke, 2009).   
 
Figure 11 Examples of architecture posing a challenge to signage use (Bustler, 2010; The 
Furniture Industry Blog, 2011; Thecoolhunter, 2011)  
   
 
None of this is to say that signage is obsolete or that its presence is uninvited.  The intent 
here is to demonstrate the pitfalls of an approach that considers signage to be the only method of 
assisting wayfinding, or assumes that signage is always the best method of providing direction 
and orientation to users.  Signage is likely to remain a critical, popular form of navigational 
assistance, despite its shortcomings.  This said, where signage is employed, the operators of a 
premises must be cognizant of its limitations in order to establish that unmet wayfinding needs 
may still exist.   
 22 
2.2 Maps 
Another traditional wayfinding tool is the map.  One advantage of maps is that they allow 
individuals to develop spatial orientation with their surroundings, an important characteristic of 
wayfinding that posted signs alone may not provide (Figure 12).  Portable maps offer users a 
reference along their route, in essence answering needs as they arise.  However, in most cases 
maps must be aligned with the environment in order to facilitate navigation effectively.  This is 
known as the alignment effect.  It has been found that if the alignment effect is violated, such as 
if straight-up on the map does not correspond to directly forward in the environment, subjects 
tend to be less accurate in judging the correct direction to take (Levine, 1982; Levine, Jankovic, 
& Palij, 1982; Levine, Marchon, & Hanley, 1984; Palij, Levine, & Kahan, 1984).   
 
Figure 12 Examples of Maps (Chicago Traveler, 2011; Reising, 2010) 
 
 
It is also important to note that learning features from a map can produce reliance on an 
orientation-dependent representation.   This differs from spatial information that is gathered 
directly from the real environment, allowing for environment appreciation from several 
viewpoints, which may result in orientation-independent representations.  Thorndyke and Hayes-
 23 
Roth (1982) studied this phenomenon, coming to the conclusion that those who possessed real 
experience with an environment (i.e., interaction) were better able to point out locations within a 
building than those who had learned layout from a map.  On another note, maps are not 
universally available and users may not possess knowledge of their presence when they are.  
Fewer than half of all hospitals currently provide basic user guides or maps to aid in wayfinding, 
although they have proven to be of valuable assistance to patients and visitors (Cooper & Berger, 
2009).  Even when available, care must be taken to assure that they are not overly complex nor 
obsolete, and that terminology and graphics in print materials are consistent within themselves 
and with posted signage. 
2.3 Braille 
In consideration of signage, maps, and other traditional print versions of wayfinding, it is 
important to note that none of these methods provides a practical wayfinding solution for 
individuals who have visual impairments; hence, additional methods must be evaluated.   
Policies such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Title III, have served to 
encourage building codes that assure physical access to and within public settings, but universal 
access to all users has not necessarily been reached (Salmi, 2007).  Some may consider Braille a 
worthy and successful method of delivering information and guidance to the visually impaired, 
but data shows that most who suffer from vision loss have not learned to read Braille (Crandall, 
Bentzen, Myers, & Brabyn, 2001).  For those who do read Braille, text must be sought after and 
discovered, which hardly seems to be an equitable solution for those who cannot visually 
observe that which they are forced to find.  This can be very awkward in public settings, perhaps 
a reason why individuals who can read Braille often use it to confirm information and detail 
rather than to obtain instruction and direction.  Braille, too, is a static form of information 
 24 
provision (Figure 13), one which can fall short of responding to the dynamic needs of users in an 
unfamiliar locale.   
 
Figure 13 Braille signs (Office Sign Company, 2011) 
 
2.4 Information Staff 
A response to dynamic needs may be the use of informational staff, potentially the most 
dynamic approach available.  However, information staffs represent a perpetual investment.  In 
the day of increased competition and cost-cutting, information staff may be some of the first to 
go.  They may also be present only during limited hours, creating circumstances where parts of 
the wayfinding system essentially ?clock out? when information employees leave. Even when 
present, information staff can be limited by the capacity to assist only a certain number of 
individuals at any given time.  Further, where navigation information is relayed, it is often given 
entirely at one time ? the visitor is required to remember the information sequence, a memory 
that may be fleeting.  This approach stands in contrast to the idea of providing the ideal amount 
of information when it is needed.  Finally, it is no secret that many people do not like to ask for 
 25 
directions.  When this occurs, the advantage posed by the presence of information staff is 
limited.  Because of these issues, the use of information staffs could become less commonplace 
in the future.  
2.5 Interactive Wayfinding Approaches 
Advances in technology and design may yet provide answers that can adapt to user 
wayfinding needs in a dynamic fashion that provides information where it is needed.  An 
effective use of the same could greatly improve the odds of successful wayfinding, both for 
individuals who have impairments as well as the general population.  Technical advances are 
increasingly allowing for the experimentation of Location-Based Systems (LBSs) based on a 
wide array of wireless technologies that are readily available.   A major advantage of these 
systems is that they can not only establish user location with reasonable accuracy, but in many 
instances they can sense direction and motion, allowing for dynamic updating and realtime 
direction.  As the deployment of these technologies becomes more customary (for a variety of 
purposes), it is possible that the approaches could supplement or even replace traditional 
wayfinding approaches that have been employed in the past. 
GPS Wayfinding.  The consumer market for wayfinding technology exploded with 
options following a Presidential directive in 2000 to remove ?selective availability? from 
positional signals sent via satellite based on the Global Positioning System (GPS) (Bell, Jung, & 
Krishnakumar, 2010).  In essence, prior to this directive, satellite positioning signals available to 
the general public could not pinpoint location with enough detail to make the use of consumer 
GPS technologies practical.  Since the 2000 directive, however, this type of technology has 
become mainstream (Figure 14).  
 26 
GPS uses multiple orbiting satellites to triangulate the position of a mobile receiver on 
the earth?s surface.  Location is calculated by triangulating the time of flight of satellite 
transmissions to the receiver.  Localization ? the process of determining physical location of a 
user (Kim, Fielding, & Kotz, 2006) ? can typically be tracked to within a few meters.  Its 
accuracy over a wide geographical area is one reason that GPS has become very popular (Furey, 
Curran, & McKevitt, 2008).  However, GPS suffers from a couple key setbacks that make it 
impractical for certain uses.  It can take considerable time to chart its first position (Li, Quader, 
& Dempster, 2008).  GPS receivers also require a clear view of the sky (multiple satellites must 
be ?seen? in unison by the GPS device), so GPS typically does not work well indoors, under 
cover, or in urban canyons (Hightower, LaMarca, & Smith, 2006).  For these reasons, its use in 
indoor applications is impractical.   
 
Figure 14 Garmin 550t handheld GPS unit (Garmin, 2011) 
 
 
Development of the Assisted Global Positioning System (A-GPS) integrates GPS 
functionality with cell phone technology to measure signals from nearby cell phone towers, 
increasing the GPS response rate (Weyn & Schrooyen, 2008; Zandbergen, 2009).  This would 
 27 
theoretically decrease the time needed for a GPS device to establish location once powered up.   
Many of the newer A-GPS systems also employ high-sensitivity GPS, allowing function in 
indoor or urban canyon environments.  Nevertheless, even these receivers are not consistently 
able to obtain a position fix indoors, particularly inside buildings where large amounts of steel 
have been employed in the construction, or where signals must pass through several layers of 
concrete or brick (Zandbergen, 2009).  Again, this renders GPS technology unviable for the 
purposes of indoor wayfinding at this time. 
Infrared Wayfinding.  The use of infrared signals to transmit wayfinding information is 
another approach that has been explored.  The premise behind infrared wayfinding is that when 
users are within range of one or more infrared transmitters, directions can be relayed to the user 
(who carries a device that reads the signal), with the cycle repeating itself as the user passes into 
the range of additional transmitters until the destination has been reached (Figure 15).   
 
Figure 15 Illustration of Infrared Signals (Crandall, Bentzen, Myers, & Brabyn, 2001) 
 
 
A major hindrance preventing widespread adoption of this technology lies in concerns 
related to signal strength and power supply.  As for the former concern, infrared signal range is 
limited (Figure 16), requiring the location of multiple transmitters in any large-scale environment 
 28 
employing this type of system.  Further, infrared signals degrade in direct sunlight, which could 
prevent its use in buildings with windows or open areas (Bahl & Padmanabhan, 2000), and 
infrared signals are severely impaired by line-of-sight obstructions (Woo, et al., 2011).  As for 
the latter concern, transmitters need a power supply, meaning they must either be hard-wired into 
building circuitry or transmitters must be located near an existing plug source, which might 
represent significant installation and/or maintenance costs (Bahl & Padmanabhan, 2000).  A 
study of infrared wayfinding at the Powell Street transit station in San Francisco demonstrates 
these points.  The entire station is located underground ? most structures are located above 
ground, where sunlight may affect infrared?s effectiveness.  Ninety-three transmitters were 
required (throughout the three levels of the station) due to limited broadcast range.  Each had to 
be connected to 110-volt plugs (Crandall, Bentzen, Myers, & Brabyn, 2001).  Many premises 
operators may not be willing to invest this greatly into their building infrastructure. 
 
Figure 16 Infrared signals (Crandall, Bentzen, Myers, & Brabyn, 2001) 
 
RFID Wayfinding.  Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is a technology that has been 
around for decades, but has only recently encountered interest for wayfinding purposes.  RFID 
 29 
systems use tags to mark items, each tag emitting a message that can be decoded by RFID 
readers (RFID Journal, 2011).  In practice, RFID would emit wayfinding instructions to users as 
they pass near RFID tags.  The operation of the system would largely be dependent upon the type 
of RFID tag used, as there are two types:  passive and active.   
Passive RFID tags are very inexpensive, perhaps fueling their popularity (Figure 17).  
These tags do not have a built-in power source, but are instead powered from the radio frequency 
(RF) field produced by the RFID reader antenna.   However, a key disadvantage to the use of 
passive RFID for localization is that in order to function at all (in order for RFID tag-embedded 
messages to be received), an RFID reader must be located within close proximity of the RFID 
tag.  This is usually a matter of a few centimeters (Willis & Helal, 2005).  It is not difficult to 
imagine that for the many users, visually impaired or not, this proximity requirement would be 
impractical.  Similar to the disadvantage of seeking Braille, using passive RFID tags to deliver 
wayfinding directions might add another task to visitors? list, as the act of finding one?s way 
could end up being preceded by the act of looking for RFID tags.  Passive RFID technology may 
find success for uses in product tracking and building environments such as museums where tags 
can be utilized at displays (in areas where visitors are expected to look for information and where 
user location may be logically predicted), but it may not be practical for the purposes of large-
scale wayfinding at present.   
 
 30 
Figure 17 Passive RFID tag (International Coolhunting Magazine, 2011) 
 
 
Active RFID tags differ from passive tags in that they have an on-board power source, 
making it possible to detect signals up to a range of about a hundred meters (Tesoriero, Gallud, 
Lozano, & Penichet, 2008).   However, as seen in Figure 18, active RFID tags are larger, and 
also far more expensive than passive tags, limiting their appeal (Weinstein, 2005).  Due to their 
cost, they are usually suited for tracking high-value items (Ni, Liu, Lau, & Patil, 2004).  For the 
purposes of wayfinding, active RFID tags would likely need to be permanently installed in the 
building infrastructure, presenting another case of increased costs in addition to unit costs.  
Where non-line-of-sight RFID signaling is a factor, the need for even more tags may be 
necessary, raising costs again.  However, despite cost factors, active RFID tags do hold 
considerable promise as an interactive wayfinding form, one that could find a foothold in the 
future.   However, the author has chosen not to pursue this technology as the medium for a 
dynamic wayfinding system at this time. 
 
 31 
Figure 18 Active RFID tag (MoreRFID, 2011) 
 
 
Wi-Finding.  IEEE 802.11 b/g/a/n represents standard Wi-Fi protocols defined by raw 
data transfer rate and signal frequency (Weyn & Klepal, 2009).  Wi-Fi is a wireless technology 
allowing for enabled devices to share a single high-speed network connection (St. John's 
University, 2011).  Wi-Fi networks have proliferated due to falling prices, increased ubiquity of 
Wi-Fi enabled devices (cell phones, laptops, tablets, PDAs, etc.) and simplified setup of Wi-Fi 
access points (APs).  Over the past several years, tens of millions of APs have been deployed by 
individuals, homeowners, businesses, academic institutions, retail stores, and public buildings 
(Zandbergen, 2009).  
Due to its prevalence, experimentation with Wi-Fi is growing and has resulted in a 
number of valuable innovations for which the technology was not initially intended, such as 
location positioning.   The underlying idea behind Wi-Fi wayfinding (hereafter called Wi-
Finding) is that a Wi-Fi-enabled device signal source can be located, and therefore a distance 
 32 
from the AP can be calculated.  The density of APs in urban areas is so high that the signals 
often overlap, creating a natural reference system for determining location (Zandbergen, 2009).  
This idea is demonstrated in Figure 19.  The method, known as trilateration, utilizes algorithms 
to perform calculations and operates in a way very similar to the function of GPS (Bell, Jung, & 
Krishnakumar, 2010).  With position being established, a search algorithm within a database can 
locate all routes connecting point A (user current location) and point B (intended destination) and 
then calculate the path with the shortest distance.  Wi-Fi is able to maintain constant contact with 
the user, allowing for a dynamic relay of information as needed.  This makes it an attractive 
approach in for interactive wayfinding.   
 
Figure 19 Example of trilateration via Wi-Fi access points (Li, Quader, & Dempster, On 
outdoor positioning with Wi-Fi, 2008) 
 
 
 33 
2.6 The Evolution of Wayfinding 
Each of the advanced wayfinding means described in the previous section (2.5) could be 
deployed in a setting that offers dynamic wayfinding.  These systems would allow quicker, more 
efficient information flow, and could penetrate barriers to information access for those who have 
found that traditional wayfinding approaches have fallen short.  Further, as it has become 
commonplace for consumers in advanced economies to carry various electronic devices with 
them at all times, it is possible that these dynamic wayfinding tools could capitalize and deliver 
wayfinding information seamlessly through their existing devices.  
This is one reason why Wi-Finding is an attractive option.  Wi-Fi?s presence today is 
prolific, and its use as an LBS seems beneficial at relatively low cost ? many businesses that 
would benefit from this approach already have instituted their own Wi-Fi networks.  As a result, 
Wi-Finding could be deployed without significant investments or alterations in a building?s 
infrastructure.  Wi-Fi has also proven competitive, if not more accurate, than many other 
wireless LBS technologies (Bell, Jung, & Krishnakumar, 2010), the result being that Wi-Fi 
positioning has attracted much attention from both researchers and companies (Ladd, Bekris, 
Rudys, & Marceau, 2002).  It is this dynamic wayfinding approach that the author intends to 
discuss more thoroughly. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 3 In-Depth Analysis of Wi-Finding 
3.1 Third-Party Administered Wi-Fi Localization 
There are several Wi-Fi positioning systems currently in operation and available to the 
public (these establish location only).  Skyhook Wireless, Navizon, WeFi, and PlaceEngine are a 
few examples.  Each of these systems operates in a similar manner.  Users install an application 
on a web-enabled device, and then the application records available Wi-Fi signals and sends the 
information to a remote location server (Figure 20).  The location server compares the signals 
received to those in an established database, allowing for an estimated location to be sent back to 
the user (Zandbergen, 2009).  Theoretically, the user then knows his/her precise location. 
While the process is rather simple, this approach suffers from a series of setbacks.  For 
one, positional accuracy is dependent upon accurate location of APs (Jones, Liu, & Alizadeh-
Shabdiz, 2007).  One analysis of positioning errors using Skyhook Wireless? database found 
errors consistently greater than 20 meters and sometimes in excess of 50 meters, and a couple 
examples of even larger error (one over 500 meters, and another over 10 kilometers from the 
correct location) (Bell, Jung, & Krishnakumar, 2010).  These errors likely resulted from users 
who entered AP erroneous locations on Skyhook?s website.  Where user error becomes part of 
the equation, it is virtually impossible for the system to filter those errors out.   
 
