Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 61 references

Tactile charts, not LLM text, build chart mental models for blind learners

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review

2026-08-01 03:40 UTC pith:IAPLTBLH

load-bearing objection Well-run qualitative study whose central scaffolding claim is carried by self-report; the abstract overstates what the objective measures show, but the open materials and query corpus earn it a serious referee. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23065 v1 pith:IAPLTBLH submitted 2026-07-25 cs.HC

Touching or Chatting: The Utility of LLMs and Tactile Charts for Learning about Complex Chart Types by BLV Individuals

Tingying He , Maggie McCracken , Daniel Hajas , Sarah Creem-Regehr , Alexander Lex This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords accessibilityblind and low-visiontactile chartslarge language modelschart-type learningmental modelsvisualization literacymultimodal learning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to establish that for blind and low-vision learners, a 3D-printed tactile example chart supplies a spatial mental model of an unfamiliar chart type—a mental template—that a text explanation plus an LLM chatbot cannot provide, and that this template is what makes later LLM-mediated exploration of a new dataset effective. In an interview study with 12 BLV participants who learned clustered heatmaps and violin plots under two formats (tactile chart + text + LLM vs. text + LLM), participants overwhelmingly preferred the tactile-inclusive format, reported that the tactile model helped them ask better questions and interpret the chatbot's answers, and described the tactile chart as a reusable structural reference. The paper's own quantitative comprehension scores showed no difference between conditions, so the claim rests on qualitative self-reports; the authors acknowledge this mismatch and treat the result as a perceived-scaffolding effect. A sympathetic reader would take the contribution as evidence that LLM assistants can supplement but not replace tactile representations when the goal is to teach the spatial grammar of complex charts, which matters for accessible data education and blind-sighted collaboration.

Core claim

The central claim is that tactile templates support BLV participants' formation of chart-type mental models, which scaffolds subsequent LLM-mediated data exploration. The paper argues that chart-type knowledge—what the chart looks like, how its encodings map to space—is a prerequisite for meaningful exploration, because users who lack it cannot formulate targeted questions or interpret answers. Tactile charts provide that spatial grounding; LLMs provide flexible, learner-driven clarification such as analogies, follow-up explanations, and next-step suggestions, but cannot convey shape and layout. The paper reports that 11 of 12 participants preferred the multimodal condition, rated tactile ch

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the 'chart-type mental model'—a reusable internal representation of a chart's spatial layout, structure, and encoding—formed by exploring a 3D-printed tactile example chart (a violin plot or clustered heatmap) under structured instructions. The paper treats this mental template as portable: once formed, it can be carried into an unfamiliar dataset of the same chart type, where it shapes what questions the learner asks an LLM assistant and how the learner interprets the assistant's responses. The LLM chatbot is the complementary mechanism: it supplies interactive, on-demand elaboration and can partially compensate for missing tactile support, but cannot substitut

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that participants' self-reported preferences and interview themes are valid evidence that tactile charts build mental models that improve subsequent LLM exploration; the paper's own quantitative accuracy measures show no performance difference between conditions (30.00% vs 31.67% correct), so if self-reports diverge from actual learning or exploration effectiveness, the central scaffolding claim loses its support.

