Technological and design interventions for independent public transport use by people with visual impairments

INTRODUCTION

People who are blind or have low vision depend on public transport more than the general population, yet the built and digital environments of transit systems remain oriented toward sighted users.(1)

An estimated 43 million people worldwide were blind and a further 295 million had moderate or severe vision impairment in 2020, and most lived in low and middle income countries where accessible transport infrastructure is scarcest.(2)

For these travellers, the journey chain that links trip planning, walking to a stop, waiting, boarding, riding and alighting is interrupted at multiple points by information that is presented only visually, by uneven or obstructed walking surfaces, and by the absence of consistent audible or tactile cues.(1,3)

Surveys of blind and low vision adults describe the same recurring failures: stops whose identity cannot be confirmed from the vehicle, vehicles that arrive without audible route announcements, and stations in which braille signs exist but are placed where they cannot be found.(1,3)

The consequence is measurable: persons with visual impairments report elevated stress during transit use and reduced independent mobility, which restricts employment, health care and social participation.(4,5)

In response, two broad families of intervention have developed. The first family comprises technological aids, including smartphone navigation applications, computer vision systems that detect vehicles and route numbers, Bluetooth beacons and electronic travel aids that convert spatial information into audio or haptic output.(6,7)

More recently this family has incorporated artificial intelligence, with adaptive assistants that describe the environment, collective intelligence across internet of things devices and behaviour adaptive interfaces that respond to individual users, all of which remain mostly at the prototype stage.(8-11)

The second family comprises design interventions embedded in infrastructure, such as tactile paving, braille signage, audible announcements and the physical configuration of stations and transit plazas.(12,13)

Systematic reviews of wayfinding and mobility technologies have been published, but they concentrate on general pedestrian navigation rather than on public transport specifically, and they rarely separate the two families of intervention.(14-16)

A scoping review of access to public transport for people with visual disability confirmed that intervention studies are scarce and heterogeneous, which prevents decision makers from distinguishing what works from what has merely been prototyped.(12)

The primary outcome of interest in this review is wayfinding and detection performance, defined as the accuracy with which a technological or design intervention lets a traveller locate, identify or move through the elements of a public transport journey, and the secondary outcomes are usability, satisfaction, perceived safety and reported travel independence.

The distinction matters because technical accuracy does not automatically translate into independent use by people with visual impairments, a gap documented repeatedly in assistive technology research.(17,18)

Studies of walking environments also show that physical barriers and tactile surfaces condition what any assistive device can achieve, which makes the interaction between technology and infrastructure part of the outcome rather than a constant background.(19,20)

Several recent systems report near perfect detection in controlled conditions, but few are tested with the intended users, and even fewer measure whether travel behaviour changes.(21,22)

Needs assessments in diverse cities repeat the same finding: users ask for reliable orientation information and warning signals more than for additional sensing capacity.(23,24)

The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize the evidence on technological and design interventions intended to improve the independent use of public transport by people with visual impairments.

The review question was which technological and design interventions improve that independent use, examined through the primary outcome of wayfinding and detection performance and the secondary outcomes of usability, satisfaction, perceived safety and independence. The review deliberately included both technical validations and user centred evaluations, so that the distance between what a system detects and what a user accomplishes could be made visible, and it restricted its scope to the public transport journey while drawing on the wider wayfinding literature for interpretation rather than for evidence.

METHODS

This review followed the PRISMA 2020 statement and the PRISMA-S extension for reporting literature searches.(25,26)

Eligibility was defined with the PICOS elements. The population comprised people who are blind or have low vision, including users of white canes, guide dogs and residual vision. The intervention comprised any technological aid, such as a smartphone application, computer vision or beacon system, or any design intervention, such as tactile paving, braille signage, audible announcements or station configuration, intended to improve a stage of the public transport journey from trip planning to alighting.

The comparator was usual practice, no aid, or an alternative intervention. The outcomes were wayfinding and detection performance as the primary outcome, and usability, satisfaction, perceived safety and reported independence as secondary outcomes. Eligible designs included technical validations, usability studies, field evaluations, surveys and mixed methods studies, and grey literature was admissible when it reported an empirical evaluation, which allowed the inclusion of one institutional report.

Studies were excluded when the population did not include people with visual impairments, when the intervention did not target public transport, when no outcome was measured, when the record was a review, editorial or study protocol, or when the report duplicated an already included study. The bibliographic window was 2013 to 2026, consistent with the target volume, and no language restriction was applied.

