B. Users’ assessment of digital assistive technologies

When it comes to digital assistive technology, the respondents were asked to state which of the assistive technologies from the list they would use and how often would they use it. As shown in Figure 4, most of them picked the option “sometimes”. Regardless of the type of disability, the most favourable choice from the list are wearables (M= 3.9, SD= 1.3), AI alerts (M= 3.7, SD= 1.3), and robots (M= 3.7, SD= 1.5), as well as autonomous wheelchairs and vehicles (M= 3.7, SD= 1.4).

Figure 4. Users’ intention to use digital assistive technologies

chart that reads: Use intention of future assistive technologies. There are five numerical options representing the frequency of use for assistive technologies: 1 for "Never," 2 for "Rarely," 3 for "Sometimes," 4 for "Frequently," and 5 for "Always." These numerical options are presented on the x-axis and the different types of assistive technologies are presented on the y-axis. The assessment of assistive technology usage is determined by selecting from the numerical options for the desired assistive technologies. The assessment is as follows: Smart communication aids 3.5. Location-based alerts 3.6. Augmented reality 3.6. Exoskeletons 3.5. Robots 3.7. Wearables 3.9. 3D printed protheses 3.3. Autonomous wheelchairs and vehicles 3.7. Artificial intelligence sign language translation 3.2. Artificial intelligence alerts 3.7. Automated captions 3.5. Accessible navigation systems 3.6. Smartcanes 2.9.

We also assumed that persons with different types of disabilities would prefer different assistive technologies, as not all are applicable to their access needs. Therefore, in this study we also enquired which assistive technologies respondents regarded as non-applicable, i.e. not appropriate for their disability, in aims at seeing which of these assistive technologies should be excluded from consideration. For the assessment of the assistive technologies that were considered non-applicable as per the type of disability, (table 1).

As expected, respondents saw that smart canes and automated captions were specialized tools for persons with visual and hearing impairments. Meanwhile, robots, AR, and AI alerts seemed to be applicable for respondents across all types of disabilities. Somewhat less expected, accessible navigation systems were welcome by persons with visual impairments and by persons with intellectual disabilities. AI alerts were deemed applicable by those with intellectual disabilities who were also open to other assistive technologies, like location-based alerts, AR, robots, and smart communication aids, and even autonomous wheelchairs.

Automated captions and AI alerts are seen as useful tools by respondents with hearing impairments. Persons with visual impairments would welcome accessible navigation systems, robots and augmented reality solutions. Meanwhile, those with physical impairments would prefer a variety of specialised solutions, such as autonomous wheelchairs and exoskeletons, to more general ones, such as wearables, robots, location-based services and to some extent augmented reality.

Table 1.  Assistive technologies that were considered non-applicable as per type of disability

Type of disability

Digital assistive technology

Smartcanes

Accessible navigation systems

Automated captions

AI alerts

AI sign language translator

Autonomous wheelchairs and vehicles

3D-printed prostheses

Wearables

Robots

Exoskeletons

AR

Location-based alerts

Smart communication aids

Intellectual impairment

36.1

42.9

25.0

8.3

30.6

13.9

25.0

11.1

2.8

16.7

11.1

5.6

16.7

Mental health issues

46.8

38.3

31.9

21.3

40.4

25.5

38.3

14.9

12.8

21.3

10.6

12.8

29.8

Hearing impairment

48.6

40.5

9.5

17.6

21.6

48.6

50.0

39.2

33.8

47.3

32.4

23.0

32.4

Visual impairment

15.9

6.2

25.7

13.3

41.6

39.8

50.4

31.0

16.8

54.9

9.7

22.1

37.2

Physical impairment

61.6

39.9

43.7

37.5

52.0

13.3

40.2

9.3

7.4

13.9

20.7

15.4

36.2