What would settle it

An adequately powered controlled study with BLV participants randomly assigned to tactile+text+LLM or text+LLM, using pre-registered outcome measures that include objective query quality (e.g., number of targeted spatial questions), accuracy on a spatial mental-model test (e.g., describing chart layout from memory), and comprehension of a new dataset; if the tactile condition shows no advantage on these measures while self-reports still favor tactile, the scaffolding claim would be falsified.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the scaffolding claim is right, BLV data-education programs should pair tactile example charts with LLM assistants rather than rely on text-plus-chatbot alone.
  • LLM-based chart assistants should be treated as supplements for spatial understanding, not replacements for tactile or other spatial modalities.
  • Learners who have a tactile-derived mental model of a chart type are better positioned to ask targeted questions and to evaluate the relevance of an LLM's answers.
  • The effectiveness of alt text and LLM explanations for new datasets depends on prior chart-type knowledge; tactile learning is one way to build that prerequisite.
  • Future LLM assistants for this population should proactively detect knowledge gaps and offer diagnostic or suggested questions, since learners often do not know what to ask.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the scaffolding effect is real, the temporal order of modalities matters—tactile exposure should come before LLM-mediated exploration, not alongside or after it; the study's procedure embeds this order, and a future study could test whether reversing it weakens the benefit.
  • Editorial inference: the null quantitative result may indicate that the comprehension questions measured factual recall rather than the spatial mental model the tactile chart is claimed to build; a test that asks learners to describe chart layout from memory, or to predict where data features would appear, could detect the claimed difference.
  • Editorial inference: the same design could extend to other spatially demanding chart families (e.g., network diagrams, scatterplot matrices, or UpSet plots) and to refreshable tactile displays that could make the tactile template dynamic and interactive.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an interview study with 12 blind and low-vision (BLV) participants comparing two formats for learning complex chart types (clustered heatmap and violin plot): tactile chart + text + LLM chatbot versus text + LLM chatbot. Participants then explored an unfamiliar dataset in the learned chart type using alt text and the LLM. The authors collect quantitative answer-quality ratings, subjective ratings, and qualitative interview data. The paper's central claim is that tactile templates support BLV participants' formation of chart-type mental models, which in turn scaffolds subsequent LLM-mediated data exploration. Thematic analysis of interviews suggests participants perceived tactile learning as helpful for structuring their understanding and for formulating questions, while quantitative accuracy measures in Table 2 show no objective benefit for the tactile condition. The paper contributes open-source study materials, a query log collection, and qualitative insights into BLV learners' interactions with LLMs.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper makes a meaningful contribution to accessibility research by showing that LLM-based explanations alone are insufficient for conveying spatial structure of complex charts to BLV learners, and that tactile representations remain a valued complement. The study is carefully designed with counterbalancing, mixed methods, and a blind co-author involved in material development. The open-source website, tactile chart designs, and query logs are concrete reusable artifacts. However, the strength of the central claim currently exceeds the evidence: objective comprehension measures show no tactile advantage, and the scaffolding mechanism rests primarily on retrospective self-reports. The paper is nonetheless valuable as an exploratory qualitative investigation with practical design implications for multimodal chart-education tools.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appx. D vs. §5.2] The paper's own Appendix D states that, in the complex-alt-text phase, 'the types and frequencies of exploration queries were similar across conditions,' yet §5.2 claims tactile learning 'supported more targeted question asking during LLM-based data exploration' — the very mechanism of the scaffolding claim. Since all queries were logged (276 total), the authors should provide a quantitative or systematic coding comparison of query specificity/targetedness by condition. Without such evidence, the causal claim that tactile learning improves LLM exploration is unsupported; the current support is only retrospective self-report.
  2. [§4.5, Table 2] Table 2 shows no objective benefit of the tactile condition: chart-type understanding is 30.00% correct for Tactile+Text+LLM versus 31.67% for Text+LLM (and actually more 'wrong' responses in the tactile condition: 33.33% vs. 23.33%); new-dataset understanding is identical (62.50% both); only new-dataset factual observations show a small nominal advantage (50.0% vs. 44.4% 'good'). With N=12, no inferential statistics, and no confidence intervals, these percentages are indeterminate. The abstract and §5.2 causal language ('support mental-model formation,' 'scaffolds') overstates what the data can establish. The authors should either reframe the central claim as 'perceived benefit' or provide behavioral evidence that tactile learning changes exploration behavior or outcomes.
  3. [§5.2 / Fig. 3] The main positive evidence for the tactile-scaffolding claim comes from thematic analysis of interviews in which participants were aware of the learning condition, and 11/12 preferred the tactile-supported format (Fig. 3b). This design is vulnerable to demand characteristics. The paper does not triangulate these self-reports with any objectively scored measure — for example, an analysis of whether participants who learned with tactile charts asked more specific questions, made fewer clarification errors, or produced more accurate descriptions of the new dataset. Without such triangulation, the paper can claim 'participants perceived that tactile learning scaffolded LLM exploration,' but not that it did so. Section 6 acknowledges the quantitative null but explains it away with three speculative post-hoc reasons; a stronger engagement with the query-log evidence is needed.
  4. [§5.3.1, P13 dendrogram example] The paper uses the P13 dendrogram episode to illustrate LLM limitations, but it also shows that the LLM failed to detect the learner's core misunderstanding and that the human interviewer succeeded. This is a valuable finding, but it undercuts the general claim that LLMs provide flexible clarification. The paper should integrate this into the limitations and discuss whether the LLM's failure was due to prompt design, model choice (GPT-5.2), or inherent constraints — otherwise the claim that LLMs 'could not replace tactile charts' is conflated with the particular implementation's shortcomings.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title/abstract] The abstract's final sentence ('Text+LLM explanations without tactile support show weaknesses for spatial-reasoning tasks') is supported only by qualitative self-report; consider weakening to 'were reported by participants as weaker for spatial-reasoning tasks.'
  2. [General] The paper consistently uses 'we found' for qualitative themes; consider distinguishing between 'participants reported' and 'our analysis shows' to avoid implying objective measurement.
  3. [Fig. 3] Figure 3 panel (b) shows 'N = 12' with counts 11/1/0; the category 'Depends on chart type' is hard to read. Consider labeling the one participant's response explicitly.
  4. [Table 2] Report exact counts or confidence intervals alongside percentages; with N=12, 30.00% vs 31.67% corresponds to a difference of one answer and is not meaningful as presented.
  5. [§4.3] The demographic table includes 'P6 and P8' absent; this is fine, but the text describing recruitment should clarify why N=12 despite two additional recruits (the two extra replacements are mentioned, but it is easy to miscount).
  6. [References] The arXiv version lists publication year 2027 and submission date 2026; please harmonize the preprint metadata with the journal's 'to appear' status.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central claim rests on new interview data; the null quantitative results and self-report reliance are validity limitations, not circular reductions.

