## 5 Discussion
### Research Question RQ2  
The first point of this section is the comparison between our results and those located in the literature addressing the evaluation of time required for interaction for people with disabilities. The times determined by the previous related studies are summarized in Table 7.  
An exhaustive review of research revealed that the work of [PERSON] and [PERSON] [15] is the most complete study regarding blind students, measuring times with a detailed exhaustive procedure for different online learning tasks in two groups: one group of 10 blind participants and another group of 10 non-disabled participants. Although this study addressed the aspect of time measurement, we decided to quantify time using the Moodle platform instead of manual measurement with humans, obtaining similar results for blind people. Results of the contrast between our results and those provided by the literature enable us to answer RQ2: \"Are these times aligned with the ones reported by existing literature?\" Our result is 2.92 which is within the range of 2 to 3 times longer than the control group as determined by [PERSON] and [PERSON] in 2008 [15]. Our result is also within the margins proposed by [PERSON] in 1989 [48] (little less than 2 times for visual impairment) and by [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] in 2004 [40] (children with low vision need between 1.5 and 2 times more time than sighted children). However, the result is far from the study of [PERSON] and [PERSON] in 2000 [47], who proposed providing a 50% longer time when using Braille readers and increasing additional time to accommodate different type of answers. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & **Increased Time Rate Percentage** \\ \hline
**Researchers** & **Year** & **Customized** & **Low Vision** & **Blind** \\ \hline [PERSON] [49] & 1974 & - & 50\% (1.5 times) & 150\% (2.5 times) \\ \hline [PERSON] [48] & 1989 & - & Little less than 2 times & More than 2 times \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [47] & 2000 & - & - & 50\% + extra time \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [46] & 2002 & - & 50\% (1.5 times) & - \\ \hline [PERSON], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [40] & 2004 & - &
\begin{tabular}{c} Entre 50\% y 100\% \\ (From 1.5 to 2 times) \\ \end{tabular} & - \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [15] & 2008 & & 2 to 3 times longer \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [43] & 2011 & - & 100\% (2 times) & 200\% (3 times) \\ \hline [PERSON] [45] & 2012 & yes & - & - \\ \hline [PERSON] [37] & 2013 & yes & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison of extra time proposed in different studies. Our results are not in line with those of [PERSON] and [PERSON] published in 2011 [43] (2 times for visual impairment and 3 times for blind students). [PERSON] and [PERSON] in 2002 [46] and [PERSON] in 1974 [49] suggested a shorter rate (1.5 for visual impairment) than the rate reflected by our study. All studies analyzing both reduced vision and blindness agree in giving more time to blind students that use Braille than to partially sighted students. [PERSON] reported in 2013 a set of authors' insights, included in this paper, and concluded that extending time could result in a better measure of students' abilities by helping them to reduce anxiety [37]. Results showed that most of the students with reduced vision used the screen magnifier instead of the screen reader, because the average time employed was considerably less than the average of blind students as demonstrated by the ratio between groups 3 and 1 (1.88) versus the ratio between groups 2 and 1 (2.92). We deducted from these ratios that blind students took 55% more time than low-vision students. All these arguments and the greater variability of the blind sample suggested that the time spent by group 3 (in increasing the font size, in scrolling to reach the end of a document, and in going backwards due to the loss of perspective when the size font is increased) is less than the time spent by blind students using a screen reader.