 
 35 
Figure 20 Description of Wi-Fi localization from Skyhook Wireless (Skyhook Wireless, 
2011) 
 
 
 
Even when users input information correctly, AP positions are still unlikely to be exact.  
This is because precise AP location is usually unknown and unlikely to be uploaded by the 
individual(s) who possesses this information, which is not easy to obtain.  Many operators in 
fixed infrastructures will not disclose AP locations out of reasons for safety or privacy (Li, 
Quader, & Dempster, 2008).  In lieu of this data, AP position is calibrated considering the signal 
strength emitted from the AP.  Often these calibrations are gathered by way of a war-drive ? the 
process of collecting Wi-Fi beacons by driving or walking (war-walking) through an area to 
discover and map AP locations (Kim, Fielding, & Kotz, 2006).  War-drives began as an attempt 
to establish Wi-Fi ?hotspots? so that those who desired could frequent the locale with the intent 
of uploading/downloading information at these sites through free Wi-Fi connections.  For this 
 36 
purpose, precise AP location by way of a war-drive is not a vital issue.  However, when 
attempting to establish AP position for the purpose of localization, AP position errors are a 
critical issue: any error in the AP position database will be reflected subsequently in establishing 
the user?s position (Figure 21).  Kim et al. conducted a study in 2006, finding that the median 
error in estimated AP locations via war-driving was 40.8 meters and 31.6 meters when war-
walking was employed.  They also found that war-driving/war-walking did not always reveal all 
the AP locations that were present.  Using actual AP locations that were known to exist, their 
study found location estimates were improved as much as 70% indoors.  This is one reason the 
author does not feel that it would be in the best interest of brick-and-mortar businesses to pursue 
Wi-Fi localization approaches that utilize data that has been uploaded by outside parties.  
Businesses who maintain control of their own Wi-Fi setup would inherently possess knowledge 
of the exact AP position and would be able to design wayfinding around the same without 
disclosing this information to the public. 
 
Figure 21 Example of Wi-Fi localization error (Bose & Foh, 2007) 
 
 37 
3.2 Wi-Fi Fingerprint Databases 
While trilateration via Wi-Fi works in theory, in order to operate at maximum 
performance, APs must detect signal strength with consistent sensitivity.  This can be 
troublesome in environments where obstacles (walls, objects, etc.) decrease or reflect signal 
strength (Bell, Jung, & Krishnakumar, 2010).  Consequently, localization and wayfinding 
direction provided purely by Wi-Fi trilateration might be unreliable in some instances where 
obstacles and barriers are present.  A technique that can alleviate this concern, however, employs 
training and tracking phases in establishment of user localization.  During the training phase, the 
received AP signal strength is filtered, interpolated and eventually stored in a database as sample 
points.  In the tracking phase, the user position is determined by comparing the received signal 
strength with the sample points stored in the database (Woo, et al., 2011).  The observed Wi-Fi 
signals are compared to the database previously recorded in order to determine the closest match.  
This method of database correlation is known as radio-mapping, but more commonly called 
fingerprinting (Zandbergen, 2009), as each point represents a signal combination that is unique 
to that location.  The achievable positioning accuracy of Wi-Fi location systems using this 
method is usually claimed to be within 1 to 3 meters (Mok & Retscher, 2007).  The steps 
involved in fingerprint database construction are illustrated in Figure 22.  Figure 23 demonstrates 
how signals are scanned during the tracking process, compared against the fingerprint database, 
and a corresponding (or near corresponding) position is returned back to the user. 
 
 38 
Figure 22 Process of building fingerprint database (Woo, et al., 2011) 
 
 
 
Figure 23 Position estimation via signal comparison with database fingerprints (Woo, et al., 
2011) 
 
 
 39 
To achieve a reasonably accurate estimation of user location, granularity within the 
fingerprint database must be reduced.  The idea of granularity is similar to the concept of digital 
photo pixelation.  When more pixels are present, digital photo details are finer and more precise.  
As more pixels are introduced, the detail provided by each additional pixel lessens, until 
additional pixels provide little measurable benefit.  Wi-Fi fingerprint databases function in much 
the same way, where a certain level of detail is required to provide reasonable accuracy (Li, 
Wang, Lee, Dempster, & Rizos, 2005).  However, due to user orientation to the AP (facing the 
AP, back to the AP, etc.), the mobile device signal may be affected by the user?s body or other 
objects, impeding signal strength.  As a result, in many cases four different orientations are 
performed on each calibration point during the training phase of fingerprint tracking (Retscher, 
2006).  Localization database fingerprints using Wi-Fi are normally created with distances 
ranging from 1 to 3 meters from the next point (Weyn & Schrooyen, 2008). 
Understandably, constructing a fingerprint database can be a very time-consuming survey 
procedure, a potential deterrent to their deployment in large-scale indoor operations 
(Kaemarungsi & Krishnamurthy, 2004).   Further, databases may need updating, or portions of 
the database may need to be rebuilt, when an environment changes significantly, such as after a 
major building renovation (Li, Wang, Lee, Dempster, & Rizos, 2005).    Even accounting for 
each of the above, the positional accuracy can depend on the surrounding environment (such as 
busy times inside a building, or items brought onto a sales floor while stocking shelves).  These 
circumstances can potentially create readings that might not correlate to the original database 
readings (Mok & Retscher, 2007). 
The foregoing may lead one to believe that a Wi-Fi LBS is a poor choice.  Indeed, these 
are some valid criticisms that are voiced in regard to the idea of employing a Wi-Fi based 
 40 
wayfinding system.  However, the author believes there are a number of approaches that may 
alleviate the laborious duty of building a useable fingerprint database and allow for reasonably 
precise tracking where environmental circumstances pose challenges.   
3.3 Reduction of Fingerprint Database Requirements 
Cell Identification.  It is entirely possible that, depending on the context and 
construction of the building in use, a fingerprint database with points measured every 1 to 3 
meters from the next may prove to be overkill for the particular wayfinding task at hand.  Areas 
of a building being mapped may be divided into cells (such as offices, hallways, etc.), 
representing areas of a building, rather than exact points where extensive mapping detail may 
prove unnecessary.  Hence, for visitors to receive necessary wayfinding information, the 
database may only need to know that the subject is located in a designated cell, as opposed to the 
precise point in the cell where the subject is located.  Using the cell method to establish a 
fingerprint database, researchers at Rice University successfully mapped a 135,178 square foot 
building divided into 510 cells (equivalent to the size of a 150? x 150?, 6-story building) in a 
matter of 28 man-hours.  Wi-Fi localization was able to indicate the correct cell 95% of the time.  
Following their work, they discovered that the building could have been mapped in less than half 
the time, and the database would not have suffered any appreciable loss in successful user 
localization (Haeberlen, Flannery, Ladd, Rudys, Wallach, & Kavraki, 2004). 
Kriging.  Another method that could dramatically reduce the time required to generate a 
fingerprint database utilizes a method known as kriging.  When a point is mapped in a fingerprint 
database, it provides hints about the characteristics of nearby points, even if those points have 
not been mapped.  Kriging is a geostatistical technique used to interpolate the value of a random 
field at an unobserved location using observations of known values at nearby locations 
 41 
(Wikipedia, 2011).  In simple terms, kriging is the process of mapping unknown points using the 
information from known points in the nearby vicinity.  This would allow fingerprint database to 
be constructed using only a fraction of the points normally required.   
This method was used by researchers at the University of New South Wales, Australia.  
In their study, they found Wi-Fi localization using the original database (typical fingerprint 
database) produced an average distance error of 1.35 meters.  They also conducted Wi-Fi 
localization using kriging ? where data from only 1/8 of the normal fingerprint database?s points 
were utilized. The average distance error in this case was 1.49 meters ? an increase of only 10% 
error from the normal, more labor-intensive fingerprint database (Li, Wang, Lee, Dempster, & 
Rizos, 2005).  The author feels that for many applications, a database requiring far less input in 
exchange for minimal additional error would be an acceptable tradeoff.  Of course, the success of 
such an approach would likely be dependent upon building architecture and the context of its 
use, but the overall benefit of this technique remains clear.   
3.4 Supplemental Tracking Methods 
Inertia Tracking.  It is possible that during the process of Wi-Finding (when using a 
fingerprint database), a user?s device signal may not correspond with the fingerprint database for 
a brief instant.  Though this may seldom occur, it remains important for user location to be 
known when anomalies arise.  Many portable Wi-Fi-enabled devices employ tools such as 
accelerometers or digital compasses that could perform their own calculations to determine 
visitor location in the event that a fingerprint database loses track of the individual.  This method 
has been called inertia tracking (Furey, Curran, & McKevitt, 2008) or dead reckoning (Serra, 
Carboni, & Marotto, 2010).  The process estimates a user?s current position based upon a 
previously known point, and advances the user?s location based upon measured speeds over an 
 42 
elapsed time and course (information that could be provided by the accelerometer and compass).  
A 2010 study found that inertia tracking accurately detected user orientation and displacement in 
indoor environments over short runs (fewer than 100 meters) (Serra, Carboni, & Marotto, 2010).  
Furthermore, this could serve as a powerful tool that might improve database signal calibration.  
It seems logical that where the Wi-Fi fingerprint database ?sees? both recognized and unfamiliar 
user signals along a path, the unfamiliar signal information could be added to the database for 
further comparison, a way of ?connecting the dots? and estimating location of unrecognized 
signals.  An algorithm could be developed that would consider trends (time of day, day of week, 
etc.) corresponding to new signals (such as busy times in a building).  The new signal 
information could then be used as the trends dictate, enhancing database relevance, and 
therefore, the accuracy of tracking.   
History-based Tracking.  Another method of increasing localization accuracy entails a 
history-based approach.  This procedure would employ user-mobility profiles to specify the 
likelihood of user location based on historical user patterns (Bahl & Padmanabhan, 2000).  This 
approach could assist in the event of signal irregularity from a user?s device.   
An example will help to illustrate this point.  If a Wi-Fi database in a university building 
was aware, based on previous usage, that a student typically followed the same path to a certain 
destination (i.e., a classroom) at the same times on repeating days, a user pattern would be 
established.  On a day corresponding to the pattern, the user enters and along the way to the 
destination, it is assumed that environmental circumstances cause an abnormal signal to be read, 
where no match exists in the database.  Instead of losing track of the individual or estimating the 
wrong location, the user?s history pattern could be consulted to provide direction as needed.  
 43 
This type of approach has been tested in the past, with favorable results.  A study at the 
University of Freiberg has shown that by using similar methods, estimations of the wrong room 
or wrong floor could be improved by 69.7% and 50%, respectively.  Additionally, average 
spatial error distance decreased by 8.4% (Zhou, 2006).  In another study, Intel Research Seattle 
found that when users revisited a place, an algorithm allowed for environment recognition more 
than 90% of the time, with errors being reduced upon each subsequent visit (Hightower, 
LaMarca, & Smith, 2006).   
3.5 Potential Ramifications 
There are a number of ramifications to a historical approach, the most obvious being 
privacy.  It is important to highlight a couple key features of Wi-Finding for the sake of this 
discussion.  First, where normal (non pattern-based) wayfinding occurs, Wi-Fi signals are not 
stored on the server.  The information relayed by the user device can be analyzed without 
archiving visitor information, simply allowing the database to compare signals and return 
wayfinding information to the user (Zhou, 2006).   Second, where a user history might be used, it 
is understandable that many individuals may not prefer to have their locations tracked, patterns 
developed, or whereabouts known in a way that could be potentially discovered by others.  For 
these, a pattern-based approach may not be attractive.  However, for a user who suffers from 
visual impairment, the gains in accuracy by way of historical patterns may outweigh any privacy 
concerns.  It may even provide peace of mind, allowing user location to be proven at a later point 
(i.e., a student proving (s)he had attended class).  Whatever the case, the author believes that the 
user should always control the decision to opt-in or opt-out of any tracking system that might 
store visitors? signal information. 
 44 
 There is yet another perceived risk of using Wi-Fi as a foundation for wayfinding, which 
involves a danger for network spoofing and location database manipulation attacks 
(Tippenhauer, Rasmussen, P?pper, & Capkun, 2009).  It is important to note, however, that these 
risks are not exclusive to Wi-Finding.   This is a hazard of using Wi-Fi for virtually any purpose.  
Despite these known risks, Wi-Fi networks proliferate today.  Just as when using Wi-Fi for 
networking purposes, the user must take reasonable care to avoid spoofing or hacking, while 
there are steps that the premises operator may also employ to discourage any such attempts.   
 Indeed, should Wi-Finding find a foothold in the consumer market, the issues of privacy, 
security, and device energy consumption, among others, will deserve greater attention and 
investigation.  The breadth of these issues is greater than the author could hope to address in the 
course of this work.  Notwithstanding these questions, the use of Wi-Fi networks to provide 
wayfinding services is a promising thought that does not appear to be very far off in the future.  
Wi-Fi could end up becoming the medium for a variety of uses ? tracking staff, hospital patients, 
assets ? a variety of uses in addition to its initial purpose (Stantchev, Schulz, Hoang, & 
Ratchinski, 2008).  As for Wi-Finding, the ability for this technology to provide a dynamic, 
interactive connection with the user makes it an alluring subject that will undoubtedly find 
greater attention as time moves forward. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 45 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 4 Assistive Technology 
Wi-Finding is an approach that could be developed for those who deal with the rigors of 
disability, such as individuals who have visual impairments.  Designed for this market, Wi-
Finding would represent an Assistive Technology approach.  Assistive technology is defined as 
?? any device or system that allows an individual to perform a task that they would otherwise be 
unable to do, or increases the ease and safety with which the task can be performed? (Cowan & 
Turner-Smith, 1999, p. 325).  In the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with 
Disabilities Act of 1988, assistive technology is defined as:  ?Any item, piece of equipment or 
product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified or customized, that is 
used to increase, maintain or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities? 
(Section 3, para. 1).  The intent of assistive technology is clear ? to alleviate strain upon a person 
who is impaired and encourage expanded interaction within mainstream society.   
4.1  Examples of Proposed Assistive Technologies 
Navbelt.  For individuals who suffer from vision loss, a number of Assistive Technology 
(AT) projects have been undertaken in the past, some of which will be discussed here.  One 
project, entitled the Navbelt, consists of a portable computer, ultrasonic sensors, and 
stereophonic headphones (Figure 24).  The visually-impaired user wears the Navbelt around the 
waist, in a style similar to a ?fanny pack,? while the portable computer is carried as a backpack 
(Shoval, Borenstein, & Koren, 1998).  The Navbelt provides auditory signals (or an acoustic 
?image?) that is sent to the user through the headphones, in an attempt to lead him/her around 
 46 
obstacles that may be present (Shoval, Borenstein, & Koren, 1998).  The function of the system 
is not much different from the idea of sonar guidance in submarines. 
Smart-Robot.  Another proposal, named the Smart-Robot, entails three obstacle 
detection sensors (ultrasonic and infrared), mounted to a chassis (similar in appearance to a 
remote-controlled car) that also holds other hardware, such as a battery, GPS antenna, and RFID 
antenna (Figure 24).  During travel, the Smart-Robot provides audible information to the user 
through a speaker on the chassis and tactile directions through vibrating motors embedded in a 
glove worn by the visually-impaired user.  The information from the speaker and directional 
information from the glove motors constitute a wayfinding system that guides the user to the 
intended destination (Yelamarthi, Haas, Nielsen, & Mothersell, 2010).   
 