full rationale

This is an empirical HCI study with no mathematical derivation, fitted parameters, or equations whose outputs could reduce to inputs by construction. The central claim—that tactile templates support mental-model formation and scaffold later LLM exploration—is supported by a new thematic analysis of 12 BLV participants' interviews, not by re-stating the prior self-cited work [26]. The paper explicitly reports that objective chart-type understanding was essentially equal across conditions (30.00% vs 31.67% correct, Table 2) and acknowledges in Discussion that 'our quantitative accuracy measures did not show an improvement for Tactile+Text+LLM on chart understanding questions.' The reliance on self-report and the possibility of demand characteristics are threats to the validity or generalizability of the qualitative claim, but they do not make the claim circular: the interviews are independent evidence, however contestable, rather than an input defined in terms of the conclusion. Self-citations to prior tactile-chart work [26] are used to motivate the design and to contextualize comparisons, but the present study collected new data and the new findings are not derived from that citation by construction. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or renamed result is invoked. The paper's own limitation section candidly discusses the mismatch between perceived value and measured performance, which further supports that no circular fit is being masked. Score 1 reflects the presence of self-citations that are not load-bearing and the evidentiary gap between qualitative perception and quantitative outcome, which is a correctness/validity concern rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study is qualitative and empirical; it introduces no free parameters or invented entities. The assumptions listed are the premises on which the qualitative interpretation of the results depends.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reported preferences and qualitative themes are reliable evidence for learning benefits.
    The central claim about mental-model formation and scaffolding rests on thematic analysis of interviews and subjective Likert ratings; no objective performance gain was measured (Table 2).
  • domain assumption The LLM (GPT-5.2) provides accurate and consistent chart explanations; hallucinations are rare enough not to distort learning outcomes.
    The study relies on a generic LLM with system-prompt guidance; participants trust its responses (Section 5.3.2), but no verification of response accuracy is reported.
  • domain assumption The two chart types (violin plot, clustered heatmap) and the specific datasets represent complex chart-type learning sufficiently to generalize the findings.
    Only two chart types were used; the authors generalize to complex chart types generally (Section 6 conclusion).
  • domain assumption Tactile charts developed in prior work [26] are usable and effective learning materials.
    The study reuses tactile models and instructions from the authors' previous work without revalidating their design; this is a self-cited foundation.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Touching or Chatting: The Utility of LLMs and Tactile Charts for Learning about Complex Chart Types by BLV Individuals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IAPLTBLH

