[Missouri-l] Fw: [leadership] Treasury Study: Executive Summary

[Chip Hailey]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Pratik Patel 
To: leadership at acb.org 
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 4:14 PM
Subject: [leadership] Treasury Study: Executive Summary


Colleagues,

 

Below, please find pasted the executive summary from the Bureau of Printing and Engraving Report.

 

Enjoy.

 

Pratik

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), a bureau wit



hin the United States (U.S.) Department of the Treasury, is responsible for designing and producing the U.S. Federal Reserve notes (hereafter referred to as U.S. currency). The BEP initiated this study to examine various aspects of the use of U.S. currency by the blind and visually impaired (VI) population of the U.S. The data, research, and analysis presented in this study will be used to evaluate potential measures that may enhance or improve the ability of the blind and VI to identify currency denominations. Many factors impact the BEP's flexibility in modifying U.S. currency. The BEP must balance printing efficiency, counterfeit deterrence features, statutory requirements, and general banknote aesthetics when it determines a banknote's design to better serve the needs of those who are blind or visually impaired. All of these factors play a vital role in currency design. While this study does not make recommendations, it does provide data regarding future design of U.S. currency that will be useful to the BEP in making such recommendations in the future.

The BEP has engaged ARINC Engineering Services, LLC, an ARINC company, hereafter referred to as ARINC, to conduct a study addressing options for improving the ability of the blind and VI community to denominate1U.S. currency. For purposes of this study, ARINC established an "ARINC team" to perform this study through subcontracts with Battelle Memorial Institute, Naois LLC, and the University of Maine. Of note, all ARINC team members are independent from any security paper industry producers and original equipment manufacturers, including hand-held electronic readers, currency raw material or equipment suppliers, or any BEP service providers.

Description of the Study

The ARINC team focused study efforts on currency user requirements and needs of blind and VI people, balanced with the practical and economic implementation considerations of various features. The detailed tasks the ARINC team performed included the following:

·           Gathered and analyzed data on the demographic, statistical, and other aspects of the blind and VI population of the U.S.

·           Conducted focus group discussions and surveys to assess the needs of the U.S. blind and VI population with respect to identification of U.S. currency denominations.

·           Researched currency from countries that have implemented accommodations to meet the needs of the blind and VI to independently denominate currency.

·           Conducted one-on-one usability tests to determine how well available accessibility accommodations meet the needs of the blind and VI participants.

·           Performed cost and benefit analyses of a group of accommodations (selected by the BEP). The benefit analyses considered the relative effectiveness of the selected accommodations in assisting various segments of the blind and VI population. The cost analyses included operational and technical impacts, and costs to government and industry organizations that manufacture, process, or handle U.S. currency.

1 Denominate is defined as the ability to differentiate the various denominations of U.S. currency.

. Adapted a decision model to facilitate comparison of currency-related accommodations for the blind and VI. The decision model criteria included provisions for a variety of considerations ranging from functionality of devices to how well the accommodation performs in key usability scenarios for an individual user.

·           Customized and updated the decision model to include the cost and subjective aspects of the alternative accommodations.

Number of Blind and Visually Impaired

To determine the number of blind and VI people in the U.S., the ARINC team had to establish a common definition of blindness and visual impairment. The ARINC team found a wide variety of definitions of these terms, as well as a range of different methodologies for estimating the number of affected people. Because of that variation, data on the number of blind and VI people in the U.S. are not consistent. As a result of analyzing the different methodologies and definitions used in previous research, the ARINC team used the following definitions for this study:

·           Blind = people who have no useful vision for reading any amount of print.

·           Visually Impaired = people who have difficulty seeing but have some useful vision, defined for this study as being able to read some print (with or without corrective lenses).

Based on available population studies and using the established definitions, the ARINC team estimated that in 2008 there were 304,060 blind people and 4,067,309 VI people in the U.S. Based on U.S. Government population growth estimates, the ARINC team projects that by 2020, there will be 340,547 blind people and 4,555,386 VI people in the U.S.

Assessment of Needs

To determine the needs of the blind and VI, the ARINC team conducted focus group discussions (Section 3), surveys (Section 4), and usability testing (Section 6). The ARINC team conducted focus groups with blind and VI participants from multiple organizations and demographic groups. Open forum sessions were held at the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and American Council of the Blind (ACB) 2008 Annual Conventions. There were 402 blind and VI participants in the survey; 249 individuals participated in the focus groups and usability tests.