Figure 24 Navbelt (left) and Smart-Robot (right) (Shoval, Borenstein, & Koren, 1994; 
Yelamarthi, Haas, Nielsen, & Mothersell, 2010) 
   
 
GuideCane.  Yet another AT proposal, dubbed the GuideCane, comprises a long handle 
and sensor head unit that is attached at the distal end (opposite the user) of the handle.  The head 
unit is attached to a steerable, two-wheeled axle.  The user pushes the GuideCane ahead of 
 47 
him/herself, essentially like a stroller.  Ultrasonic sensors on the head unit detect obstacles and 
steer the device around it.  The user is able to sense the steering command as a force through the 
handle and is encouraged to follow GuideCane?s path (Borenstein & Ulrich, 1997). 
There are likely hundreds to thousands of AT ideas (ranging from mere concept to full-
blown reality), all of which could not possibly be broached in the course of this paper.  The 
objective in mentioning the concepts indicated above is to aid reader visualization of some 
approaches and to illustrate that while AT device proposals may alleviate the burden of a certain 
disability, they may be designed with user assumptions that sometimes can be inaccurate.  
Further, even where the device provides needed assistance, the context may not be one the user 
desires. 
4.2 Flaws in Assistive Technology Design 
Assumptions of User Abilities.  One reason that AT devices are not always accepted by 
those for whom they are intended is that in an attempt to overcome a disability, AT developers 
may unintentionally interfere with other existing (non-impaired) user abilities.  For example, 
assistive navigational devices that require the user to wear headphones can deprive the individual 
of sounds that are vital to his/her perception of the environment (Krishna, Colbry, Black, 
Balasubramanian, & Panchanathan, 2008).  Though the target audience for AT design are 
individuals who suffer from impairments, these individuals still have other abilities that can help 
compensate for their disabilities ? but they must not be obstructed.   
In a similar line of thought, AT developers must also be cognizant that an impairment or 
disability, in most cases, is not synonymous with a complete absence of ability.  Many 
developers may assume that without an assistive technology, an individual is helpless, a view 
that is not often representative of reality (Shinohara & Wobbrock, 2011).  It is critical that AT 
 48 
designers grasp the meaning of this critique.  When it is assumed that the intended user?s 
affected ability has zero function, AT design may aim to fulfill a need in an unnecessary way.  
Visual impairments provide a good example of this.  The fact that a person is classified as being 
legally blind is different from the idea that an individual possesses absolutely no sight.  In fact, 
many individuals who have significant vision loss still possess remaining visual abilities and use 
those capabilities as far as they are able.  Hence, some people with visual impairments may not 
feel the need for a complex (and potentially expensive) AT device that informs him/her of 
objects in the immediate vicinity, when they may be able to discern the same on their own 
through comparatively simple means.  When AT devices cannot be customized to assist where 
needed, or scaled back when unwanted, AT solutions may prove unusable.    
AT designers must also be aware of another improper assumption ? the idea that assistive 
technologies functionally eliminate a person?s disability (Shinohara & Wobbrock, 2011).  This 
can lead to an unrealistic expectation being leveled upon an individual who has a disability.  The 
person may gain from the use of AT assistance; however, his/her level of functionality may yet 
be far off from what a non-impaired individual experiences.  A 2003 survey of individuals with 
disabilities found that 13 to 21% of respondents would still be unable to perform a task ? despite 
the presence of an AT device ? without additional outside aid.   Further, the study showed that 
where the impairment is more severe, AT solutions are less likely to be used exclusively (Agree 
& Freedman, 2003).  Even when an impairment has been essentially rectified by the AT device, 
one must recognize that other issues may arise, such as pain, fatigue, or loss of time associated 
with AT use.  The presence of the same can make it difficult for the user to function as if his/her 
disability has been remedied completely, nor should developers expect that impairments will be 
entirely remedied by the AT approach . 
 49 
Social Rejection of Assistive Technology Designs.  There is another aspect of AT use 
that is more difficult to measure.  This relates to the social consequences associated with the use 
of these devices.  This matter is far too often dispensed with by AT providers or perhaps 
considered only after all other issues deemed more important have been resolved.  Developers 
must appreciate that AT devices are not used in a vacuum, nor are they used in isolated 
laboratories.  Design of such technologies must be assessed for impacts on social and 
professional interactions (Shinohara & Wobbrock, 2011).  At its heart, the social impact of an 
AT device may well determine whether it finds widespread acceptance (spelling success for the 
developer) or overall failure (being viewed as a bust), no matter how effective the design. 
When impaired individuals use AT devices, the apparatus itself may ?announce? (by 
appearance, sound, etc.) the user?s impairment.  This can invite not only unwanted attention, but 
unwanted responses.  In a 2010 study at the University of Washington (UW), individuals shared 
encounters where, when strangers or others became aware of an individual?s impairment, study 
participants were offered unwanted help, or non-impaired individuals responded in ways that 
were uninvited.  This included non-disabled individuals grabbing, pushing or pulling individuals 
with vision loss, over-articulating or speaking loudly to a person with hearing loss, or even 
composing emails in large fonts on behalf of individuals with vision impairments (consequently, 
this individual had to adjust her AT software that already allowed her to read smaller fonts) 
(Shinohara & Wobbrock, 2011).  One respondent?s quote in their study captures how individuals 
may prefer the ability to acknowledge a disability on their own:   
 
The kind of thing that I have a problem with, and I do not use, is a white cane.  I mean, 
that is ? that is a hurdle that, boy, that?s gonna be awhile before I get over that one. ? 
 50 
Because, it just immediately, kind of marks you out as different, as having vision 
problems.  Most people who meet me, until I tell them, have no idea.  And, I guess I kind 
of prefer that. (Shinohara & Wobbrock, 2011, p. 709) 
 
Where AT design effectively preserves the individual?s ability to disclose the presence of a 
disability on his/her own accord, AT device use is likely to increase.  
Assistive Technology Stigma.  Considered from a social perspective, obvious assistive 
devices signal membership of a minority group ? ?the disabled.?  Along with this classification 
often comes a deluge of attendant images of passivity and helplessness, rather than individual 
identity or uniqueness (Hocking, 1999).  Sometimes, this is the case because assistive devices 
may be aimed at the impairment (Figure 25) rather than the person (Barber, 1996).  The device 
can then become a representation of impairment, leading to the assumption that the user is 
different from the rest of society.  When a person?s self-presentation does not meet expected 
social norms, the individual is found to deviate from others and social interaction is disrupted.  It 
is then that people may be marked for their difference.  Goffman (1959) defines this as stigma: 
when an attribute that is deeply discrediting is associated with an individual.   
 
Figure 25 A functional device may not be a socially acceptable device (Attainment 
Company, 2011) 
 
 51 
Stigma creates invisible but known barriers that limit the success of a class of individuals.  
The limitations individuals who have disabilities face in education, employment, housing and 
transportation are not always the products of their medical condition, but are often the result of 
social attitudes of neglect and stereotypical images about individual capacities and needs 
(Gartner & Joe, 1987).  One participant in the study at UW shared her sentiments as to why she 
did not disclose to her employer that she was losing her sight, apparently due to fears of stigma 
and societal implications: 
 
I must admit, I kept it from them so they didn?t know. ?because I didn?t want to lose my 
job.  Because I know ? this was back in the 80?s, and I saw how the workplace was.  The 
people with disabilities were often? let go for various reasons.  So ? I think if you look 
more mainstream, you look more able, then you?re more likely ? to be employed. 
(Shinohara & Wobbrock, 2011, p. 712)  
 
Therefore, while the use of assistive technology may ease access for people who have visual 
impairments, the use of assistive technology can also disclose impairment and lead to stigma.  
This disclosure sometimes creates an atmosphere of deviance and disability, an identity from 
which most would choose to distance themselves.  Individuals who possess impairments are 
often confronted with this dilemma of concealment or disclosure, as they may find themselves 
forced to trade social respect and empowerment for improved cooperation and efficiency (Reich, 
2006). 
This is an aspect of AT design that should never be overlooked.  There is an association 
inferred between objects used and how individuals tend to define their identity 
 52 
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1981).  Within a consumer society, objects have meanings which people 
attempt to transfer to themselves by purchasing or using those objects (Barber, 1996).  AT 
devices and their owners are no different.  In fact, one could make the argument that for these 
devices, the effect is magnified.  Through the use technologies today, individuals not only 
expand what they can do, but express their personal and social characteristics, leading others to 
make assumptions about their identity (Figure 26).  Unfortunately, if the connotations of an AT 
device are negative, these are abandoned at high rates, not as a matter of function, but often due 
to the personal meaning associated with the same (Pape, Kim, & Weiner, 2002).  Adoption or 
rejection of an assistive technology is best understood in context of its impact on an individual?s 
identity (Hocking, 2000; Wielandt, McKenna, Tooth, & Strong, 2006). Although the intent of an 
assistive device is to help individuals overcome impairment, an assistive device that marks a user 
in a negative manner may create social barriers to access, rather than helping the individual to 
overcome the same (Shinohara & Wobbrock, 2011). 
 
Figure 26 The use of atypical devices can lead to assumptions being made about the user 
(Dreamstime, 2011; Engage as you age, 2011) 
  
 
 53 
  One study which examined this relationship found that adolescents with disabilities may 
be at risk of rejection by non-disabled peers when they are unable to conform to social norms 
(Mulcahey, 1992).  For these individuals, being ?normal? is a strong desire, yet the use of 
assistive devices which are viewed as unnatural may draw others? attention and increase the risk 
of social isolation.  Another study found that when using AT was an option and not an enforced 
choice, definitions of what constituted normality seemed to be the principal factor that 
determined whether or not young individuals were willing to use the technology (Kent & Smith, 
2006).   This can cause individuals to refuse useful technologies, preferring to conceal their 
disabilities or at least avoid being conspicuous (Hocking, 1999).  When one visualizes the AT 
device proposals indicated at the beginning of this chapter, it is not difficult to imagine why 
some users might feel this way.  Even when the user?s impairment prevents him/her from 
personally observing the appearance of the AT device in the same way that non-impaired 
individuals might, the social effect is nevertheless understood.  One participant in the study at 
UW shared the following: 
 
I like things attractive.  Whatever adaptive equipment, I want it to look nice.  You know, 
you got everybody with their iPods and their iPads and their Blackberries, you know, and 
they?re whipped out, they?re small? and they?re nice looking.  ?Cause ? Apple would 
not be selling their ?I? stuff if it wasn?t good looking.  And, as a blind person, yeah, 
maybe I don?t see it, but other people see it, and I want to be, you know, just as 
glamorous as the next guy. (Shinohara & Wobbrock, 2011, p. 709) 
 
Another participant in the same study shared similar sentiments: 
 54 
The original BrailleNote used to ship- I don?t remember what color they were- but they 
were the ugliest earbuds you could possibly- like, bright orange or something.  It came 
with these hideous earbuds.  And, I had one of my friends ? sighted friends ? is like, 
?man, you ? those things are awful, dude.  You should never use those.? And I had no 
idea.  But, of course, they just thought, since it was a bunch of blind people they?re 
shipping this stuff to, it didn?t matter. (2011, pp. 708-709) 
 
AT devices, therefore, must represent more than a remedy to impairment.  Without considering 
the context and social interaction, a device which responds effectively to needs but fails to be 
socially accepted is likely to be rejected.   
Self-Acceptance and Device Acceptance.  It has been established that individuals may 
face a difficult time being accepted by others when their disability is publicized in unwanted 
ways.  What has not been discussed is the idea that in many cases, these individuals often 
struggle to accept themselves ? that is, to psychologically accept the reality that impairment will 
accompany their life.  A 2002 study by Pape et al. observed that people with disabilities were 
more likely to abandon an assistive device if they did not accept their disability, if the device 
socially excluded them (made them feel different from peers), or if the device significantly 
clashed with cultural values.  When considering individuals who have vision loss, this 
association is noteworthy, because, as stated earlier, an increase in visual impairment prevalence 
correlates to an increase in average age.  In other words, many who suffer from visual 
impairments are not born with the condition, but experience the onset of the impairment at some 
point (usually later) in life.  These individuals may struggle to accept their new lifestyle.  For 
 55 
these individuals, a socially-accepted AT device design may reduce its likelihood of being 
rejected.   
4.3 Positive Social Impacts of Assistive Technology 
Thus far, the discussion has centered on the negative and detracting aspects of AT design.  
It is useful to understand that, just as these devices have the ability to carry a negative stigma, an 
AT design that makes a person feel less disabled and more like significant others possesses the 
chances that its adoption will increase (Ravneberg, 2009; Wielandt, McKenna, Tooth, & Strong, 
2006).  Perhaps ?cool? devices would indicate that a disabled person is as capable as everyone 
else (Shinohara & Wobbrock, 2011).  Pullin (2009) emphasized that addressing creative conflicts 
between function and fashion in assistive technology may support ?positive images of disability? 
(p. 38).  Shinohara and Wobbrock (2011) found that if a device looked similar to mainstream 
devices, participants did not report feeling self-conscious.   
To obtain a high level of usability and widespread adoption, assistive technologies must 
reduce physical, cognitive, and linguistic effort and promote convenience, efficiency and 
productivity.  In other words, they must be functional.  But even more importantly, a positive 
impression of the user in the eyes of significant others must be established (S?derstr?m & 
Ytterhus, 2010).  The availability of these technologies in a socially transparent way will 
contribute to full inclusion within mainstream society of individuals who have disabilities (Cook, 
2010). 
 
 
 
 
 56 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 5 Trends in Inclusive Design 
5.1 Historical Design Approaches for Individuals with Disabilities 
The functional, aesthetic and social demands placed upon the AT designer can be 
overwhelming and difficult to meet.  This task can even seem unattainable, as the goal is often a 
moving target.  This may be due to economic constraints that obligate AT developers to await 
the introduction of new technology(s) upon which the AT device can be based.  Thus, being 
reactive, once AT artifacts have been designed around a mainstream technology, the mainstream 
technology itself has moved forward, leaving the AT device (and its users) in the past 
(Dobransky & Hargittai, 2006; Emiliani, 2006).  This thought is captured in one participant?s 
statement in the study conducted by Shinohara & Wobbrock (2011): 
 
A term that gets thrown around sometimes is blind ghetto products. ? cell phones have, 
like, all these neat features and stuff, but, ?the BrailleNote?s just catching up.  When 
you know, it doesn?t even have like, 802.11n, which is the new networking standard.  
You know, but it costs six grand.  I mean, come on. (p. 708) 
 
Much of this blame can be placed on bare-minimum efforts to satisfy the needs of the individuals 
with disabilities by the entities running at the front of the technology curve.  Although the U.S. 
was the first nation to fully embrace and codify design as a civil right for people with disabilities 
(Fletcher, et al., 2010), in the past these codes were often adopted by coercion, leading to 
satisfactory outcomes (by definition of the code) that were hardly breakthrough.  
 57 
5.2 Inclusive Design Motivation 
New requirements and demographic trends, however, have triggered more progressive 
approaches, resulting in positive changes for those who suffer from impairments.  One force 
behind this change is the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.  Section 508 of the Rehabilitation 
Act Amendments, as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, requires the following: 
 
?when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and in formation 
technology, they shall ensure that the electronic and information technology allows 
Federal employees with disabilities to have access to and use of information and data that 
is comparable to the access to and use of information and data by Federal employees who 
are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the 
agency.  Section 508 also requires that individuals with disabilities, who are members of 
the public seeking information or services from a Federal agency, have access to and use 
of information and data that is comparable to that provided to the public who are not 
individuals with disabilities?  (Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board, 2000, p. 80500)  
 
An important element of this legislation is also found in Paragraph (d) of the same document, 
which ?requires that software programs, through the use of program code, make information 
about the program?s controls readable by assistive technology? (p. 80508).  Section 255 of the 
Communications Act of 1996 was another catalyst for AT development, which introduced 
performance-based requirements based upon the functional capacity of the communication 
 58 
technologies.  It assumes that technology is dynamic and continuously changing and that 
performance measures can be responsive to an evolving knowledge base (Fletcher, et al., 2010). 
In essence, these measures require (at least at the Federal level or within the genre of 
communication technologies) that electronic and information technologies must be equally 
accessible by all individuals, including those who have disabilities.  This has instigated the 
development of all sorts of software programs that enabled those who previously may have had 
great difficulty using the same.  It also contracted the disparity in time between the introduction 
of new, mainstream technologies and the subsequent AT devices based on the same.  In many 
cases, the introductions of both now take place concurrently.    
5.3 Consumer Market Response 
Although these measures largely did not establish new, compulsory standards in the 
private sector, they did serve as a wake-up call for the consumer market, stimulating the growth 
of new design movements, such as inclusive design and universal design (also known as trans-
generational design or design for all).  Inclusive design stipulates that the design of products and 
environments must be usable by everyone, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for 
adaptation or specialized design (Burgstahler, 2011).  Universal design inspires developers to 
make more intuitive products that work better with less effort and lower risk of injury.  It makes 
products usable for people with a greater diversity of abilities in a wider range of environments 
for a longer period of their lives and as their abilities change (Bauer & Lane, 2006).    The 
interests of these causes have allowed for renewed consideration and vigor that contemplates the 
needs of all users within the design field. 
Alas, corporate goodwill may not be the only motivation for inclusive design approaches.  
It is certain that a large number of these entities recognize the changing demographics in the 
 59 
largest consumer markets, resulting in a flourishing of market demand for devices adhering to 
the principles of inclusive design.  The growing senior?s market is a major driver for innovation, 
attracting the attention of major manufacturers of telecommunication, computer, health care, and 
consumer products (Bauer & Lane, 2006).  Whereas the focus may have been upon meeting a 
code (if one existed) in the past, the focus is now upon design and usability.  Though attitudinal 
barriers may keep firms from ?tooting their own horn? about the extent of their endorsement and 
adoption of inclusive designs, there is no doubt that the design field is evolving to incorporate it 
(Fletcher, et al., 2010). 
An example of this is the World Wide Web Consortium, which began the Web 
Accessibility Initiative (WAI).  The WAI rejects the narrower goal of making the web usable 
through the use of assistive technology by individuals who suffer from vision loss (although a 
promising goal), instead favoring a quest for building knowledge that makes the web more 
usable by everyone, including older users (Fletcher, et al., 2010).  Aims such as this have created 
increased buy-in from all corners of the consumer market.  This is creating substantial change 
within the technology-based approaches that are used in the fields of disability and rehabilitation 
(Robitaille, 2010).  Increasingly, technological innovations developed for specific market genres 
(such as individuals with disabilities) have considerable cross-market relevance (Bauer & Lane, 
2006).  What may be one person?s mainstream technology might be another person?s AT device 
(Petrie & Edwards, 2006).  One instance of this approach is the BT Big Button 100 telephone 
(Figure 27), originally designed for elderly people and sold through BT?s special needs 
catalogue.  Within one month of its release, the Big Button 100 telephone was BT?s fourth-best 
selling phone and the ninth-best selling in the market (Disability Rights Commission, 2004). 
 
