LASIGE Talks are fortnightly/monthly events to publicize recently distinguished publications or ongoing cutting-edge work by researchers from the research centre, consolidating the scientific culture of the LASIGE community.

Speakers: João Guerreiro (LASIGE/FCUL) and Letícia Seixas Pereira (LASIGE)
Date: May 28th, 2025, Wednesday
Where: C6.3.27

Program:
11:45 João Guerreiro
12:05 Letícia Seixas Pereira
12:25 Q&A + Break for snacks & coffee

Talk1: Investigating Virtual Reality Locomotion Techniques With Blind People
Speaker: João Guerreiro
Current Virtual Reality (VR) applications rely heavily on visual feedback to navigate the environment, creating major barriers for blind people. Prior research has focused on custom locomotion techniques that require specialized equipment and are not available in mainstream VR. As a result, it is unclear how popular techniques
can support blind users, limiting their access to most VR experiences. We adapted three popular techniques — Arm Swinging, Linear Movement, and Point & Teleport — with haptic and audio feedback, and conducted a study with 14 blind people to explore: 1) performance and preferences; 2) how each technique’s strengths and users’ strategies impact performance. I’ll walk you through the key insights in the talk, including technique-specific advantages and challenges.

Talk2: Exploring Mobile Device Accessibility: Challenges, Insights, And Recommendations For Evaluation Methodologies
Speaker: Letícia Seixas Pereira
Mobile applications are pervasive in contemporary digital ecosystems, yet their accessibility remains difficult to assess due to the absence of established, mobile-specific evaluation standards. While web accessibility is supported by mature frameworks, mobile contexts present unique challenges that are not adequately addressed by existing methodologies. This research investigates current mobile accessibility evaluation practices through four complementary studies: analysis of EU monitoring reports, expert interviews, manual
assessments, and user testing. Findings reveal methodological inconsistencies, limited user involvement, and a lack of harmonized guidance. We present recommendations to support more rigorous and inclusive evaluation approaches.