Acknowledgment:
This research was funded in part by California PATH grant M0U276, and by NSF Grant SBR9514907. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Ward Bond and David Steed from Talking Signs Inc. who provided the equipment for this study. We also acknowledge the assistance of the Santa Barbara MTD (Metropolitan Transit District) in allowing us to mount TSR in their buses and for their general support of this research project

In the stanchion experiment, differences between the average times to complete tasks, usually reflected the determination of the vision impaired or blind subjects to complete the task successflzlly. Some blindfolded sighted subjects gave up the search quickly and moved on to the next leg. The result was a lower total time to complete for the BS group.

User evaluations of the Talking Signs proved very revealing, but invariably there was very strong endorsement of the worth of Talking Signs technology.

The results of the evaluations of both BS and B subject groups proved to be very enlightening. Strangely enough, the BS group were uniformly more supportive of the technology than the B group - though both were strongly supportive. We suggest that the BS group might reflect opinions and attitudes of the newly blind, or those usually relying on sighted guides to travel (or who don't travel much at all). On the other hand. the B group consisted of independent travelers who use their own cherished guidance mode and who may be more reluctant to think of changing to a new guidance system. Even then. after the experiment, Trial 1.69/82 evaluations given were "strongly agree" or "agree" to the set of questions given in Table 1. opposed to 3/82 being evaluated as "neutral" or  disagreeing to some extent. After the bus test, the rating showed 76/82 were positive evaluations. For the BS group. the relevant figures are that 55/60 responses indicated "strongly agree" or "agree", while only 5/60 gave neutral or disagree type after the first task ratings. After the bus trial. 53/54 responses were "strongly agree" or "agree."

Evaluations collected after the bus experiment involved responding to statements in Table 2. Two types of evaluations were solicited. The first 4 questions focused on the Talking Signs and messages; the second 4 queseions related to the use of auditory signs for bus identification and use.

Responses to the first set showed 37/40 responses in the "strongly agree" and 'agree" categories. For the second set, there were 40/43 responses in the 2 agree categories. The blindfolded sighted group showed a similar pattern of strong endorsement. Only 1 response was not in the "strongly agree" or "agree" categories.

Another set of evaluative questions, again asked after each experiment, queried whether there were "any areas you would like to see Talking Signs located", "what was your overall opinion of Talking Signs, and "how does locating buses using Talking Signs differ from finding buses using your usual travel aids and strategies?" Responses to each of these are given in Table 3, Table 4. and Table 5 respectively.

When responding to the question regarding "overall opinion," again strong endorsements were provided by both B group and BS group (Table 6).

Responses to the final evaluative questions, which asked how using Talking Signs differed from their usual way of catching buses, showed a heavy emphasis on the independence given by Talking Signs technology, especially the freedom from constantly having to ask others for help (Table 7).

Conclusion
As has previously been shown by Bentzen, et al. (1995) and Crandall, et al. (1996), Talking Signs technology is viewed by vision impaired and blind people as extremely useful and liberating. Our subjects heartily endorsed the potential of remote auditory signage in location, direction, orientation, bus identification and wayfinding situations - all of which are major problems facing the potential vision-impaired traveler.

As a final note. installing three Talking Signs on each bus at the time of its construction appears to be the most effective way to outfit buses. Estimates of the cost involved range around $2,000. This compares favorably to the additional 5% gross costs of adding equipment to handle wheelchalrs to each bus during manufacture. or the approximate $50,000 cost to retrofit existing buses for wheelchair users.

Remember. however, that outfitting buses with three Talking Signs per bus (including one at the rear) is but one aspect of the problem. Talking Signs need to be installed in terminals to identify entrances and exits, ticket booths, public telephones, toilets, fire escapes, and other terminal features. On the transit routes. Talking SignsŪ need to be installed at many bus stops and shelters. And ways to auditorially present scheduling information in a comprehensible form need to be examined and developed. Enroute message Systems delivering information on bus locations. and expected delay information at stops (particularly at transfer points) also needs examination.

But the resulting improvement in quality of life, the reduction of stress. anxiety and uncertainty of travel, the increased independence given to disabled or handicapped transit users, all appear to be so positive that the technology should be regarded as extremely worthwhile.