Through the survey data and focus group discussions, the ARINC team uncovered a number of key currency usage scenarios that blind and VI people find problematic. These scenarios provided a framework for looking at the individual accommodations to see how well they might meet the needs of the blind and VI population. The three problematic scenarios most commonly identified by the study participants were: transactions with no other people in close proximity (such as in a taxi or at a small kiosk), transactions while in a line (people waiting), and conducting a quick inventory of wallet or purse.

Survey results indicate that 72% of all participants said that they would feel less vulnerable if currency were easier for them to use, 72% of all participants felt rushed during transactions, and 70% felt vulnerable using cash. Survey results also indicated that 62% of all participants gave someone incorrect denominations in a transaction in the past year, 60% indicated they would use currency more often if it was easier for them to use, 59% relied on someone at the point of sale to tell them what denominations they were receiving, and 36% of all participants received



incorrect change in the past year (e.g., realized after they got home, or not until the next time they used their currency).

Needs of Blind and Visually Impaired Participants

Usability testing and the survey data results confirm that most blind participants in this study desire a way to independently denominate U.S. currency. VI participants in the usability tests were able to correctly denominate most U.S. currency, with over 95% accuracy. VI participants in the usability tests and focus groups said that they preferred accommodations that would enable identification from an arm's length away. For purposes of this study, the ARINC team defined arm's length as approximately one meter. This was based on the National Research Council (NRC) report published in 1995, which noted that a reasonable distance was "approximately one meter, which is roughly the distance from the eye to the checkout counter of a grocery store, enabling easy and rapid identification."2 More than half (56%) of VI survey participants said they could detect the large purple numeral 5 easier on the newer $5 notes than the smaller green numeral on the older design, but only 17% of them could identify that note at an arm's length distance. Based on the results of both the usability testing and surveys, the ARINC team concluded that the primary desire of the blind and VI is to have the ability to conduct transactions quickly and accurately without causing delay to others waiting in a line.

Analysis of Potential Accommodations

In order to understand the practical implementation issues, the ARINC team conducted

(1) international benchmarking activities with countries that have implemented accommodations for blind and VI people, (2) discussions with subject matter experts and scientists (e.g., tactile perception science and color vision impairment), and (3) discussions with individuals in manufacturing and commerce who would produce and handle modified notes. All of these sources helped identify the potential impacts of implementing new accommodations. The results of these investigations, described in Section 5 of this report, were used to plan usability tests and to establish economic analysis parameters.

Several foreign currencies with blind and VI accommodations, four sample currency features, three commercially available currency reader devices, and three prototype currency reader devices were included in the hands-on usability testing portions of the study. Each usability test was recorded via digital video to facilitate collection of speed and accuracy results for each accommodation. Blind and VI participants evaluated a range of accommodations, including changes to color, contrast, and visual design of notes; tactile features; notes of differing sizes for each denomination; and currency reader devices.

Key Findings for Color, Contrast, and Design from Usability Test Results Color, contrast, and note design features focus on improving note recognition by the VI population in an arm's length transaction scenario. The VI participants in the usability tests

demonstrated that high foreground/background contrast for the primary numeral saves them time because they did not have to search both sides of the note for a numeral. VI people in the study

2 National Research Council, 1995, Currency Features for Visually Impaired People. National Materials Advisory Board, NRC. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, ISBN 0-309-05194-0.



who said they had reduced color sensitivity noted that high contrast numbers (e.g., Canadian dollar) were most helpful in aiding them.

Focus group participants indicated that having medium- or large-size numbers in the upper corners, such as used on the United Kingdom (UK) pound, helped them successfully take a quick inventory of note denominations in a wallet.

Extreme differences in the location of features on notes across denominations (e.g., Swedish kronor) allowed VI participants to identify features from further away (up to arm's length) than with currencies that have design items in the same location for all denominations.

Key Findings for Note Size Variation

Feedback from focus groups and survey results indicated that both blind and VI participants believed that they would benefit from note size variation as a way to identify currency denominations. Fifty-two percent of all of the survey participants indicated that size differences would help them denominate currency. Blind participants in the focus groups were very receptive to the concept of size differences as a denomination method. For VI focus group participants, note size variation was considered to be a secondary denomination method to augment visible features.

