Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 82 references

A11yShape: AI-Assisted 3-D Modeling for Blind and Low-Vision Programmers

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces A11yShape, a system that lets blind and low-vision programmers who can code create, understand, and revise 3-D models without sighted help.

desk verdict A promising accessibility systems paper whose abstract overstates what the study actually shows; the body is more honest than the headline, and the central idea is worth taking seriously. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.03852 v2 pith:BF7ERGF3 submitted 2025-08-05 cs.HC

Zhuohao Jerry Zhang , Haichang Li , Chun Meng Yu , Faraz Faruqi , Junan Xie , Gene S-H Kim , Mingming Fan , Angus G. Forbes
show 3 more authors
Jacob O. Wobbrock Anhong Guo Liang He
This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords 3-DmodelingBlindandlowvisionAccessibilityLLMOpenSCADCross-representationhighlightingVersioncontrolParticipatorydesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces A11yShape, a system that lets blind and low-vision programmers who can code create, understand, and revise 3-D models without sighted help. It combines the code-to-model editor OpenSCAD with GPT-4o-generated descriptions, a navigable component hierarchy, version control, and a cross-representation highlighting mechanism that links any selection in code, text, hierarchy, or rendering. The authors report a multi-session study in which four blind or low-vision participants independently completed twelve models. If the result holds, coding-based 3-D modeling becomes a viable independent creative workflow for BLV users instead of a task requiring sighted assistance.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is cross-representation highlighting: a single selection anywhere in the interface highlights the same semantic component across the code editor, the AI description panel, the hierarchical component tree, and the 3-D rendering, with audio feedback for screen-reader users. Around it sits an AI verification loop in which GPT-4o, prompted with modular code and renders from six camera views, produces structured descriptions of changes, per-component details, and code diffs. The semantic hierarchy acts as the middle layer that lets users navigate a model by meaningful parts instead of reading code linearly.