@misc{pith2026260723065,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Touching or Chatting: The Utility of LLMs and Tactile Charts for Learning about Complex Chart Types by BLV Individuals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IAPLTBLH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.23065}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Visualizations are central to communicating data, yet blind and low-vision (BLV) people often lack support for understanding chart types---knowledge that is essential for interpreting new visualizations and collaborating with sighted peers. Prior work found that BLV individuals viewed example tactile charts as more helpful than text-only approaches and preferred them for learning advanced chart types, particularly for understanding spatial layouts and shapes. Meanwhile, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by BLV individuals for chart explanation and question answering (QA), but have been studied primarily for dataset exploration rather than chart-type learning. Existing LLM-based chart QA also shows that users frequently ask about layout and structure, yet struggle with spatial concepts and misdirect questions when mental models are weak. We investigate how LLMs influence chart-type learning and whether tactile learning improves subsequent LLM-supported exploration. We extend our tactile chart learning tools with an LLM chatbot that provides interactive explanations and supports follow-up questions. In an interview study with 12 BLV participants, we compare two learning formats: (1) a tactile chart, a textual explanation, and an LLM chatbot; and (2) a textual explanation and an LLM chatbot. The learning phase was followed by exploration of an unfamiliar dataset using alt text and an LLM. Thematic analysis shows that tactile templates support BLV participants' formation of chart-type mental models, which scaffolds subsequent LLM-mediated data exploration. Text+LLM explanations without tactile support show weaknesses for spatial-reasoning tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23065 by Alexander Lex, Daniel Hajas, Maggie McCracken, Sarah Creem-Regehr, Tingying He.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Modalities used to support blind and low-vision participants in learning chart types. We compared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Study procedure. Participants first answered background questions, then completed two parts with different modality/chart type combinations. In each part, they learned the chart type with or without a tactile chart, practiced exploring a simple dataset with alt text and the LLM assistant, and then explored a complex dataset. Participants answered questions after chart-type learning and complex-dataset expl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Participants prefer to learn chart types when all modalities (tactile models, LLM assistants, and text descriptions) are available. (a), (c), (d), and (e): Distributions of participants’ responses to different questions on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). (b): Participants’ preferred learning modality. repeated engagement with the transcripts. Emerging codes and themes we… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The 3D-printed tactile chart for the clustered heatmap, front [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 3D-printed tactile chart for the violin plot, front view. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Ackland, S

    P. Ackland, S. Resnikoff, and R. Bourne. World blindness and visual impairment: despite many successes, the problem is growing.Community Eye Health, 30(100):71–73, 2017. 1

    2017

  2. [2]

    I look at it as the king of knowledge

    R. Adnin and M. Das. “I look at it as the king of knowledge”: How blind people use and understand generative AI tools. InProc. ASSETS, art. no. 64, 14 pp. ACM, 2024. doi:10/qzfk3

    2024

  3. [3]

    Two heads are better than one

    D. Akbaba and M. Meyer. “Two heads are better than one”: Pair-interviews for visualization. InShort Paper Proc. VIS, pp. 206–210. IEEE, 2023. doi: 10/gtcpv34

    2023

  4. [4]