 60 
Figure 27 BT Big Button 100 (BT, 2011) 
 
 
5.4 Inclusive Design versus Assistive Technology 
Traditionally, inclusive design and AT approaches have been seen as two distinct topics, 
each side claiming possession of their respective territory (Petrie & Edwards, 2006).  This 
sometimes led to skirmishes between inclusive design devotees and traditional AT device 
experts.  These squabbles have given way to a common commitment to promote inclusive design 
as a baseline for standard products, with AT spanning the gap for individual users whose 
functional limitations lie beyond the reach of the inclusive baseline (Fletcher, et al., 2010).  
Today, mainstream product and AT device manufacturers are entering into collaborative 
relationships that leverage the AT manufacturer?s unique knowledge of disability markets.  In 
turn, AT manufacturers have benefitted from the enlarged technical, financial, marketing, and 
distribution capabilities these mainstream manufacturers possess.   This has resulted in vastly 
improved, high-quality products that are introduced into a broader marketplace within shorter 
 61 
timeframes (Bauer & Lane, 2006).  Insofar as its approach can reach, inclusive design is 
allowing a greater diversity of users to participate in new product releases that previously may 
have been available only to the non-impaired public, or only to individuals with impairments 
after they had taken exhaustive, customized measures to enable their access to the desired 
technology.    
Inclusive Design and AT Inputs.  One inclusive design technique places ?hooks? within 
mainstream technologies, allowing for assistive technologies to latch on and establish an 
interaction between the mainstream technology and a user who may have a disability (Lewis, 
Eckert, & Clarkson, 2004).  Microsoft?s operating system, Windows, is an example, as it allows 
ATs such as screen readers to access information that the AT software transforms into synthetic 
speech or Braille that is transmitted to the user as desired (Petrie, 2001).  Mainstream products 
also increasingly employ ?hidden? means for adaptation for different users that are embedded 
within the product purchased by all individuals, disabled or not.  Examples include browsers 
which allow users to change font and graphic sizes and operating systems which allow keyboard 
and mouse customizations.  This can also be a different approach that cancels out the need for a 
separate AT purchase, such as Apple?s VoiceOver (Figure 28), a screen-reading technology 
made available on every version of Mac OS X, and Apple Spotlight, which allows users to 
launch applications and conduct all functions using only a keyboard (Fletcher, et al., 2010).  
Similar features, such as text-to-speech functionalities, are built into products such as the 
Amazon Kindle and many Android-based devices (Stroud, 2010). 
 62 
Figure 28 Apple iPhone with VoiceOver Software (Apple, 2011) 
 
 
In many ways, the competition to develop the most inclusive design-friendly device is 
just beginning to heat up, largely to the benefit of all consumers.  Microsoft and Apple are 
perhaps the most obvious examples of this rivalry, but other well-known entities such as Google 
and Android are entering the mix more and more.  Smaller, application-specific competitors will 
also play a role, such as SmartArt, which since 2007 has allowed users to access graphics tools 
and create complex graphics without having to use a mouse (Fletcher, et al., 2010).  Mainstream 
technologies available off-the-shelf with embedded/hidden inclusive design tools will also spur 
the development of other technologies that make use of these inclusive design aids.  One 
example is Apple, whose decision to make iPhone application software freely available to 
anyone has generated a spectacular windfall of applications, some with the potential to replace 
 63 
assistive technology (Fletcher, et al., 2010).  This creates an opportunity for AT development at 
reduced cost.  Andre Lukatsky, director of computer services at the Hadley School for the Blind, 
agrees:  ?Because these are mainstream devices, (schools) don?t have to invest a huge amount of 
money in the technology? (Stroud, 2010, para. 5).   
Consequently, these mainstream technology devices are becoming tools that function in a 
variety of manners depending on user needs.  This also allows users with disabilities to take 
advantage of a wide range of technological features and enables the use of many programs that 
previously were limited to AT-specific devices.  Tracy Gray, director of the National Center for 
Technology Innovation, confirms the same: ?What we?re seeing is a growing convergence in 
technology for general consumers and technology for different needs,? (Stroud, 2010, para. 3). 
Inclusive Design Limitations.  While inclusive design has certainly grayed the line 
between mainstream technology and assistive technology, it must be acknowledged that it can 
only go so far in meeting the needs of users with disabilities.  At some point, extra technologies 
(i.e., AT-specific devices) are needed to allow universal access where inclusive design-based 
approaches fall short (Petrie & Edwards, 2006).  It is also worth noting that although inclusive 
design advances have been great, barriers to its widespread adoption still exist, one of the most 
significant being the cost to offer inclusive design implementations on a wide range or variety of 
technology platforms.  In practice, manufacturers may have to limit the extent of platforms 
offered (Fletcher, et al., 2010).  Nonetheless, there is no doubt that inclusive design is allowing 
for an ever-expanding set of users.  Their access to off-the-shelf tools once reserved for only 
those without disabilities will mean more empowerment and social acceptance  for all 
(Robitaille, 2010). 
 
 64 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 6 Existing Technology and Consumer Use 
 In order to develop an appropriate concept for Wi-Finding applications, it is necessary to 
examine the benchmark standards that the device must meet.  Further, an assessment of current 
technologies would reveal whether current approaches exist that could implement Wi-Finding in 
a seamless manner. 
6.1 Wi-Finding Device Criteria 
Obviously, a fundamental requirement of the device would be the ability to connect to 
Wi-Fi networks.  The device must relay information to the user, whether visually, through tactile 
senses, audibly, etc., and must allow for user customization to account for the presence or lack of 
user abilities.  The presence of hooks that allow for AT software usage and/or embedded features 
that allow for its use by most disabled users? would be essential, as well.  Finally, any existing 
technology employing each of these characteristics would need to be reasonably affordable. 
6.2 Smartphones 
Many smartphones and smart devices (Figure 29) on the market today employ inclusive 
design characteristics in addition to a wide feature set that would make this platform an attractive 
medium through which Wi-Finding could be offered to individuals with disabilities.  Before 
assuming that this is the ideal approach, it would also be worth discussing whether these devices 
are even a rational choice for individuals who are sight impaired, especially in light of the 
correlation between vision loss and older age.   
 65 
6.2 Smartphone Market Penetration and Demographic Use 
It may be tempting to assume that a wayfinding approach that employs the use of 
smartphones or smartphone-like devices is better suited towards younger individuals, as the 
assumption may be that older individuals may not use mobile phones extensively and would be 
even less likely to own smartphones.  In light of historic mobile carrier phone usage, this 
criticism may be expected.  This critique, however, ignores the fact that smartphone devices have 
not been around very long.  Even the prevalence of normal mobile phones is a rather recent 
development, becoming widespread only during the last decade.  
   
Figure 29 Examples of smart devices (Newsarama, 2011; Pective, 2011; Tech2, 2011; 
Verizon Wireless, 2011) 
 
 
Older populations are adopting mobile communication forms at an increasing pace 
(Figure 30).  The drift towards mobile communication devices among all population ages is a 
 66 
known fact that has been studied by the Center for Disease Control (CDC).  The CDC found that 
in 2010, more than one in every four homes in the U.S. had only mobile carrier telephones 
(Figure 31).  Three years earlier, this figure was one in every eight households, demonstrating 
how quickly households are moving towards portable cellular communications and away from 
landlines (Blumberg & Luke, 2010).  The CDC?s data does show that older individuals are less 
likely to live in a cellular-only household (?only wireless,? as phrased by the report).  However, 
growth of cellular-only households is very rapid among the elderly, particularly over the last few 
years.   
 
Figure 30 Data on individuals with only mobile telephone service by age (Blumberg & 
Luke, 2010) 
 
 67 
Figure 31 Percentages of households with only mobile phone service (Blumberg & Luke, 
2010) 
 
 
As for smartphones, within a matter of a few years these devices have already established 
considerable market presence and their popularity is gaining consumer attention quickly.  A 2010 
Nielsen study found that 28 percent of U.S. wireless users own smartphones (Nielsen Wire, 
2010a).  Nielsen?s data is represented in Figure 32.  Forty-five percent of respondents indicated 
that their next cellular device will be a smartphone.  By the end of 2011, Nielsen expects there 
will be more smartphones in use in the U.S. market than typical mobile carrier feature phones 
(Nielsen Wire, 2010b).  Where it was very uncommon to see these devices only a few years ago, 
they are now becoming technology staples within mainstream society.  Thus, when the CDC?s 
report is considered jointly with Nielsen?s predictions, it is apparent that individuals and 
 68 
households are turning to mobile phones as their primary form of telephone-based 
communication (if not the only form of telephone communication), and that smartphones will 
soon outnumber feature phones.  Given the trends, it appears foreseeable that these trends will 
influence all ages of society within the next decade. 
 
Figure 32 U.S. Smartphone Penetration & Projections (Nielsen Wire, 2010a) 
 
 
It is also worth noting that the nature of consumer use is evolving rapidly, as users move 
from normal feature phones to smart devices.  Nielsen Wire found that 5% of feature-phone 
users access Wi-Fi with their phone, as opposed to 50% of smartphone users (2010b).  The 
ability for smartphone owners to connect to Wi-Fi networks is a distinct advantage over feature 
phones, but not the only one.  Internet connectivity aside, the computing means of smart devices 
 69 
has become so advanced that they are being used in a variety of ways with which feature phones 
could never compete.  For a matter of a few hundred dollars (often less, when purchased with a 
mobile carrier contract), users can access a multitude of applications and information.  Many of 
these devices have more accessibility software built into them than most computers had just a 
few years ago (Akkad, 2010).  Applications, or ?Apps? designed for smart devices, are also 
exploding in popularity.  In 2009, 300 million smart phone Apps were downloaded, but just one 
year later, 5 billion were downloaded ? a 16-fold increase (Mobile Future, 2011).  The 
smartphone revolution has turned once-simple phones into multipurpose devices able to indicate 
information about one?s location, social calendar, favorite restaurants and much, much more.  
These devices are changing the manner in which individuals interact with their surroundings and 
with each other, affecting culture, identity, and relationships (Traxler, 2008).  Their use for 
wayfinding purposes would not seem unusual or unfitting in most social environments, as 
individuals use smartphones for all sorts of purposes within mainstream society.   Considering 
that many smartphones are available off-the-shelf with embedded features that allow access by 
the disabled community, or are present with hooks that allow access through the use of AT 
software, the result is that individuals who suffer from disabilities are largely able to access the 
same applications everyone else can.  This leads the author to believe that individuals who are 
visually impaired, whether of advanced age or not, will be just as likely to adopt a Wi-Fi 
navigation system deployed through the use of smartphones and other smart devices.  
6.3 Assistive Technology-Specific Device Relevance 
While Wi-Finding could essentially be delivered to consumers via an existing 
smartphone that implements inclusive designs, it does not necessarily indicate that an AT device 
approach is inappropriate.  For one, it is necessary to identify whether Wi-Finding is attractive to 
 70 
the general population, or only to smaller crowds, such as those who suffer from disabilities.  If 
the concept proved unpopular to the general public, an AT-specific device designed around the 
needs of individuals with disabilities may be a more fitting method of Wi-Finding delivery.  
Nevertheless, the foregoing AT design discussions (Chapter 4) would be implemented, in hopes 
of providing a socially-acceptable, functional product that would please potential users.  Further, 
it is conceivable that this design approach, while intended for users with disabilities, could prove 
popular for non-impaired individuals who may be considering the purchase of a smartphone or 
smart device, as has occurred in the past (Akkad, 2010).  At this point, however, it is unclear 
whether an AT design approach or an inclusive design implementation is better, or if both 
options present attractive paths towards this goal.  This is an answer the author sought to expose 
by way of further study. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 7 Wayfinding Study 
7.1 Building Description 
An important step in determining the general public?s desire for Wi-Finding is the 
assessment of how well traditional, static wayfinding methods are meeting general user needs.  
The author operates under the assumption that if the general population?s demands are already 
being met at a reasonable level by traditional approaches, an overarching need for Wi-Finding 
probably does not exist.  Under this outcome, an assistive technology design approach would be 
adopted in an effort to meet the needs of those who have disabilities.  On the other hand, if the 
general public expresses a desire for the same, an inclusive design approach would be fitting. 
To gauge general user wayfinding demand, the author identified several criteria to select 
a building where navigation was expected to be very challenging for visitors.  A large building 
with a considerable amount of foot traffic (potential survey candidates) was necessary, while 
building symmetry, with limited features allowing spatial orientation, would likely challenge the 
effectiveness of visitor wayfinding.   A general lack of wayfinding aids (i.e., signage) was also 
desired for the purposes of this study.  These characteristics would essentially blend to form a 
worst-case scenario, where a high level of wayfinding demands would be anticipated in light of a 
rather challenging environment.   
Auburn University?s Haley Center was selected for this purpose (Figure 33).  Built in 
1969, the building is the university?s largest (covering more than 400,000 square feet on 10 
floors), capable of serving 8,000 students during academic hours, and likely the busiest building 
on campus as well (Auburn University Libraries, 2011; Auburn University, College of 
 72 
Education, 2011).  To this day, very limited wayfinding aids are present within the structure.  
There are a few locations where signage is posted, though the signs are usually small and 
sometimes posted in inconspicuous areas.  Some departments or individuals have even resorted 
to posting their own department-specific signage to assist visitor guidance (Figure 34).  Room 
numbering within the building is also a challenging issue, as numbers do follow a pattern, though 
the numbering sequence is not immediately apparent.  Yet another potential for disorientation 
exists because the building is largely symmetrical within the interior (on all levels), and there are 
few features that allow for orientation to be established.   
 
Figure 33 Haley Center Exterior 
 
 
Figure 34 Department-posted signage at Haley Center 
 
 
 73 
A physical description of this building would be beneficial.  On the main floor, Haley 
Center is composed of a central hallway and four ?quads? (Figure 35).  The hallway (the most 
popular entrance into the building, with multiple entry points) provides a connection to various 
destinations within the building via elevator access, stairway access, and quad entrances.  The 
quads (each situated at corners of the main hallway) house classrooms and offices, the typical 
destinations for building visitors.  The second and third floors are similar in layout to the main 
floor, while the upper floors have no quad areas and house department or individual professor 
offices.  Foot traffic is considerably lighter on these floors.   
 
