## 5 Discussion  
### Research Question RQ1  
As a first step to answering RQ1, we need to discuss the validity and representativeness of the available data sample. Working with two different courses with data from four editions minimizes possible sampling errors due to specific circumstances of data collection. This helps us to consider that the sample of participants is robust enough and the results are homogeneous, thus suggesting that the resulting times from our experiment represent a solid trend. Moreover, the satisfaction questionnaire in all courses was good and we can assume there were no extra factors in the courses that influenced time either positively or negatively. An observation of the outliers (separated from the sample in the previous phase of the results analysis) included, among others, all blind students with secondary education who did not work (a total of three). Despite that, if we consider students with university education (12), all except one could be included in the study as their times were within the time range of the sample. This suggests a possible threshold in training and educational level to enable the integration of blind students with the rest of the adult population in equal terms if they have extra time for activities. We chose an initial questionnaire on personal profiles as a task to be measured to avoid bias since the activity did not depend on previous knowledge. Students completed the questionnaire at the beginning of the course so there was no influence of their experience during the course. Students had no limits in time to respond to the questionnaire, although results confirmed (after discarding outliers) that they answered without taking breaks as they were instructed to do so. We compared the time taken by the blind students (group 2) with the time taken by blind students in [15] in similar tasks measured with a detailed manual procedure: the comparison evidences the similarity of time expressed as a ratio, suggesting that our measurement method is consistent with reality and applicable to other groups. However, we cannot claim that these results are definitive due to a relatively reduced number of students in those groups and the possibility of a wider variability in the degree of vision or motor skills of the participants. The statistical study provided a comparative study between groups by applying the Mann-Whitney U test as groups were big enough. Table 5 summarizes these results, evidencing that the control group (group 1) presented significant differences (_p_-value < 0.05) with groups 2, 3, and 4, but groups 2, 3, and 4 did not present significant differences with the rest of the groups (excluding group 1). Differences between group 1 and groups 2 (_p_-value = 0.000) and 3 (_p_-value = 0.001) are greater than those between group 1 and group 4 (_p_-value = 0.029) (Table 6), which led us to reflect on two possible causes: visual impairment causes more problems than motor limitations and/or the motor capacity level of the students of group 4 was not very restrictive. Another significant finding was the existence of two outliers out of six total elements in group 4 pointing to a large variation in operability among students with motor problems. We can suggest the need of a specific study for students with reduced motor ability based on these results, on the conclusions reached by [30], and on the lack of studies on this type of impairment in the literature. A reflection on the experiment is that the increasing the time allocated for tasks is an effective solution to allow people with different capabilities to access information under equivalent conditions to those of people without limiting conditions. Personalizing time individually for each student depending on their special needs [45] provides certainty of allocating to all students a suitable time for the allocated tasks. This avoids work overload for redesigning courses as we often have students with different types of capabilities.