    Blanco, J

    M. Blanco, J. Zong, and A. Satyanarayan. Olli: An extensible visualization library for screen reader accessibility. InPosters Proc. VIS, 2022. 2

    2022

  5. [5]

    Braun and V

    V . Braun and V . Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qual Res Psychol, 3(2):77–101, 2006. doi:10/fswdcx5

    2006

  6. [6]

    Braun and V

    V . Braun and V . Clarke. Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a knowing researcher.Int J Transgend Health, 24(1):1–6, 2023. doi:10/gq658d5

    2023

  7. [7]

    K. Choe, C. Lee, S. Lee, J. Song, A. Cho, N. W. Kim et al. Enhancing data literacy on-demand: LLMs as guides for novices in chart interpretation. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 31(9):4712–4727, 2025. doi: 10/n98f 2, 3

    2025

  8. [8]

    J. Choi, S. Jung, D. G. Park, J. Choo, and N. Elmqvist. Visualizing for the non-visual: Enabling the visually impaired to use visualization.Comput Graph Forum, 38(3):249–260, 2019. doi:10/gh525h2

    2019

  9. [9]

    Cutler, J

    Z. Cutler, J. Wilburn, H. Shrestha, Y . Ding, B. Bollen, K. A. Nadib et al. ReVISit 2: A full experiment life cycle user study framework.IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 32(1):13–23, 2026. doi:10/hbkxwp3

    2026

  10. [10]

    A. K. Das, M. Tarun, and K. Mueller. Making charts speak: LLM-based conversational chart question answering for blind and low-vision users. In Proc. CHI Extended Abstracts, art. no. 446, 5 pp. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2026. doi:10/rb9j1

    2026

  11. [11]

    Daunys and V

    G. Daunys and V . Lauruska. Sonification system of maps for blind. InAdv Hum Comput Interact, chap. 16. IntechOpen, Rijeka, 2008. doi: 10/g9bdwv 2

    2008

  12. [12]

    de Greef, D

    L. de Greef, D. Moritz, and C. Bennett. Interdependent variables: Re- motely designing tactile graphics for an accessible workflow. InProc. ASSETS, art. no. 36, 6 pp. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2021. doi:10/psz6 5

    2021

  13. [13]

    Demir, S

    S. Demir, S. Carberry, and K. F. McCoy. Generating textual summaries of bar charts. InProc. INLG, pp. 7–15. ACL, Salt Fork, OH, USA, 2008. doi: 10/cd7k7q3

    2008

  14. [14]

    Demir, D

    S. Demir, D. Oliver, E. Schwartz, S. Elzer, S. Carberry, and K. F. McCoy. Interactive SIGHT into information graphics. InProc. W4A, art. no. 16,

  15. [15]

    Duarte, R

    D. Duarte, R. Costa, P. Bizarro, and C. Duarte. AutoVizuA11y: A tool to automate screen reader accessibility in charts.Comput Graph Forum, 43(3):e15099, 2024. doi:10/qvt43

    2024

  16. [16]

    Elavsky, L

    F. Elavsky, L. Nadolskis, and D. Moritz. Data navigator: An accessibility- centered data navigation toolkit.IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 30(1):803–813, 2024. doi:10/g9bdw32

    2024

  17. [17]

    Engel and G

    C. Engel and G. Weber. Improve the accessibility of tactile charts. InProc. INTERACT, pp. 187–195. Springer, 2017. doi:10/g8q2w82

    2017

  18. [18]

    Engel and G

    C. Engel and G. Weber. A user study to evaluate tactile charts with blind and visually impaired people. InProc. ICCHP, pp. 177–184. Springer,

  19. [19]

    Engel and G

    C. Engel and G. Weber. User study: A detailed view on the effectiveness and design of tactile charts. InProc. INTERACT, pp. 63–82. Springer,

  20. [20]

    European values study longitudinal data file 1981-2008

    EVS. European values study longitudinal data file 1981-2008. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4804 Data file Version 3.1.0, 2020. doi: 10/pt4j 4