Results of the usability testing, however, where participants examined a single note at a time without other notes for comparison, indicated that the different sized notes were neither the fastest nor the most accurate method to denominate currency.

Size changes along two dimensions (length and width) resulted in higher average accuracy results in the usability test than changes in only the length dimension. Results for the UK pound (two-dimensional size variation) averaged 60% accuracy, versus average of 48% for the Australian dollar (one-dimensional size variation).

Proportional formats (having incremental increases in length and width) were moderately successful, but did not yield consistently good results. Irregular, or hybrid, size formats (e.g., the Swedish kronor) provided larger differences in length and width. These formats yielded better usability results as measured by accuracy and time to denominate.

It is feasible that more practice and familiarity with a particular accommodation such as sizes could improve the usability of different sized notes.

Key Findings for Tactile Features

Three primary tactile features were included in the usability test. The tested tactile features included a cluster pattern of raised dots, a system of notches cut into the top and bottom edges of the note, and a system of heavy intaglio raised print bars along the side of the note.

Usability test results showed that the prototype edge notches were the most accurate means of identifying denomination for blind participants (average of 89% accuracy). The raised dot clusters, as implemented in Canadian currency, yielded positive results when the currency was essentially new (average of 84% accuracy) but the results for raised dots were significantly



degraded on widely circulated notes (average of 49% accuracy). The prototype intaglio print raised bars were very helpful when new (average of 85%), but had similar results as the raised dots when simulated to be well circulated (average of 42%). Usability tests for the other tactile features yielded average accuracy measurements below 75%.

Blind participants had a strong preference for the notches feature, though there was some concern about potential degradation of performance with widely circulated notes. Blind participants said that they used the raised intaglio print numerals on Canadian notes as backup for identification when the raised dots were too worn down to identify.

Fifty-three percent of the survey participants said they thought a tactile feature would help them denominate currency. In the survey results, 43% of all respondents favored multiple accommodations (e.g., combination of a size format and a tactile feature) so that one feature could be used if the other was not discernable.

Key Findings for Currency Reader Devices

Three commercially available currency reader devices were evaluated in usability tests: two devices that require the user to slide the note into a slot in the device, and a cell phone camera- based device. In addition, three developmental prototypes were evaluated: two devices that require the user to slide the note into a slot in the device and a cell phone camera-based device. The ARINC team conducted the usability testing between June 2008 and April 2009, using devices that were operational and available at the time. The ARINC team is aware that technical breakthroughs in this marketplace are occurring at a rapid rate, and the manufacturers of the prototypes tested may make changes to the devices before they become commercially available. Devices currently under development may yield different results than the devices used in this study.

Survey participants were asked if they would take a reader with them when they went out in public. The results were not conclusive-36% of all participants said they would, either occasionally or frequently, 23% said rarely, while 41% said never.

The type of device annunciation (e.g., tone, voice, vibration) is an important consideration for blind and VI people. Most participants preferred voice annunciation when using a device at home, but were concerned about the reader revealing the value of the currency to nearby customers. Usability test participants commented that portability and speed of use are important factors in their willingness to use a reader device. One of the prototype devices received high marks for portability, several participants said they would carry something with similar size and speed with them and would use it while standing in line. Timing is critical in this scenario and most blind participants felt that the commercial devices were too slow for validating notes received as change in a transaction.

Slide-in devices varied in ease of use. Proper use of these devices-orienting the note, sliding it in without folded corners, pressing a button and waiting for response-required varying amounts of dexterity. One of the larger devices was the easiest to use for virtually all participants. The smallest device was easy to use for most participants, and was praised for its portability, but was more challenging for those who had dexterity impairments.



Participants described the need to orient notes for some devices as inconvenient because orienting the note added to the time it took to denominate the currency. Cell phone-based solutions were fairly easy for most participants to use, but took longer to identify the denomination. Participants considered the high cost of currently available devices to be a barrier to implementation.