RESULTS

Study selection

The database searches identified 912 records, of which 209 were duplicates, leaving 703 records screened at the title and abstract stage (Figure 1). Scopus contributed 412 of the identified records, OpenAlex and Crossref contributed 200 each, and Semantic Scholar contributed 100. Of the 703 screened records, 606 were excluded and 97 reports were sought for retrieval. Full texts could not be retrieved for 76 reports because no open access version was available or the publisher blocked automated download.

The remaining 21 reports were assessed for eligibility, and 11 were excluded: six because the intervention did not target public transport, two because no outcome was measured, two because the population did not have visual impairments, and one because the record was a study protocol. Ten studies were included in the review.

DISCUSSION

The principal finding of this review is that technological interventions for public transport access by people with visual impairments achieve high technical accuracy, with detection figures between 96.89 percent and 100 percent, while the evidence that these systems improve independent use by the intended users is thin. Only six of the ten included studies collected outcome data from people with visual impairments, none measured trip completion or travel frequency, and all were judged at high risk of bias.

The hierarchy of outcomes therefore shows a wide gap between the primary outcome of detection performance, which is well populated, and the secondary outcomes of usability, satisfaction, safety and independence, which rest on small, unreported or qualitative samples. The review answers its question in two parts: the field has demonstrated that vehicles, signs and stops can be detected reliably, and it has not yet demonstrated that this detection changes what a blind or low vision traveller can accomplish independently. This conclusion is more specific than the general statement that wayfinding technology works, because it separates the technical and behavioural claims that are often reported together.

The high technical accuracy reported here is consistent with the broader literature on assistive navigation. Systematic reviews of wayfinding tools and wearable orientation devices for people with visual impairments likewise document strong prototype performance and weak user centred evaluation.(14,15)

Comparable systems such as an outdoor navigation assistance application for public transportation and recent electronic travel aids report accurate localization and obstacle detection.(7,37)

The single included study that measured human wayfinding behaviour suggests that such benefits are achievable when users are actually tested, but the remaining public transport specific studies concentrated on object detection, an emphasis also visible in the mobility technology literature.(16)

Viewed against the journey chain, the included interventions cluster around two stages, the middle mile inside stations and the moment of boarding, and leave the first and last mile comparatively unaddressed within public transport evaluations. This is the inverse of the wider navigation literature, which is rich in first and last mile pedestrian systems and comparatively thin on station interiors, so the two bodies of work are complementary rather than overlapping.(38,39)

The practical consequence is that a blind traveller could in principle assemble a working journey from separate tools, one for the street, one for the station and one for the bus, but no included study evaluated such an integrated journey, and the integration burden falls on the user. The booking stage, which precedes all physical travel, was addressed by only one included study, despite being the stage at which a poorly designed interface first excludes blind users.(35)

The secondary outcome findings are also consistent with prior work. The perception that accessibility emerges from the interaction of passengers, staff, devices and infrastructure, rather than from any single intervention, was described for visually impaired tramway passengers in Linz, and it explains why segment level accessibility scores in the Jakarta transit plaza ranged from 72 to 89 percent instead of reaching a uniform standard.(13,33)

The finding that tactile orientation media did not meet minimum service standards parallels studies of tactile paving maintenance and of bus stop location errors, which identify the same discrepancy between design provision and daily usability.(34,40)

The journey experience of visually impaired people in London showed the same pattern at the scale of a whole network: the infrastructure existed, but its usefulness depended on information, staff behaviour and predictability rather than on the presence of any single feature.(1)

The general problem that transit accessibility metrics overstate the experience of users with disabilities has been termed accessibility misrepresentation, and it frames the present gap between technical and user measured outcomes.(41)

The interface redesign result adds a note of optimism: when design was driven by the observed behaviour of visually impaired users, task completion improved, which is consistent with the wider assistive technology literature on user centred design as a precondition for usable assistive systems.(9,35)

Several sources of heterogeneity explain the variation across studies. The first is measurement: technical validations quantify accuracy, whereas design evaluations quantify perceived accessibility or usability, so the two families of study are not directly comparable.(22)

The second is context: systems developed in North America, Southeast Asia and Europe differ in transit infrastructure, in the availability of connectivity and in the cultural expectations around assistance from fellow passengers.(5,23)

The third is the population: low vision and blindness span very different degrees of residual sight, and interventions that suit one subgroup, such as optical character recognition for near text, may be irrelevant to another.(24)

The fourth is the maturity of the technology, since beacon and computer vision systems evaluated in controlled conditions consistently outperform the same systems under rain, snow or low light, as the Ukrainian application showed.(32) None of these sources was reported with enough consistency to be modelled quantitatively, so the synthesis could only describe them.