    1981

  21. [21]

    Franklin and J

    K. Franklin and J. Roberts. Pie chart sonification. InProc. IV, pp. 4–9. IEEE, 2003. doi:10/brq9rz2

    2003

  22. [22]

    L. W. Ge, Y . Cui, and M. Kay. A VEC: An assessment of visual encoding ability in visualization construction. InProc. CHI, pp. 1–16. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2025. doi:10/qzdq2

    2025

  23. [23]

    Goncu and K

    C. Goncu and K. Marriott. GraVVITAS: Generic multi-touch presentation of accessible graphics. InProc. INTERACT, pp. 30–48. Springer, 2011. doi:10/bbns6v2

    2011

  24. [24]

    Gorniak, Y

    J. Gorniak, Y . Kim, D. Wei, and N. W. Kim. VizAbility: Enhancing chart accessibility with LLM-based conversational interaction. InProc. UIST, art. no. 89, 19 pp. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2024. doi:10/g8nwhp1, 3

    2024

  25. [25]

    He and L

    S. He and L. Yu. Charting beyond sight with DataStory: Sensory substi- tution and storytelling in visual literacy education for visually impaired children. InProc. CHI Extended Abstracts, art. no. 73, 8 pp. ACM, New York, 2024. doi:10/gt4w3w2

    2024

  26. [26]

    T. He, M. McCracken, D. Hajas, S. Creem-Regehr, and A. Lex. Using tactile charts to support comprehension and learning of complex visualiza- tions for blind and low-vision individuals.IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 32(1):199–209, 2026. doi:10/hbdjdj2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9

    2026

  27. [27]

    Hohenwalde and A

    C. Hohenwalde and A. Hazim. Enhancing graphic accessibility for blind and visually impaired people: A systematic comparison of vision lan- guage models (VLM). InProc. INFORMATIK, p. 613. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V ., Bonn, 2025. doi:10/rb9k1

    2025

  28. [28]

    M. N. Hoque, M. Ehtesham-Ul-Haque, N. Elmqvist, and S. M. Billah. Accessible data representation with natural sound. InProc. CHI, art. no. 826, 19 pp. ACM, 2023. doi:10/g9bdwz2

    2023

  29. [29]

    A. M. Horst, A. Presmanes Hill, and K. B. Gorman.palmerpenguins: Palmer Archipelago (Antarctica) Penguin Data, 2020. R package version 0.1.0. doi:10/qzfm4

    2020

  30. [30]

    S. C. S. Joyner, A. Riegelhuth, K. Garrity, Y .-S. Kim, and N. W. Kim. Visualization accessibility in the wild: Challenges faced by visualization designers. InProc. CHI, art. no. 83, 19 pp. ACM, 2022. doi:10/g8q2xh1

    2022

  31. [31]

    C. Jung, S. Mehta, A. Kulkarni, Y . Zhao, and Y .-S. Kim. Communicating visualizations without visuals: Investigation of visualization alternative text for people with visual impairments.IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 28(1):1095–1105, 2022. doi:10/g59b9m2

    2022

  32. [32]

    Explain what a treemap is

    G. Kim, J. Kim, and Y .-S. Kim. “Explain what a treemap is”: Exploratory investigation of strategies for explaining unfamiliar chart to blind and low vision users. InProc. CHI, art. no. 805, 13 pp. ACM, 2023. doi: 10/g8q2w6 2

    2023

  33. [33]

    J. Kim, A. Srinivasan, N. W. Kim, and Y .-S. Kim. Exploring chart question answering for blind and low vision users. InProc. CHI, art. no. 828, 15 pp. ACM, 2023. doi:10/g8q2xf1, 2, 3, 15

    2023

  34. [34]

    N. W. Kim, S. C. Joyner, A. Riegelhuth, and Y .-S. Kim. Accessible visualization: Design space, opportunities, and challenges.Comput Graph Forum, 40(3):173–188, 2021. doi:10/g7h7gm2