Figure 35 Haley Center: Main floor layout 
 
 74 
7.2 Introduction of Wayfinding System 
The author mapped out the main floor of Haley Center and designed a series of 22 
wayfinding signs of varying size and appearance.  Four of these were large, double-sided signs, 
approximately 21 inches tall by 33 inches wide.  Another one-sided sign, of identical 
measurement and similar layout, also joined this group.  These signs were suspended (double-
sided signs) or affixed (one-side sign) in the main hallway, just outside quad entrances within the 
building interior.  Each sign provided directions to various quad locations, occasional directions 
to various departments, as well indications of bathroom and stairway locations, among other 
details.  Two more first-floor overview ?maps? (these were affixed to columns and not 
transportable), oriented to visitor position when viewed, were also displayed in the main hallway 
area.  Each of these measured 15 inches wide by 22 inches tall.  As for the quad areas, a total of 
eight signs were posted among two quads, while in another quad (one with a more complex 
layout), seven signs were posted.  These were affixed to walls about 60 inches from the floor.  
While there was a little variation in the size of the quad signs (depending on the extent of 
information being relayed), none was smaller than 9.6 inches tall by 20 inches wide.  (The 
remaining first-floor quad, occupied by the university?s bookstore, was left untouched due to its 
own set of wayfinding features.)  The signs are depicted in Figure 36.  Figure 37 provides 
examples of the areas where the signs were posted within the building (both figures are presented 
on the following page). 
 
 
 75 
Figure 36 Examples of test signage installed at Haley Center 
 
 
 
 
Figure 37 Examples of areas where test signage was posted 
 
 
 76 
7.3 Haley Center Visitor Survey and Results 
Within the week following the posting of the signs, visitors to Haley Center were 
randomly approached and asked to complete a one-page survey.  These individuals were all 
contacted while on the main floor in areas where the signs were posted (it would have been very 
unlikely that individuals had not already passed any of the signs).  In all, a total of 135 visitors 
completed the survey.  An example of this survey is given on the next page (Figure 38), while 
the results of the survey questions are expressed visually in tables that follow (Figure 39 to 
Figure 44). 
  
 77 
Figure 38 Haley Center survey 
 
 78 
Figure 39 The majority of visitors at Haley Center find their way on their own 
 
 
Figure 40 Most respondents visit Haley Center many times a week 
 
 79 
Figure 41 A majority find it is difficult to find one?s way at Haley Center 
 
 
Figure 42 Over 25% of participants did not observe posted test signage 
 
 80 
Figure 43 Many found directions helpful, many did not pay attention 
 
: 
Figure 44 Most respondents prefer signage 
 
 81 
7.4 Survey Results Analysis 
An analysis of the survey results indicates that most individuals believed wayfinding to 
be a challenging task at Haley Center (Figure 41 - over 60% either agreed or strongly agreed 
with this thought).  Thus, the use of this building to determine the effectiveness of wayfinding 
signage would seem appropriate.  The survey also indicated that an overwhelming number of 
individuals found their way through the building on their own.  A far smaller number followed 
existing signage, whereas an even smaller segment asked for directions.  This raises the notion 
that in the past, wayfinding within Haley Center may have been nothing short of an experimental 
approach and might be greatly improved by the addition of wayfinding aids, such as the test 
signage. 
While over 70% of respondents noticed the test signage, over one in four did not (Figure 
42).  This statistic points out a major limitation of signage ? the inability to be located in the 
?right place? at the ?right time? for all individuals.  For those that did notice the signs, just under 
70% of respondents shared that directions were helpful (Figure 43), while  35.5% indicated that 
they already knew where they were going and did not to pay attention to directions (note: some 
respondents gave more than one answer for this question).  Relatively few voiced opinions 
regarding whether directions on the signs were unclear.   
More than 92% indicated they visit Haley Center two times a week or more (Figure 40).   
Participants also shared that when given three different wayfinding options, they strongly 
preferred the use of printed wayfinding materials (Figure 44) over looking at a map online or 
using interactive Wi-Fi directions sent to their phones (overall, 6.9% of respondents indicated 
desire for Wi-Fi wayfinding).  
 82 
The survey questions were also posed to two individuals who suffer from significant 
vision loss.  Both individuals expressed that it had been difficult to navigate their way at Haley 
Center when they had first come to Auburn University, but they were now used to the building 
(wayfinding was not so much of a problem anymore).  Due to the extent of their impairments, 
neither was aware that test signage had been posted, although each individual had been inside 
Haley Center repeatedly after the new signs were displayed.  Obviously, the test signage had not 
fulfilled any wayfinding needs for them.  Both individuals, however, did express interest in the 
idea of Wi-Finding and stated that they would choose the same for wayfinding purposes if it was 
available for use. 
The initial impression of the survey results would indicate that the general public finds 
traditional, static forms of wayfinding to be satisfactory (Figure 44).   The interactive, Wi-Fi 
based system, on the other hand, seemed to be a novel concept that was attractive to a limited 
few.  This could lead to the conclusion that an AT-specific device approach would be warranted, 
as demand for a mainstream, inclusive design-focused device might be scarce for this 
application.  A further look at this survey, however, reveals some telling points. 
7.5 Potential Survey Flaws 
It became apparent that many participants suspected that the individuals administering 
the surveys (the author and several cohorts) had either developed the test signage or were closely 
associated to the individual who had done so.  In fact, respondents often asked this question 
while completing the survey.   In light of the same, it is possible that survey participants felt 
inclined to provide overly-positive responses because they could appreciate that someone had 
finally installed wayfinding aids at Haley Center, even if they did not depend on them to get to 
their destination.   
 83 
In fact, it is certain that many respondents did not depend on the test signage to find their 
way.  As mentioned earlier, 92.5% of respondents indicated that they attend Haley Center two 
times a week or more (Figure 40), and most respondents had previously found their way within 
Haley Center on their own (Figure 39).  The conclusion here is that these participants were, at 
least on some level, already familiar with the layout of Haley Center.  Their comments reflected 
this idea.  One noted ?but [the signs] would be helpful if it was my first time!? and another 
shared, ?They will be helpful at the beginning of next semester for freshmen.?  Another 
remarked, ?Where were these when I first came here??  These comments imply that individuals 
had experienced a need at some previous point, but those needs had already been satisfied before 
the survey was administered. Even when asked what method participants would use to find a 
location in the building when they had no idea where the destination was, it was apparent that 
many could still find their way without any external wayfinding assistance.  ?If given quad #, I 
can find? was one participant?s written comment, while another shared, ?[If I] know room #, I 
find that way by knowing which level and quadrant.?   
Unfortunately, timing appeared to be a major factor affecting the survey outcome.  
Surveys were administered mid-semester ? a time when searching for new destinations in an 
academic building would be unlikely.  Had surveys been taken at a time when individuals were 
seeking unfamiliar destinations, with visitors who were relatively or completely unfamiliar with 
the building layout, the author believes that the results of the survey may have been much 
different.  This is not to say that interest in Wi-Finding would have increased; however, 
evaluations of the test signage may have been more objective.  The results obtained (at least 
those pertaining to the test signage) appear to be more superficial than revealing about the 
effectiveness of the test signage.   
 84 
Respondents were also asked about cell phone use (for tasks outside of making phone 
calls), with the expectation that increased cell phone use would correlate with an increased desire 
for Wi-Finding.  In the end, no such correlation was noted.  The absence of this relationship was 
compounded by the failure to directly ask respondents if they owned a smartphone.  Survey 
wording was designed to convey that any respondent could select Wi-Finding as their preferred 
form of navigation, regardless of whether they owned a smartphone or not (Figure 38, question 
6).  This intent was apparently not understood by at least some.  One respondent who had 
indicated a preference for signage noted, ?I would use the interactive directions if I had a 
smartphone.?  Had the survey revealed who owned smartphones and which participants did not, 
this data could have allowed for more in-depth analysis of the survey results.  
7.6 Haley Center Survey Conclusions 
 The foregoing concerns noted, a couple important pieces of information gleaned from the 
survey remain clear.  One, well-implemented signage is an important aspect of wayfinding for 
many, and perhaps the first thing that the general public looks for when entering a large-scale, 
unfamiliar environment.  Two, the general public may have desires for a wireless, interactive 
wayfinding system, but (at least in the context of Haley Center) the demand does not appear to 
be great.   
The survey also raises more questions.  In light of respondents? previous familiarity with 
Haley Center, their dependence upon the wayfinding system appeared to be minimal.  How 
would individuals react in an environment where they are unfamiliar with their surroundings?  
Further, how might the building environment (and purpose for wayfinding) shape user needs?  
An examination of visitors in an unfamiliar environment would appear to answer these questions 
and provide the opportunity for comparison with the Haley Center survey results.   
 85 
7.7 Introduction of Airport Visitor Survey 
 Analysis of wayfinding needs in an airport environment represents a substantial change in 
visitor context from that of Haley Center.  It is not difficult to imagine that in many instances, 
airport guests may be entirely unfamiliar with the locale.  Additionally, visitor entrance into the 
environment typically occurs at numerous points, where traditional wayfinding approaches may 
not be realistically capable of providing spatial orientation at or nearby every visitor entrance.  
Successful wayfinding in the context of an airport can also be dependent upon clear, timely 
delivery of information where the potential consequences of confusion and error can be large for 
the visitor.  This may create unique, heightened wayfinding demands different from what was 
observed at Haley Center.  A survey was created to determine user needs in airport 
environments.  It was the author?s intent to capture the needs from a broad segment of 
individuals and to establish visitor wayfinding demands within an airport when they are at their 
greatest.   The survey questions are represented on the next two pages (Figure 45). 
 
 
 
 86 
Figure 45 Airport survey 
 
 
 87 
 
 
 
 88 
The survey was administered online (no print form of the survey was distributed).  A total 
of 105 respondents participated, hailing from 21 different states within the U.S. (Figure 46).  
Three respondent locations were unknown, and three more surveys were completed by 
individuals located outside the U.S.  (All surveys were considered in the response analyses.) 
 
Figure 46 Survey participant distribution across the U.S. 
 
 
Although there were a number of U.S. states where no respondents participated, the results 
gained from the survey do not indicate a correlation between respondents? home region and a 
preference for a particular wayfinding approach.  Answers by region did not appear to exert any 
noticeable effect on the outcome of the survey, essentially ruling out the possibility that a 
troublesome airport in one locale (if one existed) might unduly influence the survey results.    
 
 
 
 89 
7.8 Airport Survey Results 
A number of questions allowed respondents to express their reason(s) for flying, the 
frequency of their air travels, and wayfinding preferences.  Respondents were also encouraged to 
share thoughts, opinions, and reasons for their choices.  The results are provided in Figure 47 to 
Figure 53. 
 
 
Figure 47 Signage is the dominant wayfinding tool participants have used in the past 
 
 90 
Figure 48 Respondents find connecting airports to be the most challenging 
 
Figure 49 Signage is the primary wayfinding tool respondents desire; competitive results 
between information staff and Wi-Finding 
 
 91 
Figure 50 Respondents rank wayfinding preferences 
 
Figure 51 Survey makeup by reason for flying 
 
 92 
Figure 52 Survey makeup by participant flight frequency 
 
Figure 53 Participant smartphone ownership 
 
 93 
7.9 Airport Survey Results Analysis 
Though respondents expressed different reasons for flying, there appeared to be no 
association between travel purpose (Figure 51) and preferred wayfinding method (Figure 49, 
Figure 50).  The same can also be said of respondents? flight frequency ? there did not appear to 
be a link between the frequency of an individual?s air travel (Figure 52) and a desire for a 
specific wayfinding approach.   
Overall, respondents indicated that in the past, they were most likely to utilize signage to 
assist wayfinding in an airport, followed distantly by staff direction (Figure 47).  If respondent 
comments are any indication, participants in the airport survey appeared to express more 
objective evaluations of the wayfinding options than the participants in the Haley Center survey.  
This could be because the airport survey participants considered themselves largely unfamiliar 
with their perceived airport environment(s) and more dependent upon respective wayfinding 
system(s), whereas Haley Center respondents by in large had not been dependent upon any 
wayfinding tools.  Whatever the case, airport survey respondents lobbed wayfinding criticisms 
more freely.  One commented, ?Not enough signage in the boarding areas? and another 
indicated, ??C-1? means nothing to me if I don't know the airport layout,? among many similar 
complaints.  Spatial orientation also appeared to be a concern that signage did not always 
resolve.  One participant shared, ??they don't always let you know by signage where the other 
terminals are located. Especially when you land in the middle of a large terminal.?  Yet another 
commented, ?I never know where to start.?  
A few participants readily shared particularly troublesome airport wayfinding 
experiences:  ?Charles deGaulle airport in Paris was horrible. The signage was sparse & once 
you're on a shuttle train if you don't speak French you're hosed. Amsterdam airport is infinitely 
 94 
better...good signage?.  Another remarked, ?Phoenix airport terminal A (I think) is difficult 
because it doesn't follow numerical order logically and wasn't labeled clearly.?  Despite these 
concerns, many of which dealt directly with signage concerns, survey participants still expressed 
a strong desire for signage, the most popular wayfinding aid indicated in the survey.  This 
remained true regardless of the airport context considered (Figure 49).  
What was not constant, however, was the level of signage?s popularity among varying 
airport contexts.  Where respondents indicated that wayfinding was a greater challenge (mostly 
connecting airports, as observed in Figure 48), interest in signage decreased, whereas interest in 
obtaining information via Wi-Fi and/or airport staff increased.  In these environments, 
individuals often expressed that time constraints and other new variables were an added factor, 
creating another challenge ? stress.  One respondent shared the following sentiments:   
 
Frequently the stress of connecting flights seems to influence my ability to process 
information rationally. Some airports split numerical labeling in a weird way - for 
instance, A1-15 may be down one hallway, and A 16-32 down another, rendering 
sequential navigation unreliable. 
 
This was by no means the only comment that directly or implicitly tied respondents? mental state 
to wayfinding needs.  When asked why some airport contexts were more challenging than others, 
respondents directly indicated stress, or stress-related issues (being in a rush, under pressure, 
etc.) more often than unfamiliarity with the environment.  In fact, it appears that many 
respondents believed that stress affected their abilities.  One participant noted, ?Because the 
layout of the connecting airport may be unfamiliar, and if I don't have a lot of time between 
 95 
connections, I'm probably stressed and may not see the signs I'm looking for.?  Another shared 
the following thought: ?You are sometimes in a rush to make your connection and need to get 
the information now. If you are running close to time, in your haste you might not be able to find 
what is right in front of you.?  Bearing in mind their thoughts, it appears that stress ultimately 
bore an effect upon respondents? wayfinding preferences.   
A further look at the topic of stress gives a clue as to why respondent needs may have 
been altered.  The association between stress and decision-making has been studied previously, 
where it has been shown that stress can create distortions that impact the capacity to process 
information (Ozel, 2001).  Stress has been shown to produce the reflection effect ? where 
individuals make risky decisions when a loss is anticipated, but more conservative decisions 
where the potential outcome is a gain (Porcelli & Delgado, 2009).  In the context of airport 
wayfinding, the reflection effect would dictate that where there is much to lose by way of a 
missed flight, individuals would tend to make riskier wayfinding choices.  When an individual 
misses a flight at a connecting airport, or in a destination away from home, the potential for loss 
and discomfort is understandably greater.  It may be for these reasons that in these airport 
situations, Wi-Finding proved more popular with respondents, perhaps because it is capable of 
removing an unwanted layer of decision-making from an individual whose capacity for the same 
may be threatened by the presence of stress. 
Finally, as noted in the Haley Center survey, there was no appreciable correlation 
between increased cell phone use (for tasks outside of making phone calls) and an increased 
desire for Wi-Finding; hence, the data for that question was not used in this work.  The airport 
survey, though, asked respondents to indicate smartphone ownership (Figure 53).  A definite 
correlation existed between smartphone possession and an increased desire for Wi-Fi 
 96 
wayfinding.  A side-by-side comparison of non-owners (Figure 54) and owners (Figure 55) 
demonstrates this: 
Figure 54 Wayfinding preferences among non-smartphone owners 
 
Figure 55 Wayfinding preferences among smartphone owners 
 
 97 
As can be observed, traditional signage still remained popular among all respondents, but interest 
levels in the other dominant choices varied.  Wi-Fi wayfinding was much more attractive to 
smartphone owners, especially in the context of a connecting airport, where it rivaled the interest 
these respondents had in signage.   Non-owners, instead, favored an increased desire for 
information from staff in this context. 
Smartphone owners also exhibited similar responses when asked to rank their interest in 
each wayfinding form.  Whereas non-owners ranked Wi-Fi wayfinding in a virtual tie (for last 
place) among the wayfinding options (Figure 56), owners ranked Wi-Fi wayfinding as their 
second most-favored option, just ahead of directions provided by airport staff (Figure 57).  Given 
consumer trends in the smartphone market that have been shared earlier, the author believes that 
interest in Wi-Fi wayfinding that was noted in this survey will likely increase as more consumers 
purchase smartphones.   
 