The navigation systems developed outside public transport nevertheless point to transferable design principles. Camera based positioning applications such as GoodMaps and indoor outdoor systems such as CityGuide demonstrate that accurate localization can be achieved without new infrastructure, while audio vibratory maps and tactile map production methods show that the format of spatial information, not only its accuracy, determines usability for blind users.(38,42-44) Comparative studies of wayfinding modalities and of obstacles to indoor wayfinding converge on the same conclusion: users prefer multimodal feedback and struggle when a single sensory channel carries all navigation information.(39,45)

Accessible maps proposed for inclusive ridesharing extend these principles to vehicle based services, which suggests that the booking and in vehicle stages of a journey could adopt the same audio first design language.(46)

The two sense principle identified by the included tramway study, in which warning signals should reach the user through two sensory channels rather than one, is a concrete translation of this multimodal requirement that transit agencies could specify in their accessibility standards.(13)

The gap between technical and experienced accessibility is also recognized in the transport planning literature. Participatory methods that bridge conceived and perceived public transport accessibility, and system facilitated accessibility metrics, have been proposed precisely because conventional network measures miss the barriers that matter to users with disabilities.(47,48)

Equity oriented analyses built on general transit feed specification data and planning studies in mid sized cities reach the same conclusion: accessibility for people with disabilities requires user informed measures rather than aggregate network indicators.(49,50)

These planning insights reinforce the methodological message of this review, which is that detection accuracy alone is an insufficient outcome for assistive transport technology.

Several mechanisms plausibly explain why high detection accuracy did not translate into demonstrated independence. The first is cognitive load: a system that detects a sign or a vehicle still requires the user to integrate sequential audio instructions with residual sight, hearing and haptic cues while walking, and that integration cost is not captured by detection metrics.(24,39)

The second is trust and calibration: users abandon aids that produce unpredictable or unexplained errors, and trust grows slowly through repeated successful use, which single session technical validations cannot observe.(17) The third is infrastructure dependence: computer vision and beacon systems perform only where signs, connectivity and maintenance are adequate, so accuracy measured in a well provisioned station does not generalize to the degraded environments where blind travellers most need help.(19,20) The fourth is the mismatch between the intervention and the users priorities, since needs assessments consistently rank reliable warning signals and orientation information above additional detection features.(23)

The uniformly high risk of bias also has a field level consequence. When every evaluation lacks a controlled comparison, the literature cannot distinguish a genuinely effective system from a well described prototype, and decision makers lack the counterfactual they would need to judge whether an investment in one intervention is better than an investment in another.

The absence of adverse event reporting compounds the problem, because it removes the signal that would normally separate mature technologies from early prototypes. A shared reporting standard for assistive transport evaluations, analogous to those used in clinical assistive technology research, would make the next generation of studies more useful than the current one.(27)

The review has strengths that should be weighed against its limitations. It is, to our knowledge, the first synthesis restricted to public transport rather than to wayfinding in general, and it separated the primary outcome of detection performance from the secondary outcomes that matter to users. It recorded the search strategy with dates and record counts, it distinguished technical from user measured outcomes for every included study, and it did not adjust the flow diagram counts by hand. These choices make the central finding, that the evidence base is technically rich and behaviourally thin, a property of the literature rather than an artefact of the synthesis.

The findings also align with and extend a prior scoping review of access to public transport for people with visual disability, which concluded that intervention studies were scarce and heterogeneous.(12)

The present review quantifies that scarcity, locating ten evaluative studies across a thirteen year window, and it adds the outcome hierarchy that the scoping review could not, by separating what the systems detect from what the users accomplish. The two reviews together support a single recommendation: the field should stop multiplying single purpose prototypes and start running controlled, user centred evaluations of the most promising systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Technological and design interventions for public transport use by people with visual impairments achieve high technical detection accuracy, between 96.89 percent and 100 percent for vehicle and route recognition and 0.97 for in-station sign detection, but this performance has not been translated into demonstrated improvements in independent travel. The secondary outcomes of usability, satisfaction, perceived safety and independence are supported only by small, largely qualitative studies, and all ten included studies were at high risk of bias. The evidence therefore supports a conditional conclusion: the technology is mature enough to warrant deployment in controlled pilots, but it is not yet mature enough to justify claims of independent mobility.