    2021

  35. [35]

    Lazar, J

    J. Lazar, J. Feng, and H. Hochheiser.Research Methods in Human- Computer Interaction. Wiley, 2014. 5

    2014

  36. [36]

    B. Lee, E. K. Choe, P. Isenberg, K. Marriott, and J. Stasko. Reaching broader audiences with data visualization.IEEE Comput Graph Appl, 40(2):82–90, 2020. doi:10/gpbhhm1

    2020

  37. [37]

    Lee, S.-H

    S. Lee, S.-H. Kim, and B. C. Kwon. VLAT: Development of a visualization literacy assessment test.IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 23(1):551–560,

  38. [38]

    C. Li, R. Y . Pang, A. Sharif, A. Chheda-Kothary, J. Heer, and J. E. Froehlich. Altgeoviz: Facilitating accessible geovisualization. InShort Paper Proc. VIS, pp. 61–65, 2024. doi:10/qwzs2

    2024

  39. [39]

    Lundgard and A

    A. Lundgard and A. Satyanarayan. Accessible Visualization via Natural Language Descriptions: A Four-Level Model of Semantic Content.IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 28(1):1073–1083, 2022. doi:10/gm5pdj2, 4, 5

    2022

  40. [40]

    Marriott, B

    K. Marriott, B. Lee, M. Butler, E. Cutrell, K. Ellis, C. Goncu et al. In- clusive data visualization for people with disabilities: A call to action. Interactions, 28(3):47–51, 2021. doi:10/gngfxc2

    2021

  41. [41]

    McNutt, M

    A. McNutt, M. K. McCracken, I. J. Eliza, D. Hajas, J. Wagoner, N. Lanza et al. Accessible text descriptions for UpSet plots.Comput Graph Forum, 44(3):e70102, 2025. doi:10/pt4n2, 3, 4

    2025

  42. [42]

    C. Mei, J. Pollock, D. Hajas, J. Zong, and A. Satyanarayan. Benthic: Perceptually congruent structures for accessible charts and diagrams. In Proc. ASSETS, art. no. 27, 17 pp. ACM, New York, 2025. doi:10/qvvj2

    2025

  43. [43]

    Moraes, G

    P. Moraes, G. Sina, K. McCoy, and S. Carberry. Evaluating the accessibil- ity of line graphs through textual summaries for visually impaired users. InProc. ASSETS, pp. 83–90, 2014. doi:10/qzfs3

    2014

  44. [44]

    Nobre, K

    C. Nobre, K. Zhu, E. Mörth, H. Pfister, and J. Beyer. Reading between the pixels: Investigating the barriers to visualization literacy. InProc. CHI, art. no. 197, 17 pp. ACM, New York, NY , USA, 2024. doi:10/n98g2

    2024

  45. [45]

    J. Seo, S. S. Kamath, A. Zeidieh, S. Venkatesh, and S. McCurry. MAIDR meets AI: Exploring multimodal LLM-based data visualization interpreta- tion by and with blind and low-vision users. InProc. ASSETS, art. no. 57, 31 pp. ACM, 2024. doi:10/g8qpcf1, 3, 5, 9

    2024

  46. [46]

    J. Seo, Y . Xia, B. Lee, S. Mccurry, and Y . J. Yam. MAIDR: Making statistical visualizations accessible with multimodal data representation. InProc. CHI, art. no. 211, 22 pp. ACM, 2024. doi:10/pps32

    2024

  47. [47]

    A. F. Siu, D. Fan, G. S.-H. Kim, H. V . Rao, X. Vazquez, S. O’Modhrain et al. COVID-19 highlights the issues facing blind and visually impaired people in accessing data on the web. InProc. W4A, art. no. 11, 15 pp. ACM, 2021. doi:10/gpxtzv1

    2021

  48. [48]

    T. C. Smits, S. L’Yi, A. P. Mar, and N. Gehlenborg. AltGosling: Automatic generation of text descriptions for accessible genomics data visualization. Bioinformatics, 40(12):btae670, 2024. doi:10/g9bdw72