What would settle it

A controlled test in which blind participants use A11yShape to inspect models with deliberately planted errors (a miscounted part, a rotated component, a gap between parts) and must state what is wrong; if detection accuracy is near chance, the descriptions do not substitute for visual verification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a text-first, AI-verified modeling loop is enough for BLV programmers to comprehend, create, and modify 3-D models. The system's dynamic cross-representation highlighting synchronizes semantic selections across four representations of the same model—source code, a semantic hierarchy of components, AI-generated descriptions, and the rendered shape—so a user who selects the propeller in the hierarchy hears its description, sees the matching code block highlighted, and gets the rendered part emphasized. In the user study, all four participants produced complete artifacts in both guided and free-form tasks, reported a mean SUS of 80.6, and described the experience as changing their sense of what was possible. The authors also report visible flaws in the artifacts, including misaligned propellers and intersecting parts, which they attribute to spatial reasoning without tactile feedback.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on AI-generated descriptions and cross-representation highlighting being accurate and reliable enough to replace visual and tactile verification for blind users.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BLV programmers with basic coding skills can independently perform guided and self-chosen 3-D modeling tasks, including creating, understanding, and modifying models.
  • A design pattern of synchronized representations generalizes beyond 3-D modeling to other visual creative domains, such as slide decks, websites, and data visualizations.
  • Modeling workflows built on modular, primitive-based construction work better with current LLMs than all-at-once generation, so tools should encourage incremental component-level modeling.
  • Version control and semantic history become essential navigation aids for screen-reader users, offering reversible correction paths beyond undo.
  • The absence of tactile feedback remains a limit; the paper positions future iterations toward 3-D printing and touch-based verification loops.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This suggests that the sighted-rater validation of description quality does not directly measure whether BLV users can detect errors blind; a follow-up in which users hunt for planted errors would test that gap.
  • Because participants were recruited for programming and AI familiarity, the result may not transfer to BLV users without these skills; the system's barrier is now code literacy rather than vision.
  • The inconsistent component counts reported by the AI point to quantitative verification as the weak link; adding deterministic geometry queries from the code tree could make the loop self-checking.
  • A testable extension is to connect A11yShape to tactile displays or 3-D printed output and measure whether one tactile confirmation per session reduces the spatial misalignment errors seen in the artifacts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces A11yShape, a system that integrates OpenSCAD with GPT-4o to help blind and low-vision (BLV) programmers understand, create, and modify 3-D models through code, hierarchical component trees, AI-generated textual descriptions, and cross-representation highlighting. The authors report a participatory design process with a BLV co-author, a validation study of AI description quality with 15 sighted raters, and a multi-session user study with four BLV programmers who completed 12 models across two testing sessions after a tutorial. The central claim is that participants could independently comprehend, create, and modify 3-D models, tasks the abstract characterizes as 'previously impossible without assistance from sighted individuals.' The paper also reports a mean SUS score of 80.6, qualitative findings on workflows and strategies, and several acknowledged limitations including LLM unreliability, absence of tactile feedback, and undetected structural misalignments.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, A11yShape would be a meaningful contribution to accessible creativity support: it proposes a concrete, software-only mechanism (cross-representation highlighting) that could generalize beyond 3-D modeling, and it provides detailed qualitative evidence about how BLV programmers develop spatial mental models with AI assistance. The paper is transparent about limitations, includes participatory design with a BLV co-author, and reports interaction logs in addition to interviews, which strengthens the empirical contribution. However, the strength of the contribution currently rests on a claim about independent verification that the evidence does not yet establish: success was measured by participant satisfaction, not objective model correctness, and the AI description channel was validated only with sighted raters. With appropriate reframing or additional objective evaluation, the work would be a solid ASSETS contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §6.4] The abstract states that participants performed tasks 'that were previously impossible without assistance from sighted individuals,' but Section 6.4 explicitly says no comparison was made with existing technologies (e.g., a code editor plus a chat LLM) and no baseline condition was run. 'Previously impossible' is therefore an assertion about the entire design space, not a measured result. I recommend replacing this with a more defensible phrasing such as 'previously inaccessible in practice' or adding a baseline comparison to support the stronger claim.
  2. [§5.1, §5.3, and §6.4] The study measures success by participants' own satisfaction and SUS scores, not by objective correctness of the final artifacts. Section 5.3 reports that participants 'indirectly confirmed correctness through AI responses rather than direct verification,' and Section 6.4 concedes that 'misaligned components and structural conflicts often remain undetected until the final stages of modeling, if at all.' Section 5.2 also reports at least one instance of inconsistent component counts from the AI. The data therefore support claims about perceived usability and subjective success, but not a claim that participants could independently verify or correct models. The paper should either add an objective artifact evaluation (e.g., structural checks or expert review of the 12 final models) or explicitly limit the claim to perceived success.
  3. [§3.2] The AI-description validation study measures description quality using 15 sighted raters and self-developed Likert metrics (M1–M5), reporting mean scores from 4.11 to 4.52. This does not test the load-bearing assumption that BLV users can detect errors in the descriptions alone, which is the mechanism by which A11yShape substitutes for visual verification. In addition, no inter-rater reliability statistic is reported, and the metrics are described as developed through internal discussions. I recommend either adding a small study in which BLV participants use descriptions to identify deliberately planted errors, or explicitly limiting the claim to 'descriptions that sighted raters judge as accurate' and discussing the residual risk this poses for the verification loop.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.4 and §5.1] The user journey in Section 3.4 is presented through a character named 'Alex,' and the same helicopter artifact is later attributed to P2 in Section 5.1 and Figure 6; the text should state explicitly that Alex is P2 to avoid confusion.
  2. [Introduction and Abstract] The Introduction mentions 'three complete 3-D models' per participant while the Abstract reports '12 distinct models across two testing sessions'; the relationship between these counts (4 participants × 3 sessions) should be stated clearly in both places.
  3. [Footnote 2] The footnote defines Tanghulu as a 'traditional Chinese desert'; this should be 'dessert.'
  4. [§3.2] The keyboard shortcut notation 'ctrl+shift+number 1-6' is ambiguous; it should be written as 'Ctrl+Shift+1 through Ctrl+Shift+6' and 'Ctrl+Shift+0' for the default view.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an observed user-study result, and the cited prior work and self-developed metrics are contextual rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

