## 5 Research Results and Discussion  
The research was qualitative due to the small size of the research group. The main results of the research carried out in both stages are summarised in Table 3. This presentation of the results made it easy to compare them. The results obtained from the pilot studies allow for the evaluation of the prepared copies of 3D models with FFF technology. * Recognising the decorative element on the handle of the cup (ram's head) was too difficult. The blind person stated that even the enlargement of the cup together with this element would not contribute to its recognition, as they had never touched the head of a real ram; \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**No.** & **Research Element** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **People with Simulated** \\ **Visual Impairment** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **A Person Who Was** \\ **Blind from Birth** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
1. & Object recognition & + & + \\ \hline
2. & Was the cup roughness correct? &
\begin{tabular}{c} The surface was smooth and \\ did not raise any objections. \\ \end{tabular} & Identical assessment. \\ \hline
3. & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Were the details of the details of \\ the cup recognisable? \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Subjects felt a decorative feature \\ on the top of the handle, \\ but it was not recognised. \\ \end{tabular} & Identical assessment. \\ \hline
4. & \begin{tabular}{c} Was the smoothness/roughness of \\ the jug appropriate? \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\bullet\) The entire surface of the 1:2 scale \\ model of the jug was appropriate. \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} The entire surface of the 1:1 scale model of \\ the jug was appropriate in the part \\ where there were no supports. \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\bullet\) Identical assessment. \\ \(\bullet\) Identical assessment. \\ \(\bullet\) Identical assessment. \\ \(\bullet\) Identical assessment. \\ \end{tabular} \\  & \begin{tabular}{c} Was the smoothness/roughness of \\ the jug appropriate? \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} \(\bullet\) The roughness at the spout was too \\ high and thus unacceptable. \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\bullet\) Identical assessment. \\ \(\bullet\) Identical assessment. \\ \(\bullet\) Identical assessment. \\ \end{tabular} \\  &
\begin{tabular}{c} \(\bullet\) The 80\% size model area \\ was appropriate. \\ \end{tabular} & \\ \hline
5. & Details detected in the jug model. & \
\begin{tabular}{c} The handle and the spout \\ were recognised. \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} The handle and the \\ spout were recognised. \\ Braille text tiles \\ were recognised. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
6. & Was the text in Braille legible? & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Not applicable. \\ People did not know this alphabet. \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} All texts were legible. \\ Enlarged texts (scaled to \\ 110\%, 120\% and 130\%) \\ were not more readable \\ than standard size text. \\ Letter size magnification \\ was not needed. \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
7. & Did the effect of the size of the & The size of the jug did not matter when \\ object matter (for the jug)? & recognised by touch. & Identical assessment. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Answers obtained to research questions. * The blind person finding texts with inscriptions in Braille was a pleasant surprise, it had not been expected;
* Not all texts were immediately readable, as there were cases where the distances between individual letters were incorrect, i.e., too small. This concerned the distance between the letters \"s\" and \"m\" in the word \"Samarkand\". The respondent stated that the intervals should be larger. In another case, a printing defect appeared, which made it difficult to recognise the letters \"c\" and \"e\" in the word \"ceramics\". A similar situation was encountered with the inscription \"museum\"--there was a little difficulty when reading this word.