People with low vision have a visual impairment that affects their ability to perform daily activities. Unlike blind people, low vision people have functional vision and can potentially benefit from smart glasses that provide dynamic, always-available visual information. We sought to determine what low vision people could see on mainstream commercial augmented reality (AR) glasses, despite their visual limitations and the device's constraints. We conducted a study with 20 low vision participants and 18 sighted controls, asking them to identify virtual shapes and text in different sizes, colors, and thicknesses. We also evaluated their ability to see the virtual elements while walking. We found that low vision participants were able to identify basic shapes and read short phrases on the glasses while sitting and walking. Identifying virtual elements had a similar effect on low vision and sighted people's walking speed, slowing it down slightly. Our study yielded preliminary evidence that mainstream AR glasses can be powerful accessibility tools. We derive guidelines for presenting visual output for low vision people and discuss opportunities for accessibility applications on this platform.

Low vision is a pervasive condition in which people have difficulty seeing even with corrective lenses. People with low vision frequently use mainstream computing devices, however how they use their devices to access information and whether digital low vision accessibility tools provide adequate support remains understudied. We addressed these questions with a contextual inquiry study. We observed 11 low vision participants using their smartphones, tablets, and computers when performing simple tasks such as reading email. We found that participants preferred accessing information visually than aurally (e.g., screen readers), and juggled a variety of accessibility tools. However, accessibility tools did not provide them with appropriate support. Moreover, participants had to constantly perform multiple gestures in order to see content comfortably. These challenges made participants inefficient-they were slow and often made mistakes; even tech savvy participants felt frustrated and not in control. Our findings reveal the unique needs of low vision people, which differ from those of people with no vision and design opportunities for improving low vision accessibility tools.