Evaluation of Qualitative Colour Palettes for Tactile Maps

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Evaluation of qualitative colour palettes for tactile maps” addresses challenges which are easily overlooked by sighted people. Not only because sighted people are not experiencing these challenges themselves, but particularly because they tend to reduce visual impairments to a binary juxtaposition: sighted vs. blind. However, people with visual impairments experience different challenges: some have a complete loss of sight, where others have residual sight, and even others have some form of colour blindness.

The research presented here works from a much more nuanced perspective, acknowledging that visual impairments can be classified along a spectrum and manifest themselves in many different shades. We should welcome such an approach as it helps theoretical researchers and practitioners to address real-life problems and explore viable solutions and aids. For this contribution, this research should be considered – after revision - for publication.

Having said that, there however are some points in the article and the research behind the article which could strengthen the argument as well as the presentation of the research. I will name a number of these.

First, I suggest reviewing the composition of the introduction. As said, the authors work from a nuanced and broad spectrum of potential visual impairments. However, they could improve their presentation by adding a paragraph at the very start of the article, on the diversity and wide-ranging spectrum of VIP, explaining to the uninitiated that many VIP do have some sort of residual vision and still can distinguish colour. Now this context is missing which makes the introduction confusing.

A second caveat to the research pertains to the research design and is caused by the nuanced view of VI: as there is such a wide spectrum of deficiencies, why should we aim for a one-size-fits-all solution? Though the authors seem aware of this, as they state “designing a universal colour palette for tactile maps that is legible, visually appealing and unambiguously assigns colours to their meanings, is impossible” (p. 2, ll. 72-74) , in the same paragraph they remark “colours must consider the needs of the minorities, …, while at the same time cater those who appreciate aesthetically pleasing and easy to read maps”, (p.2, ll. 76-78). These statements seem contradictory, so at least they need elaboration and justification.

My third remark is methodological. Working from a generic approach to serve multiple kinds of visual capabilities requires the researchers to work with a very diverse study group (p. 5, ll. 205-6; p. 7, ll. 284-5)). That diversity however introduces issues in the objectivity, representability, and generalizability of the study. Furthermore, I doubt whether the geographic diversity of the study participants is among the most relevant features to be addressed in coloured-tactile map design (p. 16, ll. 548-9).

My final remark pertains to the development of the argument. P. 2, ll. 92-6 contain the research questions which are addressed in the article. However, they are not explicitly answered within the conclusion. Also, the relevance of the discussion section would be improved by explicit connections to the research questions. The discussion section in its current form is too much a mixed bag of observations, some - but not all – relevant.

 

In conclusion, I must say that after reading the article, I was left with some questions: Why invest in a generic solution which tries to solve everything at once? Why not invest in tailoring tactile maps to address specific VI needs? Should the solution be generic or should we offer a versatility of solutions? Despite those questions, I advise the article for publication, after revision addressing the points mentioned above.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Style / Language

The style and language of the article are at an acceptable level but could be improved on some minor points. Below you’ll find a (non-comprehensive!) list of suggestions (which also can be used to identify similar errors).

63           Thus, legible and >>> Thus, a legible and

64           is insufficient, but also >>> is insufficient. It also

82           lines, emphasizes >>> lines emphasizes

132        When developing the colour >>> The developed colour

132        palettes. We have based >>> palettes are based

136        In our calculations we have based >>> Our calculations are based

144        As basing only on contrast might >>> Contrast only might

150        perceived by a sight >>> perceived by sight

229        noting every omissions >>> noting any omissions

232        indicate, which >>> indicate which

235        verify, how >>> verify how

241        obtaining an unstructured >>> obtaining unstructured

244        session, a researcher asked, which >>> session a researcher asked which

300        testers both iterations >>> testers in both iterations

358        that seemed the most >>> that seemed most

462        bullet point missing?

484        in both, the first >>> in both the first

523        we encourage >>> we encouraged

 

Figures

 

F12        is the drop shadow part of the symbol? If not: omit.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for Your review. Below, please find Your comments in italics and our responses to them in bold.

The article “Evaluation of qualitative colour palettes for tactile maps” addresses challenges which are easily overlooked by sighted people. Not only because sighted people are not experiencing these challenges themselves, but particularly because they tend to reduce visual impairments to a binary juxtaposition: sighted vs. blind. However, people with visual impairments experience different challenges: some have a complete loss of sight, where others have residual sight, and even others have some form of colour blindness.

The research presented here works from a much more nuanced perspective, acknowledging that visual impairments can be classified along a spectrum and manifest themselves in many different shades. We should welcome such an approach as it helps theoretical researchers and practitioners to address real-life problems and explore viable solutions and aids. For this contribution, this research should be considered – after revision - for publication.