The implication for the field is that the next generation of evaluations should measure what users with visual impairments actually accomplish during a public transport journey, not only what the technology detects. Until such evidence exists, transit agencies should commission user centred validation of any navigation or design intervention before relying on it as an accessibility solution, and funders should require outcome measures of trip completion, errors and abandonment alongside detection accuracy.

References

1. 1 Low WY, Cao M, De Vos J, Hickman R. The journey experience of visually impaired people on public transport in London. Transport Policy. 2020;97:137-148. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.07.018
2. 2 Steinmetz JD, Bourne RRA, Briant PS, Flaxman SR, Taylor HRB, Jonas JB, et al. Causes of blindness and vision impairment in 2020 and trends over 30 years, and prevalence of avoidable blindness in relation to VISION 2020: the Right to Sight: an analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet Global Health. 2021;9(2):e144-e160. doi: 10.1016/s2214-109x (20)30489-7
3. 3 Crudden A, McDonnall MC, Hierholzer A. Transportation: An Electronic Survey of Persons who Are Blind or Have Low Vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 2015;109(6):445-456. doi: 10.1177/0145482x1510900603
4. 4 Crudden A, Cmar JL, McDonnall MC. Stress Associated with Transportation: A Survey of Persons with Visual Impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 2017;111(3):219-230. doi: 10.1177/0145482x1711100303
5. 5 Silveira CS, Dischinger M. The orientation and mobility of visual impaired people in bus and subway networks in Brazil. Ambient constr. 2019;19(1):195-208. doi: 10.1590/s1678-86212019000100301
6. 6 Fernandes H, Costa P, Filipe V, Paredes H, Barroso J. A review of assistive spatial orientation and navigation technologies for the visually impaired. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2019;18(1):155-168. doi: 10.1007/s10209-017-0570-8
7. 7 Kuriakose B, Shrestha R, Sandnes FE. Multimodal Navigation Systems for Users with Visual Impairments—A Review and Analysis. MTI. 2020;4(4):73. doi: 10.3390/mti4040073
8. 8 Hersh M. Mobility Technologies for Blind, Partially Sighted and Deafblind People: Design Issues. In: Signals and Communication Technology. Springer Nature Switzerland; 2026. p. 453-494. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-91550-5_17
9. 9 Acheampong E, Kasore V, Kponyo Agyei B, Owusu-Ansah RY, Owusu Ansah JK, Owusu-Ansah E, et al. Integrating artificial intelligence into design and development of assistive technologies: user needs and preferences in Ghana. Journal of Enabling Technologies. 2026;20(3):177-187. doi: 10.1108/jet-10-2025-0081
10. 10 Nasabeh S, Meliá S, Aragonés J, Leporini B, Gadzhimusieva D. Collective intelligence in adaptive IoT-based assistive technologies for visually impaired users in indoor environments. Internet of Things. 2026;39:102070. doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2026.102070
11. 11 Algamdi SA. A behaviour-adaptive AI assistant enhancing accessibility and usability for blind users through real-time interaction personalization. Sci Rep. 2026;16(1):12666. doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-43320-2
12. 12 Boadi-Kusi SB, Amoako-Sakyi RO, Abraham CH, Addo NA, Aboagye-McCarthy A, Gyan BO. Access to public transport to persons with visual disability: A scoping review. British Journal of Visual Impairment. 2024;42(1):71-85. doi: 10.1177/02646196231167072
13. 13 Mimra D, Kaar D, Del Re E, Certad N, Cherian Varughese J, Seibt D, et al. Understanding Visually Impaired Tramway Passengers' Interaction with Public Transport Systems. AHFE International. 2025;186:199-208. doi: 10.54941/ahfe1006509
14. 14 Parker AT, Swobodzinski M, Wright JD, Hansen K, Morton B, Schaller E. Wayfinding Tools for People With Visual Impairments in Real-World Settings: A Literature Review of Recent Studies. Front Educ. 2021;6:723816. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.723816