Figure 56 Non-smartphone owners rank wayfinding aids 
 
 98 
Figure 57 Smartphone owners rank wayfinding aids 
 
7.10 Potential Survey Criticisms 
 Both the Haley Center survey and the airport survey asked participants? to state their 
inclination towards Wi-Finding.  However, the description of Wi-Finding was slightly different 
in each survey.  The Haley Center survey asked whether participants would have interest in 
following ??interac tive directions sent over Wi-Fi to my smartphone / smart device that would 
guide me to the exact location (similar to GPS).?  The airport survey provided the option of 
??realtime, directional instructions and flight information delivered over Wi-Fi to my 
smartphone/device (like GPS)? (emphasis added).  These additional words on the airport survey 
could have attracted additional respondent interest that otherwise may not have been there.  
However, one advantage of Wi-Fi is that it is certainly capable of delivering this information 
(and many other information forms), in addition to serving as a source of wayfinding directions.  
 99 
The author does not feel that indicating these possibilities in the airport survey would be a 
misrepresentation of the technology.   
For example, in Haley Center, Wi-Finding might be offered in addition to the ability to 
reserve study rooms, the ability to turn in homework, establish class attendance, or schedule a 
meeting with a professor by way of a smartphone application designed to offer visitors the fullest 
building experience possible.   In an airport, Wi-Finding might be offered in an application 
alongside other services particular to the building, such as the ability to request wheelchair 
assistance or the option to alert airport staff of one?s proximity to the departure gate before gate 
doors are closed.  The author?s vision of Wi-Fi uses is one that provides a variety of services to 
the visitor (wayfinding being just one) that allow for a more efficient interaction within the 
structure.   
Another challenge to the airport survey focuses on respondents? historical wayfinding 
tendencies inside airports, which are largely unknown, other than there was a strong preference 
for using signage (Figure 47).  Signage remained the preference, even after respondents were 
introduced to the concept of Wi-Finding (Figure 49).  Because respondents were not asked about 
less-preferred methods they had used in the past, it cannot be ascertained whether any of these 
other methods had been displaced by interest in Wi-Finding.  While this weakness is noted, there 
is no reason to believe that owners (previous to their smartphone purchase) would have answered 
any differently than non-owners.  If these individuals had exhibited the same tendencies as non-
smartphone owners previously (Figure 54), then the purchase of a smartphone led them to 
displace the desire for information from staff with a desire for information provided on their 
smartphone (Figure 55).   
 100 
The airport survey results also appeared to be affected by the concept of stress, whereas 
this aspect did not seem evident in the Haley Center survey.  The full impact of stress upon 
wayfinding is a large enough question that it cannot be analyzed extensively here.  The airport 
survey results may therefore offer a glimpse of how stress affects user wayfinding needs, but 
leaves this issue open for further examination. 
7.11 Survey Comparisons and Conclusions 
When considered jointly, the two surveys allow for an analysis of how context shapes 
need.  The purpose of respondents? presence within a building (in either survey environment) 
and respondents? mental state ultimately appeared to affect what they wanted.  When 
unfamiliarity increased and was compounded by perceived negative consequences that could 
create stress, respondents indicated a greater desire for interactive approaches and less reliance 
upon static information provision.   
Still, when considering the survey results, it is evident that most individuals would prefer 
traditional signage as the foundation for providing wayfinding direction.  On this basis, it is 
anticipated that for individuals who have visual impairments (and a small portion of the general 
population), Wi-Finding would be the preferred wayfinding tool, whereas for most others Wi-
Finding would be supplementary to signage, potentially filling in the gaps when static 
wayfinding forms falter.  The author also feels that, as smartphone ownership increases, not only 
will overall interest in Wi-Finding (and/or other interactive wayfinding forms) increase overall, 
but may someday rival the likes of signage as the most preferred form of wayfinding (as tastes 
for technological approaches increase), resulting in a fulfilling interaction between visitors and 
their environment.   
 101 
This leads back to the purpose of the surveys ? identifying whether an assistive 
technology design is appropriate, or whether an inclusive design approach should be employed.  
The survey results indicate that either approach could prove acceptable, as the popularity of Wi-
Finding appears to be largely dependent upon the context of the building environment.  The 
device concept would either need to account for the needs of all (including individuals with 
disabilities) under an inclusive design approach, or it should consider the proposals previously 
stated in this work for assistive technology design, encouraging its adoption among individuals 
with disabilities and possibly the general population.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 102 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 8 Concept Design and Implementation 
 The foregoing chapter identified that Wi-Finding can answer the navigation needs of 
those who have vision loss and may also prove attractive to the general population.  The 
implementation of Wi-Finding software (hereafter called WiFinder) should therefore be 
customizable in order to meet varying needs among all users.  When considering the potential 
layout of WiFinder software, the author took into account that on many device platforms, 
inclusive design aids and hooks for AT software are already present within the device.  For 
example, most Apple iOS and Google Android devices now ship with screen-reading software 
preinstalled (Kane, Wobbrock, & Ladner, 2011).  Hence, the software approach conceived for 
WiFinder assumes that these aids are already embedded and (where necessary) have been pre-
programmed to allow effective access to all smartphone software by the user.  Where touch 
screen approaches are used, the author feels that is it sufficient to indicate that selections and 
inputs can be made, but it is not warranted in this work to provide the exact action (i.e., a two-
finger contact approach; double-taps, etc.) because this would be dependent upon the smartphone 
platform in use. 
8.1  WiFinder Software Customization 
What may be necessary here is the explanation of additional customization and 
enhancements within WiFinder software itself, augmenting user abilities to successfully perform 
wayfinding tasks.  An example of potential WiFinder customizations is indicated in Figure 58, 
which represents customization screens that would be found within WiFinder software.  When 
 103 
accessed, each customization option would display a drop-down/pop-up menu, indicating 
selection options. 
 
Figure 58 WiFinder customization screens 
 
 
8.2 Smartphone Device Sketch Development 
The author?s intent is to offer WiFinder for use on any smartphone platform.  However, 
an exemplary platform design for individuals who have vision loss was considered in order to 
maximize the benefits WiFinder can offer to these individuals.  The author?s first sketches and 
design aesthetics are shown in Figure 59 and Figure 60. 
 104 
Figure 59 Exploratory sketches 
 
Figure 60 Form Exploration in Rhinoceros 
 
 
Upon further review of the author?s design approach, it was determined that screen sizes 
were likely insufficient to encourage use by individuals who have vision loss.  This is a problem 
associated with many smartphones that are on the market today for many users (Squidoo, 2011).  
The end result is that some of these devices can be inaccessible for those who are visually 
 105 
impaired (IDEAL Group, 2011).  One study participant who is sight-impaired also suggested 
larger screen sizes in the design development:  
 
I have become quite accustom to using my iPhone.  I really like using the touch screen 
with Voiceover.  A larger screen would be really nice to have.  The larger screen would 
complement the needs of people with low vision as well as total blindness.  (B. Urquhart, 
personal communication, July 4, 2011) 
 
The author evaluated possibilities to increase screen size, while attempting to preserve a design 
aesthetic similar to other smartphone devices.  Figure 61 and Figure 62 show further preliminary 
design and shape explorations that were considered: 
 
Figure 61 Design exploration in Rhinoceros 
 
 106 
Figure 62 Concept development in Rhinoceros 
 
 
 8.3 Smartphone Concept Design 
The author finally set upon a design (Figure 63) utilizing one primary touch screen, 
which may be operated in place by itself, but can also slide along a track, exposing a second 
screen concealed beneath the first.  The two screens fit together (with a small ?parting line? 
separating the two), forming a flush and expansive touch screen area.  The total area is as large 
as 13 square inches, well over twice the screen area offered by most smartphones.  
 
Figure 63 Concept design renderings in Bunkspeed Shot 
 
 107 
 
Figure 64 Explanation of design components 
 
 
 As seen in Figure 64, the phone (hereafter referred to as Blink) includes primary control 
buttons that have been placed on the face surface.  In order to avoid unintentional activation of 
Blink?s features (such as while feeling around for the phone), buttons were eliminated from the 
sides and bottom of the phone.  Buttons present at the top of the phone are angled, potentially 
limiting inadvertent activation.    
 108 
 Blink also includes a couple software features displayed upon the touch screen that are 
intended to be present and accessible at all times (Figure 65).  The first is a compass located at 
the top of the screen.  This would allow the user to determine his/her facing direction at any 
point.  The second, located near the bottom of the screen, is a zoom feature that would allow 
users to enlarge displayed touch screen information. 
 
Figure 65 Compass and zoom locations on design 
 
 
8.4 WiFinder App Functions 
 Having described the smartphone platform, the operation of WiFinder software can now 
be demonstrated.  Upon selecting the WiFinder App, the user is brought to WiFinder?s home 
screen ? the starting point of the Wi-Finding process.  Assuming that Enter a destination is 
selected, the user is brought to a screen where the user can input building information, while 
 109 
WiFinder simultaneously searches for matching locations (the search proximity range being pre-
selected by the user) that have previously been mapped for WiFinder use.  The user is then 
brought to a third screen that offers in-building information previously provided by the premises 
operator during building mapping.  This allows the user to determine the final destination within 
the building (for example, the opportunity to search by room number, by use type, etc.).   Figure 
66 depicts these steps. 
 
Figure 66 Description of WiFinder interface 
 
  
 In this instance (Figure 67), while the user is offered the option of scrolling through a list 
of departments located in Haley Center, (s)he instead the selects (via the five-way navigation 
button) Input information manually.  This selection triggers the appearance of a touch screen 
keyboard where letters may be input on the touchscreen or selected via the five-way navigation 
button.  Matching department names appear, and in this case, the user indicates Program for 
Students with Disabilities as the destination goal.  Destination information is offered to the user, 
who can then select the target to begin wayfinding procedures.  
 110 
Figure 67 User process in WiFinder interface 
 
 
 
 Navigation commences with a map display of the building layout (Figure 68), where the 
user?s location is demonstrated via concentric ?bull?s-eye? rings that zero-in on the user position.  
This provides a starting point to indicate the user?s relationship to the area presented.  The user?s 
destination path is then drawn on the screen, providing an overview of the course to be followed.  
 111 
Once the path is shown, WiFinder announces the user?s present direction, the direction of the 
destination, the distance, and the estimated travel time (according to previously selected user 
customizations).   In addition, spatial information can be achieved as the user touches the map in 
any area.  This triggers WiFinder to announce the area being touched, according to the level of 
map detail presently displayed, in an effort to familiarize the user with the layout of the building 
area.  This is an opportunity for the user to obtain a spatial orientation with the environment. 
 
Figure 68 Spatial orientation using WiFinder 
 
 
 112 
Thereafter, WiFinder provides the user with step-by-step details of the path to follow to the 
intended objective (Figure 69).  User surroundings are constantly updated on the map, providing 
for continual spatial updating.  Once the destination is reached, the user is notified by WiFinder.   
 
Figure 69 User navigation with WiFinder 
 
 
 113 
8.5 Potential for increased interaction through Wi-Fi approaches 
Finally, it is important to remember Wi-Fi was not initially developed for Wi-Finding 
purposes, but as a means of wireless network access.   While the WiFinder setup demonstrated 
holds promise on its own, the author?s vision is for WiFinder to exist as one of many services 
and building features that are offered to visitors to maximize the effectiveness of their visit to the 
location.  When the user?s whereabouts are known, an opportunity exists to transmit information 
regarding the goods and services present within the establishment.  This could create a mutually 
beneficial relationship between visitor and premises operator. In this context, Wi-Fi network 
access would provide information to the user, while WiFinder would serve as an important link, 
connecting the visitor with the locations of various services offered. For example, within an 
airport, a variety of services could be delivered over Wi-Fi to users known to be within the 
establishment:  gate information, realtime flight information, estimated check-in times, vendor 
services, etc.  WiFinder could provide access to any one of these services should the user be so 
inclined.   
An example of this idea process is demonstrated in Figure 70 and Figure 71.  In this 
example, the assumption is made that a student is coming to Haley Center to speak to a 
professor.  The user is first offered access to a number of facilities, based on his/her position on 
Auburn University?s campus.  The user indicates Haley Center, and services specific to that 
building are indicated. 
 
 114 
Figure 70 Demonstration of location-based services 
  
 
The user selects the services pertinent to his/her needs and locates the desired professor.  Upon 
finding the same, the user is offered a number of options, including the ability to call the 
professor from that screen, send a text message, or find the professor?s office.  The user indicates 
that (s)he would like to locate the office, whereupon WiFinder commences its navigational 
instruction. 
 
 115 
Figure 71 Example of wayfinding embedded within location-based services 
 
 116 
 In summation, the author believes that WiFinder is an application that could exist on its 
own, but would be even more effective when paired up with other building services offered to 
visitors.  It is an important tool because it allows for an interaction, potentially resolving a 
number of issues for individuals who have vision loss and have found other wayfinding forms to 
be lacking.  
8.6 Future Work 
 The author readily acknowledges that before a Wi-Finding-type setup can be established, 
a number of additional issues must be considered.  For one, security and user privacy are topics 
that must be considered adequately in users? best interest.  While it has been stated earlier that 
Wi-Finding directions can be delivered without ?discovering? users? identities, it has also been 
shown that knowing a user identity could improve Wi-Finding accuracy where histories or 
patterns have been developed.  This is a matter that must be weighed sensitively, with a great 
deal of deference for user desires.  Further, users must be aware how and when their information 
might be used, should it become necessary to store the same.  
Yet another issue involves the computational requirements of wireless APs.  This matter 
has not been discussed in this work.  Much of the Wi-Finding information shared here operates 
under the assumption that Wi-Fi APs can readily provide Wi-Finding information to users as 
needed.  The author has no indication whether Wi-Finding would prove overly burdensome upon 
Wi-Fi networks or not.  None of the works cited by the author shed an appreciable level of 
insight in this regard.   However, a certain level of computational power is undoubtedly required 
for Wi-Finding to function effectively.  In the event that a building is experiencing a high level 
of Wi-Fi traffic that is already consuming much of the APs? computational capabilities, Wi-
Finding could add demands that might overwhelm the system, rendering Wi-Finding ineffective 
 117 
and slowing Wi-Fi access to a crawl.  At the very least, this is a matter worth considering in 
order to assess its impact upon Wi-Fi traffic. 
Along similar lines, smart device energy consumption is another matter to be reviewed.  
Many of the approaches discussed in this work would likely demand a great deal of energy from 
the user?s portable smart device, potentially draining energy more quickly than the user would 
find acceptable.  In this light, Wi-Finding techniques must be evaluated to determine whether 
any certain methods exhaust user smartphone devices too quickly to be reasonably attractive to 
the individual. 
The implementation of WiFinder and related location-based services is another topic 
worthy of further discussion beyond this paper.  The provision of services provided to 
individuals based on their location holds the opportunity to maximize visitor experiences within 
the environment.  Knowing this information, and being able to access it via direction from 
WiFinder, could provide for a much more profound interaction, specifically for individuals who 
have vision loss, which can limit information access.  The author believes that a general software 
template could be developed, allowing for business entities to use the same to develop 
information hierarchies that can be accessed and navigated by the user.  This template could be 
updated as necessary and exist alongside WiFinder software, which might reside as one part of 
this system.  The creation and organization of such a kit could be complex.   Nonetheless, where 
effectively implemented, it could serve as a competitive advantage within the business sphere. 
8.7 Conclusion 
Ultimately, Wi-Fi is just one medium of many that allows for an interactive approach to 
wayfinding.  There could be other developments and breakthroughs around the corner that 
enhance this approach or prove to be much more effective for interactive uses.  Wi-Max and 
 118 
Ultra Wideband technology are two examples of emerging technologies that might prove more 
effective for these purposes.  The intent of this paper is not to declare that one method trumps all 
others.  The author?s intent has been to demonstrate that wireless, interactive wayfinding is 
already possible.  Further, interactive methods hold a great deal of promise that static wayfinding 
forms may be unable to fill.  The results of this study indicate that static wayfinding forms (such 
as signage) may always hold a place ? perhaps always the most popular place ? among the 
overall population.   However, these often fall short of the needs of those who are disabled, 
particularly individuals who are vision-impaired.  In some contexts, static wayfinding 
approaches may even fall short of the needs of the general population.  Where a need for 
interaction exists, interactive wayfinding approaches based in modern technology may hold the 
key to efficient participation within the environment, alleviating the need for labor-intensive 
methods satisfied by the use of staff or others.  For individuals who suffer from vision loss, 
interactive wayfinding technology methods may encourage an increased participation within 
society, resulting in greater acceptance, achievement, and personal fulfillment.  Whatever the 
method, attaining this goal would represent a major success.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 119 
 