Thank you very much for your kind comments.

First, I suggest reviewing the composition of the introduction. As said, the authors work from a nuanced and broad spectrum of potential visual impairments. However, they could improve their presentation by adding a paragraph at the very start of the article, on the diversity and wide-ranging spectrum of VIP, explaining to the uninitiated that many VIP do have some sort of residual vision and still can distinguish colour. Now this context is missing which makes the introduction confusing.

Thank you for this hint. Indeed, people with visual impairments (PVI) can experience diverse consequences of eye diseases and impairments. Low vision does not equate to colour blindness. In the introduction, we have added a paragraph explaining the high interindividual variability among PVI in terms of visual capabilities, and providing examples of different cases.

A second caveat to the research pertains to the research design and is caused by the nuanced view of VI: as there is such a wide spectrum of deficiencies, why should we aim for a one-size-fits-all solution? Though the authors seem aware of this, as they state “designing a universal colour palette for tactile maps that is legible, visually appealing and unambiguously assigns colours to their meanings, is impossible” (p. 2, ll. 72-74) , in the same paragraph they remark “colours must consider the needs of the minorities, …, while at the same time cater those who appreciate aesthetically pleasing and easy to read maps”, (p.2, ll. 76-78). These statements seem contradictory, so at least they need elaboration and justification.

The common problem of many solutions developed for people with special needs, including tactile maps, are never tested in the field. Guidelines, hardware and software as well as other solutions developed by researchers work perfectly in laboratory conditions but are never implemented in reality. This is mainly due to the lack of consideration of user feedback at the development stage.

This feedback differs greatly as particular individuals have different perceptual abilities and preferences. Thus, developing a universal solution that would fully satisfy everyone is impossible. But developing a solution that would be acceptable by every individual is within reach.

One of the principles of universal design that we try to implement in our research work is the equitable use, which requires the design to be useful to people with diverse abilities. In a perfect world, every individual would have access to individually tailored maps. Unfortunately, currently, even in developed countries, there are no cartographic products that take into account the needs of people with visual impairments. The aim of our research is to provide guidelines that would facilitate production of tactile graphics that would be accessible to the largest possible group of recipients without increasing their costs.

To sum up, I cannot agree that the statements cited are contradictory. I would even say that they are complementary. Nevertheless, we have modified this part of the manuscript and hope that this better clarifies our reasoning.

My third remark is methodological. Working from a generic approach to serve multiple kinds of visual capabilities requires the researchers to work with a very diverse study group (p. 5, ll. 205-6; p. 7, ll. 284-5)). That diversity however introduces issues in the objectivity, representability, and generalizability of the study. Furthermore, I doubt whether the geographic diversity of the study participants is among the most relevant features to be addressed in coloured-tactile map design (p. 16, ll. 548-9).

Thank you very much for your attention regarding the research methodology. In our research, we attach great importance to the selection of the research group. Therefore, we took particular care to diversify it in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and visual capabilities of the study participants. As we noted in section 3.2. Map evaluation, we involved 16 PVI with various diseases and functional consequences. The group is diverse in terms of education and experience with tactile maps, as well as the need to use large print and optical aids. We agree that geographic diversity, which is not high within the group, is not a key problem. Taking into account other differentiating features, as well as the advanced research procedure, we are convinced that the test results allow for generalization of the conclusions.

My final remark pertains to the development of the argument. P. 2, ll. 92-6 contain the research questions which are addressed in the article. However, they are not explicitly answered within the conclusion. Also, the relevance of the discussion section would be improved by explicit connections to the research questions. The discussion section in its current form is too much a mixed bag of observations, some - but not all – relevant.

Thank you for this remark. We refer directly to the research questions in the first paragraphs of the discussion section - they are not discussed in the conclusion. Besides, I am quite surprised by Your comment that suggests the “lack of explicit connections to the research questions” in the discussion section. We directly refer to the research questions by putting their numbers in parentheses whenever we discuss the results.

However, I must admit that in its current form, this section lacks the actual discussion and rather sums up the results section. For that reason, we have modified this section by adding our comments to the results.

In conclusion, I must say that after reading the article, I was left with some questions: Why invest in a generic solution which tries to solve everything at once? Why not invest in tailoring tactile maps to address specific VI needs? Should the solution be generic or should we offer a versatility of solutions? Despite those questions, I advise the article for publication, after revision addressing the points mentioned above.

Thank you for your recommendation. We hope that the above comments and our modifications to the manuscript have answered your questions.