15. 15 Santos ADPD, Suzuki AHG, Medola FO, Vaezipour A. A Systematic Review of Wearable Devices for Orientation and Mobility of Adults With Visual Impairment and Blindness. IEEE Access. 2021;9:162306-162324. doi: 10.1109/access.2021.3132887
16. 16 Madake J, Bhatlawande S, Solanke A, Shilaskar S. A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Research in Mobility Technologies for Visually Impaired People. IEEE Access. 2023;11:82496-82520. doi: 10.1109/access.2023.3291074
17. 17 Acheampong E, Kasore V, Kponyo BA, Owusu-Ansah RY, Owusu-Ansah JK, Ansah O, et al. Barriers to assistive technology uptake among persons with disabilities in selected urban districts in Ghana. Sci Rep. 2025;16(1):1838. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-31466-4
18. 18 Asiri AM, Barayan AMA, Almutairi AAAM, Alamri JM. Artificial intelligence and the enhancement of quality of life for individuals with visual impairments: a systematic review. Discov Educ. 2026;5(1):454. doi: 10.1007/s44217-026-01173-x
19. 19 Pozzobon OJ, Bertagnolli LG, Cervo TC, Ruiz-Padillo A. Evaluating urban accessibility barriers to walking for people with physical–motor and visual disabilities: A FAHP-based approach. Habitat International. 2026;174:103867. doi: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2026.103867
20. 20 Rafful Garfias FJ, Namboodiri V, Joseph S. Quantifying Navigational Difficulty for Visually Impaired Users in Indoor Spaces with AccessQuotient. Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 2025:1-5. doi: 10.1145/3663547.3759696
21. 21 Teran LA, Lorrane Nobre Melo G, Souza Da Costa Silva S, Christoph De Oliveira Käppler K, Pereira Mota M. Navigating the Last Decade: A Systematic Literature Review on Accessible Georeferencing Mobile Apps. IEEE Access. 2025;13:191941-191958. doi: 10.1109/access.2025.3630560
22. 22 Feghali JM, Feng C, Majumdar A, Ochieng WY. Comprehensive Review: High-Performance Positioning Systems for Navigation and Wayfinding for Visually Impaired People. Sensors. 2024;24(21):7020. doi: 10.3390/s24217020
23. 23 Said H. Awad. Evaluation of the Needs of Individuals with Visual Impairments in Jerusalem and Its Suburbs: An Analytical Study of Available Services. jidmis. 2026;3(7s):644-670. doi: 10.59543/jidmis.v3.1714
24. 24 Papadopoulos K, Koustriava E, Kouroupetroglou G, Gumus SS, Stylianidis E, Müller K, et al. Environmental information required by individuals with visual impairments who use orientation and mobility aids to navigate indoor places. British Journal of Visual Impairment. 2025;43(3):755-765. doi: 10.1177/02646196241270765
25. 25 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
26. 26 Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
27. 27 Hong QN, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, Dagenais P, et al. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) version 2018 for information professionals and researchers. EFI. 2018;34(4):285-291. doi: 10.3233/efi-180221
28. 28 Feng J, Beheshti M, Philipson M, Ramsaywack Y, Porfiri M, Rizzo JR. Commute Booster: A Mobile Application for First/Last Mile and Middle Mile Navigation Support for People With Blindness and Low Vision. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2023;11:523-535. doi: 10.1109/jtehm.2023.3293450
29. 29 Paul AM, Flynn CGL, Panneton J, Komissar JI. Improving Accessibility of Public Transport Information for the Blind [Internet]. Worcester Polytechnic Institute; 2018. Available from: https://digital.wpi.edu/downloads/sx61dm63g
30. 30 Ponnada S, Sekharamantry PK, Dayal A, Yarramalle S, Vadaparthi N, Hemanth J. An assisting model for the visually challenged to detect bus door accurately. TELKOMNIKA. 2021;19(6):1924. doi: 10.12928/telkomnika.v19i6.19811
31. 31 Tangsuksant W, Wada C. Classification of Viewpoints Related to Bus-Waiting for the Assistance of Blind People. International Journal of New Technology and Research. 2018;4(9). doi: 10.31871/ijntr.4.9.16
32. 32 Барковська ОЮ, Нечітайло ОВ, Сердечний ВС, Батурін ОО. Software Application for Assisting Visually Impaired Persons at Public Transport Stops. ІКСЗТ. 2025;30(3):38-48. doi: 10.18664/ikszt.v30i3.351322