Economic Analyses of Accommodations

The ARINC team conducted economic analysis of the costs and benefits of seven selected alternative accommodations for blind and VI communities, including: size changes along one dimension, size changes along two dimensions, mechanical tactile features, raised tactile features, embedded tactile features, overt machine-readable features, and currency reader devices. Cost analysis results include initial nonrecurring (one-time) and annual recurring costs associated with each accommodation. The ARINC team considered three top-level categories of costs in this study-U.S. Government (i.e., the BEP, the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), and the U.S. Secret Service), U.S. Market Sectors (i.e., commercial banking, automated teller machines (ATMs), vending, transportation, gaming, and retail equipment), and U.S. Individuals (e.g., the acquisition costs of reader devices).

Cost and Benefit Findings for Note Size Variation

The ARINC team evaluated two size variation approaches, one-dimensional (1-D), where only length varied by denomination and two-dimensional (2-D), where both length and width varied by denomination.

The identified Government and industry costs (including initial nonrecurring investment and annual recurring cost) for implementing size variation accommodations were relatively high- more than $9.5 billion for the first year of 1-D accommodations and more than $10.6 billion for the first year of 2-D accommodations. Blind participants were able to achieve only moderate denomination accuracy (average ranged between 41% and 73%) in usability tests of currency

and prototypes with size change accommodations. Distinct two-dimensional note size differences resulted in the highest average speed performance (7.2 seconds) and accuracy (73%) for blind usability test participants for all of the currencies and the prototype with 2-D size differences.

Cost and Benefit Findings for Tactile Features

The ARINC team evaluated three types of tactile features, mechanical (notches along the edges of the notes), raised (raised dots and printed bars), and embedded (foil patches).

Mechanical. The identified Government and industry costs (including initial nonrecurring investment and annual recurring cost) for mechanical tactile features were moderately high- more than $6.6 billion. Blind participants were better at denominating currency using notches than size variation features. Most blind participants were able to denominate the system of notches accurately (average of 89%) and quickly (average of 14 seconds in initial trials, improving to 8.5 seconds with practice).

Raised. The identified Government and industry costs (including initial nonrecurring investment and annual recurring cost) for raised tactile features were moderately high-more than $6.6



billion. Usability testing of raised dots and intaglio printed bars showed the benefits of raised tactile features on new notes. Blind participants were able to use the tactile feature to denominate new Canadian notes accurately (average of 84%). Intaglio printed bars yielded similar results on new notes (average of 85%). However, recognition accuracy for widely circulated notes was significantly reduced for both the raised dots and the intaglio printed bars.

Embedded. The identified Government and industry costs (including initial nonrecurring investment and annual recurring cost) for embedded tactile features were relatively low-more than $568 million. However, embedded tactile features are of limited benefit because they are typically difficult for blind people to locate. Enhancements to existing embedded features would be required to make embedded features a viable option for currency denomination.

Cost and Benefit Findings for Machine-Readable Features

The identified Government and industry costs (including initial nonrecurring investment and annual recurring cost) for machine-readable features were relatively low-more than $75.8 million. There are no direct benefits to the blind and VI population from machine-readable features, unless devices are specifically developed to work with them, but new machine-readable features could enable manufacturers to develop currency reader device technologies that the blind and VI community would be more inclined to use.

Cost and Benefit Findings for Currency Reader Devices

The ARINC team performed a cost analysis and a qualitative benefit analysis of six reader devices (three commercial and three prototype devices) to assess their efficacy as an accommodation for currency denomination by blind people. For the prototype devices, the manufacturers provided an estimated cost, but emphasized that the final price would change based on design changes or estimated market size.

Slide-in note readers provided the greatest benefit among the tested devices. These devices were easiest to learn to use and were very accurate (98% to 99% average accuracy) in relatively short times (average results for individual devices ranged from 17.3 to 21.7 seconds). The estimated purchase price of these devices ranged from $100 to $330.

The commercial cell phone reader device, although highly accurate (average 100%), provided moderate benefit to blind test participants; the denomination time (average of 34.2 seconds) was slower than they preferred. The estimated purchase price of the device was $1,600, but this device provides other applications in addition to currency identification.

The prototype note corner reader was of marginal benefit to the blind test participants because the device accuracy (average 81%) was lower and the denomination speed (average of 36.5 seconds) was slower than the other devices tested. The estimated purchase price of the device was $100.

The prototype cell phone device was too difficult for the blind test participants to use to be beneficial. The estimated price of $30 covers only the software; a cell phone would need to be purchased separately.

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://moblind.org/pipermail/missouri-l_moblind.org/attachments/20090807/1dea706f/attachment-0001.html>