    2024

  49. [49]

    T. C. Smits, S. L’Yi, H. N. Nguyen, A. P. Mar, and N. Gehlenborg. Explain- ing unfamiliar genomics data visualizations to a blind individual through transitions. InProc. AccessViz workshop at IEEE VIS, pp. 24–28, 2024. doi:10/g9bdws2

    2024

  50. [50]

    Sultanum and A

    N. Sultanum and A. Srinivasan. DATATALES: Investigating the use of large language models for authoring data-driven articles. InShort Paper Proc. VIS, pp. 231–235. IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2023. doi:10/qvt5 3

    2023

  51. [51]

    X. Tang, A. Abdolrahmani, D. Gergle, and A. M. Piper. Everyday uncer- tainty: How blind people use genai tools for information access. InProc. CHI, art. no. 63, 17 pp. ACM, 2025. doi:10/qzfj3

    2025

  52. [52]

    L. Wang, Z. Wang, S. Xiao, L. Liu, F. Tsung, and W. Zeng. VizTA: En- hancing comprehension of distributional visualization with visual-lexical fused conversational interface.Comput Graph Forum, 44(3):e70110, 2025. doi:10/g94xd42, 3

    2025

  53. [53]

    R. Wang, C. Jung, and Y . Kim. Seeing through sounds: Mapping auditory dimensions to data and charts for people with visual impairments.Comput Graph Forum, 41(3):71–83, 2022. doi:10/g8q2w52

    2022

  54. [54]

    B. L. Wimer, L. South, K. Wu, D. A. Szafir, M. A. Borkin, and R. A. Metoyer. Beyond vision impairments: Redefining the scope of accessible data representations.IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 30(12):7619–7636,

  55. [55]

    Yan, H.-P

    C. Yan, H.-P. Hutter, F. M. Schmitt-Koopmann, and A. Darvishy. Chart ac- cessibility: A review of current alt text generation.IEEE Access, 13:94040– 94056, 2025. doi:10/qvt63

    2025

  56. [56]

    Y . Yang, K. Marriott, M. Butler, C. Goncu, and L. Holloway. Tactile presentation of network data: Text, matrix or diagram? InProc. CHI, pp. 1–12. ACM, 2020. doi:10/g8q2xm2

    2020

  57. [57]

    Yu and S

    W. Yu and S. Brewster. Evaluation of multimodal graphs for blind people. Univ Access Inf Soc, 2(2):105–124, 2003. doi:10/ff3vn22

    2003

  58. [58]

    Y . Zhao, M. A. Nacenta, M. A. Sukhai, and S. Somanath. TADA: Making node-link diagrams accessible to blind and low-vision people. InProc. CHI, art. no. 45, 20 pp. ACM, 2024. doi:10/pq4n2

    2024

  59. [59]

    J. Zong, C. Lee, A. Lundgard, J. Jang, D. Hajas, and A. Satyanarayan. Rich screen reader experiences for accessible data visualization.Comput Graph Forum, 41(3):15–27, 2022. doi:10/g9bdw22

    2022

  60. [60]

    J. Zong, I. P. Pineros, M. K. Chen, D. Hajas, and A. Satyanarayan. Umwelt: Accessible Structured Editing of Multi-Modal Data Representations. In Proc. CHI, art. no. 46, 20 pp. ACM, New York, 2024. doi:10/pcz51, 2

    2024

  61. [61]

    tactile model with exploration instructions and AI assistant

    J. Zong, I. P. Pineros, M. K. Chen, D. Hajas, and A. Satyanarayan. Se- mantic scaffolding: Augmenting textual structures with domain-specific groupings for accessible data exploration, 2025. arXiv:2506.15883. 2 Touching or Chatting: The Utility of LLMs and Tactile Charts for Learning about Complex Chart Types by BL V Individuals Appendix In this appendix,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.