 
 
 
 
Bibliography 
 
 
100th Congress of the United States of America. (1988, January 25). Technology-Related 
Assistance  forIndividuals With Disabiities Act of 1988. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from 
http://resnaprojects.org/: http://resnaprojects.org/nattap/library/laws/techact88.htm 
Agree, E., & Freedman, V. (2003). A Comparison of Assistive Technology and Personal Care in 
Alleviating Disability and Unmet Need. The Gerontologist , 335-344. 
Akkad, O. (2010, March 25). Smart phones give disabled help on the go. Retrieved May 5, 2011, 
from http://www.theglobeandmail.com: 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/smart-phones-give-disabled-help-on-
the-go/article1386235/ 
American Foundation for the Blind. (2008). Facts and Figures on Adults with Vision Loss. 
Retrieved June 20, 2011, from American Foundation for the Blind: 
http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=15&TopicID=413&DocumentID=4900 
American Foundation for the Blind. (2009, February 06). Interpreting BLS Employment Data. 
Retrieved June 20, 2011, from American Foundation for the Blind: 
http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=15&SubTopicID=177 
Apple. (2011, June 18). Vision. Retrieved June 18, 2011, from http://www.apple.com: 
http://www.apple.com/accessibility/iphone/vision.html 
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. (2000). Electronic and Information 
Technology Accessibility Standards; Final Rule. Washington, D.C.: Federal Register. 
Arthur, P., & Passini, R. (1992). Wayfinding: People, Signs, and Architecture. Ontario: 
McGraw-Hill Companies. 
Attainment Company. (2011, June 21). GoTalk Pocket. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from 
http://www.attainmentcompany.com: 
http://www.attainmentcompany.com/product.php?productid=16585 
Auburn University Libraries. (2011, June 1). Haley Center. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from 
http://www.lib.auburn.edu: http://www.lib.auburn.edu/arch/buildings/haley_center.htm 
 120 
Auburn University, College of Education. (2011, June 1). Facilities. Retrieved June 21, 2011, 
from http://www.education.auburn.edu: 
http://www.education.auburn.edu/aboutus/facilities.html 
Bahl, P., & Padmanabhan, V. (2000). RADAR: An In-Building RF-based User Location and 
Tracking System. IEEE INFOCOM 2000 (pp. 1-10). Tel Avv: IEEE. 
Barber, J. (1996). The design of disability products: A psychological perspective. British Journal 
of Occupational Therapy , 561-564. 
Bauer, S., & Lane, J. (2006). Convergence of assistive devices and mainstream products: Keys to 
university participation in research, development and commercialization. Technology and 
Disability , 67-77. 
Bazargan, M., & Hamm-Baugh, V. (1995). The relationship between chronic illness and 
depression in a community of urban black elderly persons. The Journals of Gerontology: 
Series B , 119-27. 
Bell, S., Jung, W., & Krishnakumar, V. (2010). WiFi-based Enhanced Positioning Systems: 
Accuracy through Mapping, Calibration, and Classification. Indoor Spatial Awareness 
(pp. 3-9). San Jose: Geographic Information Systems. 
Bickenbach, J., Chatterji, S., Badley, E., & Ust?n, T. (1999). Models of disablement, 
universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and 
handicaps. Social Science & Medicine, 1173-1187. 
Black, S. (1999). Increased health burden associated with comorbid depression in older diabetic 
Mexican Americans: results from the Hispanic Established Population for the 
Epidemiologic Study of the Elderly survey. Diabetes Care , 56-64. 
Blumberg, S., & Luke, J. (2010). WIreless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the 
National Health Interview Survey, January - June 2010. Atlanta: Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention. 
Borenstein, J., & Ulrich, I. (1997). The GuideCane - A Computerized Travel Aid for the Active 
Guidance of Blind Pedestrians. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on 
Robotics and Automation (pp. 1283- 1288). Albuquerque: International Conference on 
Robotics and Automation. 
Bose, A., & Foh, C. (2007). A practical path loss model for indoor WiFi positioning 
enhancement. 6th International Conference on Information, Communications & Signal 
Processing (pp. 1-5). Singapore: International Conference on Information, 
Communications & Signal Processing. 
 121 
BT. (2011, June 18). BT Big Button 100. Retrieved June 18, 2011, from http://www.bt.com: 
http://www.bt.com/includingyou/products-phones-big-button-100.html 
Burgstahler, S. (2011, June 21). Universal Design: Process, Principles, and Applications. 
Retrieved June 21, 2011, from http://www.washington.edu: 
http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Programs/ud.html 
Bustler. (2010, October 2010). Stirling Prize 2010 Goes to Zaha Hadid's MAXXI Museum in 
Rome. Retrieved June 18, 2011, from http://www.bustler.net: 
http://www.bustler.net/index.php/article/stirling_prize_2010_goes_to_zaha_hadids_maxx
i_museum_in_rome/ 
Canadian Public Transit Discussion Board. (2011, June 18). Wayfinding signage ideas. Retrieved 
June 18, 2011, from http://www.cptkb.ca: 
http://www.cptdb.ca/index.php?showtopic=10492 
Carabellese, C., Appollonio, I., Rozzini, R., Bianchetti, A., Frisoni, G., Frattola, L., et al. (1993). 
Sensory impairment and quality of life in a community elderly population. Journal of the 
American Geriatrics Society , 401-407. 
Carlson, L. (2010). Getting Lost in Buildings. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 
284-289. 
Carpman, J., & Grant, M. (2001). Design That Cares: Planning Health Facilities for Patients 
and Visitors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 
Carpman, J., & Grant, M. (2002). Wayfinding: A broad view. In R. Bechtel, & A. Churchman, 
Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp. 427-442). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 
Chicago Traveler. (2011, June 18). Chicago O'Hare Airport Terminal Map & Airline Listing. 
Retrieved June 18, 2011, from http://www.chicagotraveler.com: 
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.chicagotraveler.com/images/ohare-
airport-terminal-map.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.chicagotraveler.com/chicago-ohare-
airport-map.htm&usg=__C-6Egm8CiBiPEeGTCJ-
MvdByy5I=&h=570&w=905&sz=88&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid 
Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Ageing well in the Information Society - an 
i2010 Initiative - Action Plan on Information and Communication Technologies and 
Ageing. Brussels: EUR-Lex. 
Cook, A. (2010). The Future of Assistive Technologies: A Time of Promise and Apprehension. 
Twelfth Annual ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Assistive Technologies (pp. 1-2). 
Orlando: ASSETS 2010. 
 122 
Cook-Clampert, D. (1981). The development of self-concept in blind children. Journal of Visual 
Impairment and Blindness , 233-238. 
Cooper, R., & Berger, C. (2009, April 04). What's new in wayfinding? Health Facilities 
Management Magazine , pp. 29-34. 
Cowan, D., & Turner-Smith, A. (1999). The role of assistive technology in alternative models of 
care for older people. London: Stationery Office. 
Crandall, W., Bentzen, B., Myers, L., & Brabyn, J. (2001). New orientation and accessibility 
option for persons with visual impairment: transportation applications for remote infrared 
audible signage. Clinical and Experimental Optometry , 120-131. 
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1981). The meaning of things. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
Disability Rights Commission. (2004). The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People. 
London: The Stationery Office. 
Dobransky, K., & Hargittai, E. (2006). The disability divide in internet access and use. 
Information, Communication & Society , 313-334. 
Dreamstime. (2011, June 22). Stock Images: Hearing Aid. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from 
www.dreamstime.com: http://www.dreamstime.com/hearing-aid-image12355964 
Easton, R., & Choll, M. (1995). Object-array structure, frames of reference, and retrieval of 
spatial knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and 
Cognition , 483-500. 
Emiliani, P. (2006). Assistive technology (AT) versus mainstream technology (MST): The 
research perspective. Technology and Disability , 19-29. 
Engage as you age. (2011, June 22). Untreated Hearing Loss, Isolation, Anxiety, Depression and 
Seniors. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://engageasyouage.com: 
http://engageasyouage.com/2011/01/09/untreated-hearing-loss-isolation-anxiety-
depression-and-seniors/ 
Farrell, M., & Robertson, I. (1998). Mental rotation and the automatic updating of bodycentered. 
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition , 227-233. 
Fletcher, V., Bonome-Sims, G., Knecht, B., Ostroff, E., Otitigbe, J., Parente, M., et al. (2010). 
Inclusive Design: U.S. Applied Ergonomics , 1-10. 
Frick, K. D., & Foster, A. (2003). The Magnitude and Cost of Global Blindness: An Increasing 
Problem That Can Be Alleviated. American Journal of Opthalmology , 471-476. 
 123 
Furey, E., Curran, K., & McKevitt, P. (2008). HABITS: A History Aware Based Wi-Fi Indoor 
Tracking System. The 9th Annual Postgraduate Symposium: The convergence of 
Telecommunications, Networking and Broadcasting 2008 (pp. 225-229). Liverpool: 
PGNET 2008. 
Garmin. (2011, June 17). Oregon 550t. Retrieved June 17, 2011, from http://www.garmin.com: 
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/alt-image.do?pID=26876&img=productImageLarge 
Gartner, A., & Joe, T. (1987). Images of the Disabled, Disabling Images. New York: Praeger 
Publishers. 
Gerber, G. (2009, May). Miami International Creates Universal Signage for International 
Travelers. Airport Improvement Magazine . 
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Doubleday. 
Haeberlen, A., Flannery, E., Ladd, A., Rudys, A., Wallach, D., & Kavraki, L. (2004). Practical 
Robust Localization over Large-Scale 802.11 Wireless Networks. Proceedings of the 
tenth annual international conference on Mobile computing and networking (pp. 70-84). 
Philadelphia: MOBICOM. 
Hightower, J., LaMarca, A., & Smith, I. (2006, July). Practical Lessons from Place Lab. 
Pervasive Computing , pp. 32-39. 
Ho, V., & Schwab, I. (2001). Social economic development in the prevention of global 
blindness. British Journal of Ophthalmology , 653-657. 
Hocking, C. (1999). Function or feelings: factors in abandonment of assistive devices. 
Technology and Disability , 3-11. 
Hocking, C. (2000). Having and using objects in the western world. Journal of Occupational 
Science , 148-157. 
Huelat, B. (2004, September 1). The Elements of a Caring Environment - Wayfinding. 
Healthcare Design Magazine , pp. 1-5. 
Hunter, S. (2009). Wayfinding Design Process. Retrieved February 28, 2011, from Universal 
Design E-World: http://udeworld.com/component/content/article/47-wayfinding-
design/60-wayfinding-design-process-general-design-issues.html 
Iachini, T., & Logie, R. (2003). The Role of Perspective in Locating Position in a Real-World, 
Unfamiliar Environment. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 715-732. 
 124 
IDEAL Group. (2011, July 6). IDEAL Group's Android Accessibility Project. Retrieved July 6, 
2011, from ideal-group.org: http://ideal-
group.org/sj131264/problems_encountered_by_individu.htm 
International Coolhunting Magazine. (2011, June 18). RFID CHIP: Foundation Of The 
Electronic Jail? Retrieved June 18, 2011, from http://5magazine.wordpress.com: 
http://5magazine.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/rfid-chip-foundation-of-the-electronic-jail/ 
Jones, K., Liu, L., & Alizadeh-Shabdiz, F. (2007). improving Wireless Positioning with Look-
ahead Map-Matching. The 4th Annual International Conference on Mobile and 
Ubiquitous Systems: Computing, Networking and Services (pp. 1-8). Philadelphia: 
MobiQuitos 2007. 
Kaemarungsi, K., & Krishnamurthy, P. (2004). Modeling of indoor positioning systems based on 
location fingerprinting. Twenty-thrid Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and 
Communications Societies (pp. 1012-1022). Hong Kong: INFOCOM. 
Kane, S., Wobbrock, J., & Ladner, R. (2011). Usable Gestures for Blind People: Understanding 
Preference and Performance. Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human 
factors in computing systems (pp. 413-422). Vancouver: ACM Conference on Human 
Factors in Computing Systems. 
Kent, B., & Smith, S. (2006). They only see it when the sun shines in my ears: Exploring 
perceptions of adolescent hearing aid users. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education , 
461-476. 
Kim, M., Fielding, J., & Kotz, D. (2006). Risks of using AP locations discovered through war 
driving. Pervasive Computing - 4th International Conference (pp. 67-82). Dublin: 
Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 
Krishna, S., Colbry, D., Black, J., Balasubramanian, V., & Panchanathan, S. (2008). A 
Systematic Requirements Analysis and Development of an Assistive Device to Enchance 
the Social Interaction of People Who are Blind or Visually Impaired. Workshop on 
Computer Vision Applications for the Visually Impaired (pp. 1-12). Marseille: Institut 
National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique. 
Ladd, A., Bekris, K., Rudys, A., & Marceau, G. (2002). Robotics-based location sensing using 
wireless Ethernet. Eigth ACM International Conference on Mobile Computing & 
Networking (pp. 227-238). Atlanta: MobiCom. 
Levine, M. (1982). You-are-here maps: psychological considerations. Environment and 
Behavior, 221-237. 
 125 
Levine, M., Jankovic, I., & Palij, M. (1982). Principles of spatial problem solving. Journal of 
Experimental Psychology: General , 157-175. 
Levine, M., Marchon, I., & Hanley, G. (1984). The placement and misplacement of you-are-here 
maps. Environment and Behavior , 139-157. 
Lewis, T., Eckert, C., & Clarkson, P. (2004). Product architecture issues within inclusive design. 
Proceedings of the seventh Workshop on Product Structuring - Product Platform 
Development (pp. 59-67). G?teborg: The Design Society. 
Li, B., Quader, I., & Dempster, A. (2008). On outdoor positioning with Wi-Fi. Journal of Global 
Positioning Systems , 18-26. 
Li, B., Wang, Y., Lee, H., Dempster, A., & Rizos, C. (2005). Method for yielding a database of 
location fingerprints in WLAN. IEEE Proceedings Communications , 580-586. 
Living with Low Vision. (2011). Retrieved May 03, 2011, from American Foundation for the 
Blind: http://www.afb.org/Section.asp?SectionID=26&TopicID=144 
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge: The MIT Press. 
MacMinner, S. (2002, December 4). Wayfinding: Human Perceptions & Orientation; in the Built 
Environment. Retrieved February 26, 2011, from DMC Designs: http://www.wayfinding-
dmcdesigns.ca/Contact_files/Wayfinding%20Human%20Perceptions.pdf 
Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities. (2001). Universal Design New York. New York: 
Vanguard Direct. 
Mobile Future. (2011, June 21). Mobile Year in Review 2010. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from 
http://www.mobilefuture.org: 
http://www.mobilefuture.org/content/pages/mobile_year_in_review_2010?/yearendvideo 
Mok, E., & Retscher, G. (2007). Location determination using WiFi fingerprinting versus WiFi 