The style and language of the article are at an acceptable level but could be improved on some minor points. Below you’ll find a (non-comprehensive!) list of suggestions (which also can be used to identify similar errors).

The typos have been corrected. Thank you for pointing them out.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for your contribution. I have no comments on your research. I think you will enrich the theory and practice of cartography for disabled people with your research.

Author Response

Dear authors, thank you for your contribution. I have no comments on your research. I think you will enrich the theory and practice of cartography for disabled people with your research.

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your kind comments. We are glad that you appreciate our work. Please see the revised version of the manuscript, based on the comments from other reviewers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The suggested paper presents an interesting and very relevant topic in the domain of tactile cartography. Such a study of evaluating colour usability in current tactile maps is very relevant. I found the methodology and results described clearly. My only suggestion would be to move some paper parts, e.g. lines 258–292 and 296–299, from Chapter 3 (Results) into Chapter 2 (Materials and Methods) as, in my opinion, they describe the methodology of the experiment rather than its results. However, this should be understood only as my alternative suggestion as the current state is not disturbing the readers from a clear understanding of the flow.

Otherwise, I found only minor typos:
- the letter "i" is missing in the "if" condition in Formula 3
- 4B label missing on Figure 3

Overall, I consider this article to be well-written, clear to understand, applying objective methods and providing relevant results. Therefore, I recommend it for publication. I only suggest the authors to consider my idea of structure changes (moving some text segments from Results into Methodology) and recommend correcting the two minor typos before final publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for Your review. Below, please find Your comments in italics and our responses to them in bold.

 

The suggested paper presents an interesting and very relevant topic in the domain of tactile cartography. Such a study of evaluating colour usability in current tactile maps is very relevant. I found the methodology and results described clearly. 

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your kind comments. We are glad that you appreciate our work.

My only suggestion would be to move some paper parts, e.g. lines 258–292 and 296–299, from Chapter 3 (Results) into Chapter 2 (Materials and Methods) as, in my opinion, they describe the methodology of the experiment rather than its results. However, this should be understood only as my alternative suggestion as the current state is not disturbing the readers from a clear understanding of the flow.

Thank you for your suggestion of moving some paragraphs from the Results into the Methodology. However, since none of the other 3 reviewers suggested such modifications, we assume that the manuscript is comprehensible in its current form.

Otherwise, I found only minor typos:

- the letter "i" is missing in the "if" condition in Formula 3

- 4B label missing on Figure 3

The typos have been corrected. Thank you for pointing them out.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, congratulations on your work.

It was a great pleasure to read it: interesting research, with quite strong analysis and documentation and detailed presentation. Because it deals with color, which is a matter of appearance, it is strongly suggested that the maps and color samples/patches used in this study, are also presented in the way the specific colors are perceived in the three colorblind conditions examined. More specifically, the maps included in Figures 2 and 3 and color patches of Figures 1, 4 and 9 should be converted to simulate the protanopia, deuteranopia and tritanopia conditions, and the new images to form a new appendix at the end of the paper.

Thus, it will be documented and proven that the selected/proposed colors are recognized as different and can function as expected in the use of the maps, i.e. that they have the expected functionality and efficiency in the transmission of cartographic information. This, in addition to better documentation, will raise awareness of the issue of creating cartographic products in a more inclusive way.

I wish you the best of success!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for Your review. Below, please find Your comments in italics and our responses to them in bold.

 

Dear authors, congratulations on your work.

It was a great pleasure to read it: interesting research, with quite strong analysis and documentation and detailed presentation.

Dear Reviewer,

first of all, thank you very much for your kind comments. We are glad that you appreciate our work.

Because it deals with color, which is a matter of appearance, it is strongly suggested that the maps and color samples/patches used in this study, are also presented in the way the specific colors are perceived in the three colorblind conditions examined. More specifically, the maps included in Figures 2 and 3 and color patches of Figures 1, 4 and 9 should be converted to simulate the protanopia, deuteranopia and tritanopia conditions, and the new images to form a new appendix at the end of the paper.

Thus, it will be documented and proven that the selected/proposed colors are recognized as different and can function as expected in the use of the maps, i.e. that they have the expected functionality and efficiency in the transmission of cartographic information. This, in addition to better documentation, will raise awareness of the issue of creating cartographic products in a more inclusive way.

Based on your suggestion, we have added another appendix to the manuscript, in which particular study maps (Figure 3) are presented in a way that they are perceived by people with different types of CVD, specifically: protanopia, deuteranopia, tritanopia and achromatopsia.

However, given that many online CVD simulators do exist, we have not included simulations of all the figures you have mentioned as everyone interested could verify the palettes by himself.