33. 33 Bonita T, L. Lukman A. ACCESSIBILITY EVALUATION OF THE TRANSIT PLAZA OF TANAH ABANG STATION ACCORDING TO USERS WITH VISUAL IMPAIRMENT. RISA. 2021;6(01):1-19. doi: 10.26593/risa.v6i01.5423.1-19
34. 34 Fadhlillah F. Surveillance on Tactile-Based Media Accessibility Levels for the Visually Impaired in Bandung Train Stations. INKLUSI. 2023;9(2):145-166. doi: 10.14421/ijds.090202
35. 35 Zahib MA, Effendy V, Darwiyanto E. Designing User Experience for Improving Mobile Application Accessibility Online Transport Booking for Visually-Impaired User With User-Centered Design: A Case Study of Grab. josh. 2022;4(1):42-52. doi: 10.47065/josh.v4i1.2246
36. 36 Pittet CE, Ortega EV, Fabien M, Wallace MT, Gori M, Murray MM. Efficacy of electronic travel aids for the blind and visually impaired during wayfinding. Sci Rep. 2026;16(1):6423. doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-37578-9
37. 37 Martinez-Cruz S, Morales-Hernandez LA, Perez-Soto GI, Benitez-Rangel JP, Camarillo-Gomez KA. An Outdoor Navigation Assistance System for Visually Impaired People in Public Transportation. IEEE Access. 2021;9:130767-130777. doi: 10.1109/access.2021.3111544
38. 38 Cheraghi SA, Namboodiri V, Arsal G. CityGuide: a seamless indoor–outdoor wayfinding system for people with vision impairments. Univ Access Inf Soc. 2024;23(4):1843-1855. doi: 10.1007/s10209-023-01009-7
39. 39 Heydarian CH, Hanuschock WE, Baguhn SJ, Wong C, Silverman AM. Way to Go: Obstacles and Solutions to Indoor Wayfinding for People Who Are Blind or Have Low Vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. 2025;119(6):516-523. doi: 10.1177/0145482x251397990
40. 40 Elorduy JL, Awodele IA. Assessing bus stop accessibility for persons with reduced mobility in Durban, South Africa. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Municipal Engineer. 2026:1-14. doi: 10.1680/jmuen.26.00031
41. 41 Qu Y, Currie G, Webb GI. “Accessibility misrepresentation” in public transport. Journal of Transport Geography. 2026;133:104632. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2026.104632
42. 42 Palilonis J. GoodMaps: Assessing an Indoor Navigation App Built on Camera-based Positioning. AHFE International. 2024;157:544-555. doi: 10.54941/ahfe1005514
43. 43 Sargsyan E, Oriola B, Serrano M, Jouffrais C. Audio-Vibratory You-Are-Here Mobile Maps for People with Visual Impairments. Proc ACM Hum-Comput Interact. 2024;8(ISS):624-648. doi: 10.1145/3698151
44. 44 Eraslan A, Doğru AÖ, Uluğtekin NN. User Experience-Based Evaluation of Tactile Map Production Methods for Wayfinding Among People with Visual Impairments. IJGI. 2026;15(7):326. doi: 10.3390/ijgi15070326
45. 45 Swobodzinski M, Parker AT, Schaller E, Snow D. An exploratory comparative analysis of wayfinding modalities across indoor and outdoor environments: performance and individual characteristics of visually impaired travelers. GeoJournal. 2026;91(2):35. doi: 10.1007/s10708-026-11590-y
46. 46 Fink PDS, Milne H, Caccese A, Alsamsam M, Loranger J, Colley M, et al. Accessible Maps for the Future of Inclusive Ridesharing. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 2024:106-115. doi: 10.1145/3640792.3675736
47. 47 Conesa A, Dere I, Nihoul A, Descamps J, Enaux C, Hayirlioglu M, et al. Routes to justice: bridging conceived and perceived public transport accessibility through user participation. Transportation. 2026;53(7):5093-5120. doi: 10.1007/s11116-025-10678-7
48. 48 Yadav M, Patil GR, Mepparambath RM. New public transit accessibility metrics: system and system-facilitated accessibility measures. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2026;212:105158. doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2026.105158
49. 49 Pourramazani H, Gielen E, Miralles-Garcia JL. Equity-Oriented Public Transport Accessibility Analysis Using GTFS, Spatial Proximity, and Demographic Sensitivity. Sustainability. 2026;18(9):4506. doi: 10.3390/su18094506
50. 50 Quang NT, Ngoc AM, Nguyen-Ngoc D, Truong NH, Minh CC, Minh Hieu N. Inclusion and equity from accessibility lens: A study of public transit planning practice in mid-sized urban contexts in developing countries. Journal of Urban Mobility. 2026;10:100245. doi: 10.1016/j.urbmob.2026.100245