trilateration. Journal of Location Based Services , 145-159. 
MoreRFID. (2011, June 18). Products. Retrieved June 18, 2011, from http://www.morerfid.com: 
http://www.morerfid.com/details.php?subdetail=Product&action=details&product_id=37
9&display=RFID 
Mulcahey, M. (1992). Returning to school after a spinla cord injury: Perspectives from four 
adolescents. American Jouranl of Occupational Therapy , 305-312. 
Muller, G. (2007, October). How to relate design decisions to stakeholder satisfaction. Via Nova 
Architectura , pp. 1-10. 
 126 
Newsarama. (2011, June 22). Official: the Apple iPad Revealed! APPs, E-Reader, more. 
Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://www.newsarama.com: 
http://www.newsarama.com/comics/Apple-iPad-Announcement.html 
Ni, L., Liu, Y., Lau, Y., & Patil, A. (2004). LANDMARC: Indoor Location Sensing Using 
Active RFID. Wireless Networks , 701-710. 
Nielsen Wire. (2010a, November 1). Mobile Snapshot: Smartphones Now 28% of U.S. Cellphone 
Market. Retrieved 9 2011, May, from http://blog.nielsen.com: 
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/mobile-snapshot-smartphones-now-
28-of-u-s-cellphone-market/ 
Nielsen Wire. (2010b, March 26). Smartphones to Overtake Feature Phones in U.S. by 2011. 
Retrieved June 2, 2011, from http://blog.nielsen.com: 
http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/smartphones-to-overtake-feature-phones-
in-u-s-by-2011/ 
Office Sign Company. (2011, June 18). ADA Braille Signs. Retrieved June 18, 2011, from Office 
Sign Company: http://www.officesigncompany.com/medical_braille_signs-1.aspx 
Ozel, F. (2001). Time pressure and stress as a factor during emergency stress. Safety Science , 
95-107. 
Palij, M., Levine, M., & Kahan, T. (1984). The orientation of cognitive maps. Bulletin of the 
Psychonomic Society , 105-108. 
Pape, T., Kim, J., & Weiner, B. (2002). The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive 
technology: a review of personal factors. Disability and Rehabilitation , 5-20. 
Pective. (2011, June 22). iPhone 3G. Retrieved June 22, 2011, from http://pective.com: 
http://pective.com/pic/iphone-3g 
Peruch, P., & Savoyant, A. (1993). Route knowledge in different spatial frames of reference. 
Acta Psychologica , 253-269. 
Petrie, H. (2001). Accessibility and usability requirements for ICTs for disabled and elderly 
people: a functional classification approach. In J. Abascal, & C. Nicolle, Inclusive 
guidelines for human computer interaction (pp. 29-60). London: Taylor and Francis. 
Petrie, H., & Edwards, A. (2006). Inclusive design and assistive technology as part of the HCI 
curriculum. Proceedings of HCI Educators Workshop '2006 (pp. 23-24). Limerick: HCI 
Educators Workshop. 
Pick, H., & Rieser, J. (1982). Children?s cognitive mappings. In M. Potegal, Spatial orientation: 
Development and physiological bases (pp. 107-128). New York: Academic Press. 
 127 
Porcelli, A., & Delgado, M. (2009). Acute Stress Modulates Risk Taking in Financial Decision 
Making. Psychological Science , 278-283. 
Presson, C., & Montello, D. (1994). Updating after rotational and translational bodymovements: 
coordinate structure of perspective space. Perception , 1447-1455. 
Prevent Blindness America. (2007). The Economic Impact of Vision Problems. Chicago: Prevent 
Blindness America. 
Pullin, G. (2009). Design meets disability. Cambridge: MIT Press. 
Ravneberg, B. (2009). Identity politics by design - users, markets and the public service 
provision for assistive technology in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Disability 
Research , 101-115. 
Reich, W. (2006). Blindness and the interactional emergence of disability. Scandinavian Journal 
of Disability Research , 247-262. 
Reising, J. (2010, January 29). Walk This Way. SEGD Design , pp. 54-57. 
Resnikoff, S., Pascolini, D., Etya'ale, D., Kocur, I., Pararajasegaram, R., Pokharel, G., et al. 
(2004). Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002. Bulletin of the World Health 
Organization , 844-851. 
Retscher, G. (2006). Performance and Accuracy Test of the WLAN Indoor Positioning System 
"ipos". Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Positioning, Navigation and Communication 
(pp. 7-15). Hannover: Shaker Verlag. 
RFID Journal. (2011, June 21). What is RFID? Retrieved June 2011, 2011, from 
http://www.rfidjournal.com: http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/1339/1/129/ 
Rieser, J. (1998). Access to knowledge of spatial structure at novel points of observation. 
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition , 185-210. 
Roberts, I., & Norton, R. (1995). Sensory deficit and the risk of pedestrian injury. Injury 
Prevention , 12-14. 
Robitaille, S. (2010, October 29). The iPad Rules at ATIA 2010. Retrieved May 9, 2011, from 
http://abledbody.com: http://abledbody.com/profoundlyyours/2010/10/29/the-ipad-rules-
at-atia-2010/ 
Rooke, C., Tzortzopoulos, P., Koskela, L., & Rooke, J. (2009). Wayfinding: embedding 
knowledge in hospital environments. Improving Healthcare Infrastructures Through 
Innovation (pp. 1-17). Brighton: Imperial College Business School. 
 128 
Rovner, B., & Ganguli, M. (1998). Depression and disability associated with impaired vision: the 
MoVies Project. Journal of American Geriatrics Society , 617-619. 
Rovner, B., & Shmuely-Dulitzki, Y. (1997). Screening for depression in low-vision elderly. 
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry , 955-959. 
Rovner, B., Zisselman, P., & Shmuely-Dulitzki, Y. (1996). Depression and disability in older 
people with impaired vision: a follow-up study. Journal of the American Geriatrics 
Society , 181-184. 
Ruddle, J., & P?ruch, P. (2004). Effects of proprioceptive feedback and environmental 
characteristics on spatial learning in virtual environments. International Journal of 
Human-Computer Studies , 299-326. 
Salmi, P. (2007, August). Wayfinding Design: Hidden Barriers to Universal Access. 
Implications, pp. 1-6. 
Salmi, P., Ginthner, D., & Guerin, D. (2002). An exploration of critical factors for accessibility 
and wayfinding for adults with mental retardation. Minneapolis: Unpublished master's 
thesis, University of Minnesota. 
Salmi, P., & Guerin, D. (2007). Identifying and evaluating critical environmental wayfinding 
factors for adults with intellectual disabilities. Minneapolis: Unpublished doctoral 
disseration, University of Minnesota 
Schintlmeister, M. (2010, November 10). Why wayfinding matters from a business perspective. 
Retrieved March 15, 2011, from Airport Excellence: http://www.airport-
excellence.com/blog-Why-wayfinding-matters-from-a-business-perspective,27.html 
Serra, A., Carboni, D., & Marotto, V. (2010). Indoor Pedestrian Navigation System Using a 
Modern Smartphone. Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on Human 
computer interaction with mobile devices and services (pp. 397-398). Lisbon: 
MobileHCI. 
Shinohara, K., & Wobbrock, J. (2011). In the Shadow of Misperception: Assistive Technology 
Use and Social Interactions. Proceedings of the 2011 annual conference on Human 
factors in computing systems (pp. 705-714). Vancouver: ACM Conference on Human 
Factors in Computing Systems. 
Shoval, S., Borenstein, J., & Koren, Y. (1998). Auditory Guidance with the Navbelt - A 
Computerized Travel Aid for the Blind. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and 
Cybernetics , 459-467. 
Shoval, S., Borenstein, J., & Koren, Y. (1994). Mobile robot obstacle avoidance in a 
computerized travel aid for the blind. Proceedings of the 1994 IEEE Robotics and 
 129 
Automation Conference (pp. 2023-2029). San Diego: IEEE Robotics and Automation 
Conference. 
Shoval, S., Borenstein, J., & Koren, Y. (1998). The Navbelt - A Computerized Travel Aid for the 
Blind Based on Mobile Robotics Technology. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical 
Engineering , 1376-1386. 
Skyhook Wireless. (2011, June 20). How It Works. Retrieved June 20, 2011, from 
http://www.skyhookwireless.com: http://www.skyhookwireless.com/howitworks/ 
S?derstr?m, S., & Ytterhus, B. (2010). The use and non-use of assistive technologies from the 
world of information and communication technology by visually impaired young people: 
a walk on the tightrope of peer inclusion. Disability & Society , 303-315. 
Squidoo. (2011, July 6). Cell Phones for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Retrieved July 6, 
2011, from http://www.squidoo.com: http://www.squidoo.com/blind-cell-phone 
St. John's University. (2011, June 10). What is WiFi? Retrieved June 10, 2011, from 
http://www.stjohns.edu: 
http://www.stjohns.edu/faculty/portable_old/portable2/webbasics/wifi.stj 
Stantchev, S., Schulz, T., Hoang, T., & Ratchinski, I. (2008, March). Optimizing Clinical 
Processes with Position-Sensing. IT Professional , pp. 31-37. 
Stroud, S. (2010, September 1). Merging IT with AT: Assistive Tech Joins the Mainstream. 
Retrieved May 9, 2011, from http://thejournal.com: 
http://thejournal.com/articles/2010/09/01/merging-it-with-at-assistive-tech-joins-the-
mainstream.aspx 
Swanson, M., & McGwin, G. (2004). Visual impairment and functional status from the 1995 
National Health Interview Survey on Disability. Ophthalmic Epidemiology , 227-239. 
Tech2. (2011, June 22). Skype Available for Nokia Smartphones on Ovi. Retrieved June 22, 
2011, from http://tech2.in.com: http://tech2.in.com/news/mobile-phones/skype-available-
for-nokia-smartphones-on-ovi/112112 
Tesoriero, R., Gallud, J., Lozano, M., & Penichet, V. (2008). Using Active and Passive RFID 
Technology to Support Indoor Location-Aware Systems. IEEE Transactions on 
Consumer Electronics , 578-583. 
The Furniture Industry Blog. (2011, May 1). Opera house by Zaha Hadid in China. Retrieved 
June 18, 2011, from The Furniture Industry Blog: 
http://thefurnitureindustryblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/opera-house-by-zaha-hadid-in-
china.html 
 130 
Thecoolhunter. (2011, June 18). Vodafone Head Office, Portugal - B, Interior. Retrieved June 
18, 2011, from BCreative: http://www.bcreative.al/vodafone-head-office-portugal/ 
Thorndyke, P., & Hayes-Roth, B. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps 
and navigation. Cognitive Psychology , 560-589. 
Thylefors, B. (1998). A Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Community 
Eye Health Journal , 1-3. 
Tippenhauer, N., Rasmussen, K., P?pper, C., & Capkun, S. (2009). Attacks on Public WLAN-
based Positioning Systems. The 7th ACUM/Usenix International Conference on Mobile 
Systems, Applications and Services (pp. 29-40). Krakow: Association for Computing 
Machinery. 
Transport for London. (2011, June 21). Legible London. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from 
http://www.trl.gov.uk: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/microsites/legible-london/7.aspx 
Traxler, J. (2008). Mobile Subcultures. In S. Wheeler, Connected minds, emerging cultures: 
Cybercultures in online learning (pp. 17-28). Charlotte: Information Age. 
Tuuraan78. (2010, July 30). The main hall of the museum. Retrieved 21 2011, June, from 
http://commons.wikimedia.org: 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Natural_History_Gallery.JPG 
University of Michigan. (2011). What is Wayfinding? Retrieved June 20, 2011, from 
Wayfinding: Navigating Human Space: 
http://www.umich.edu/~wayfind/supplements/moreinfoframeset.htm 
Valvanne, J., Juva, K., Erkinjuntti, T., & Tilvis, R. (1996). Major depression in the elderly: a 
population study in Helsinki. International Psychogeriatrics , 437-443. 
Verizon Wireless. (2011, June 21). http://news.vzw.com. Retrieved June 21, 2011, from News 
Center: http://news.vzw.com/news/2008/03/pr2008-03-28g.html 
Vincent, G. K., & Velkoff, V. A. (2010). The Older Population in the United States: 2010 to 
2050. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce. 
Visual Impact. (2011, June 18). Wayfinding Signage. Retrieved June 18, 2011, from 
http://www.vivisual.com: http://www.vivisual.com/wayfinding_signage.php 
Wahl, H., Heyl, V., Oswald, F., & Winkler, U. (1998). Deteriorating vision in the elderly: double 
stress. Ophthalmologe , 389-399. 
Weinstein, R. (2005, May). RFID: A Technical Overview and Its Applacation to the Enterprise. 
IT Professional , pp. 27-33. 
 131 
Werner, S., & Schindler, L. (2004). The role of spatial reference frames in architecture - 
Misalignment impairs wayfinding performance. Environment and Behavior , 461-482. 
Weyn, M., & Klepal, M. (2009). Adaptive Motion Model for a Smart Phone Based Opportunistic 
Localization System. Mobile Entity Localization and Tracking in GPS-less Environments 
(pp. 50-65). Orlando: Computer Science. 
Weyn, M., & Schrooyen, A. (2008). A Wi-Fi Assisted GPS Positioning Concept. The Third 
European Conference on the Use of Modern Information and Communication 
Technologies (pp. 1-8). Gent: European Conference on the Use of Modern Information 
and Communication Technologies. 
Wielandt, T., McKenna, K., Tooth, L., & Strong, J. (2006). Factors that predict the post-
discharge use of recommended assistive technology. Disability & Rehabilitation , 29-40. 
Wikipedia. (2011, April 20). Kriging. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriging 
Willis, S., & Helal, S. (2005). RFID Information Grid for Blind Navigation and Wayfinding. 
Wearable Computers (pp. 34-37). Gainesville: Proceedings of the 2005 Ninth IEEE 
International Symposium on Wearable Computers. 
Wolffe, K., & Sacks, S. (1997). The Lifestyles of Blind, Low Vision, and Sighted Youths: a 
Quantitative Comparison. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness , 245-257. 
Woo, J., Ho, S., Lau, J., Yuen, Y., Chiu, H. L., & Chi, I. (1994). The prevalence of depressive 
symptoms and predisposing factors in an elderly Chinese population. Acta Psychiatrica 
Scandinavica , 8-13. 
Woo, S., Jeong, S., Mok, E., Xia, L., Choi, C., Pyeon, M., et al. (2011). Application of WiFi-
based indoor positioning system for labor tracking at construction sites: A case study in 
Guangzhou MTR. Automation in Construction , 3-13. 
World Health Organization. (2006). Blindness and Visual Impairment. Retrieved May 12, 2011, 
from http://www.who.int: http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/vision/01_en.html 
World Health Organization. (1995). Global distribution of blindness by age. Retrieved June 18, 
2011, from https://apps.who.int: https://apps.who.int/pbd/pbl/img/bl_age.gif 
Yelamarthi, K., Haas, D., Nielsen, D., & Mothersell, S. (2010). RFID and GPS Integrated 
Navigation System for the Visually Impaired. Circuits and Systems (pp. 1149-1152). 
Seattle: 53rd IEEE International Midwest Symposium. 
Zandbergen, P. (2009). Accuracy of iPhone Locations: A Comparison of Assisted GPS, WiFi 
and Cellular Positioning. Transactions in G.I.S. , 5-25. 
 132 
Zhou, R. (2006). Enhanced wirelesss indoor tracking system in multi-floor buildings with 
location prediction. Proceedings of the twelfth international conference of European 
University Information Systems (pp. 448-453). Tartu: The European University 
Information Systems Organization. 
Zimring, C. (1990). The Cost of Confusion: Non-monetary and monetary cost of the Emory 
University hospital wayfinding system. Unpublished Manuscript. 
Zwerling, C., Whitten, P., Davis, C., & Sprince, N. (1998). Occupational Injuries Among Older 
Workers With Visual, Auditory, and Other Impairments: A Validation Study. Journal of 
Occupational & Environmental Medicine , 720-723.