A11yShape's central claim is empirical: four BLV participants completed modeling tasks in a multi-session study (Sections 4 and 5). The paper does not derive a formal result from fitted parameters or from a self-citation chain. The AI-description validation study (Section 3.2) uses 15 sighted raters and Likert metrics developed internally; this is a measurement-validity limitation, not a circular reduction, because the ratings are independent human judgments and the conclusion of 'reliability' is not defined as 'high score on the authors' own metric.' The cross-representation highlighting mechanism is presented as an instantiation of ideas from prior work, including the authors' own A11yBoard and EditScribe (Section 6.2), but those citations are contextual and the mechanism is demonstrated in the present system. The paper's own limitations (Sections 5.3 and 6.4) concede that participants indirectly confirmed correctness through AI responses and that misalignments often went undetected; this weakens the strength of the 'comprehension' claim but does not make the result equivalent to its inputs. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a systems and user-study paper, so the ledger captures design and evaluation assumptions rather than fitted parameters. No free parameters appear; the assumptions listed are load-bearing premises about the validity of the AI verification loop, the success metric, and participant representativeness.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption AI-generated descriptions, validated only by sighted raters on internally developed metrics, are sufficiently accurate for BLV users to rely on them for non-visual verification.
    The system's core verification loop depends on LLM description accuracy. The validation study (Section 3.2) used 15 sighted participants and author-defined metrics (M1-M5), not BLV participants or objective model checks. Section 5.2 reports at least one case where the AI gave inconsistent element counts for the same model, undercutting this assumption.
  • domain assumption Participants' self-satisfaction with their models is an adequate success measure for 'independently create and modify 3-D models.'
    The study reports 'results that aligned with their own satisfaction' (Abstract) and considered models complete when they 'generally matched their conceptual expectations' (Section 5.1). The paper itself notes structural misalignments and conflicts in artifacts (Sections 5.1, 6.4), so success is not defined by objective geometric correctness.
  • domain assumption Four participants, all male, aged 21-32, with programming experience, are adequate to support the generalization to 'BLV programmers' in the abstract.
    Recruitment was through prior outreach contacts (Section 4.1). No power analysis or representativeness argument is given, and all participants were familiar with AI agents. The paper frames its contribution as exploratory, yet the abstract generalizes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A11yShape: AI-Assisted 3-D Modeling for Blind and Low-Vision Programmers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BF7ERGF3

@misc{pith2026250803852,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A11yShape: AI-Assisted 3-D Modeling for Blind and Low-Vision Programmers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BF7ERGF3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.03852}
}
read the original abstract

Building 3-D models is challenging for blind and low-vision (BLV) users due to the inherent complexity of 3-D models and the lack of support for non-visual interaction in existing tools. To address this issue, we introduce A11yShape, a novel system designed to help BLV users who possess basic programming skills understand, modify, and iterate on 3-D models. A11yShape leverages LLMs and integrates with OpenSCAD, a popular open-source editor that generates 3-D models from code. Key functionalities of A11yShape include accessible descriptions of 3-D models, version control to track changes in models and code, and a hierarchical representation of model components. Most importantly, A11yShape employs a cross-representation highlighting mechanism to synchronize semantic selections across all model representations -- code, semantic hierarchy, AI description, and 3-D rendering. We conducted a multi-session user study with four BLV programmers, where, after an initial tutorial session, participants independently completed 12 distinct models across two testing sessions, achieving results that aligned with their own satisfaction. The result demonstrates that participants were able to comprehend provided 3-D models, as well as independently create and modify 3-D models -- tasks that were previously impossible without assistance from sighted individuals.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

82 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Khaled Albusays, Stephanie Ludi, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2017. Interviews and observation of blind software developers at work to understand code navigation challenges. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility . 91–100

    2017

  2. [3]

    Branko Anđić, Zsolt Lavicza, Eva Ulbrich, Stanko Cvjetićanin, Filip Petrović, and Mirjana Maričić and. 2024. Contribution of 3D modelling and printing to learning in primary schools: a case study with visually impaired students from an inclusive Biology classroom. Journal of Biological Education 58, 4 (2024), 795–811. doi:10. 1080/00219266.2022.2118352 ar...

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [4]

    Aaron Bangor, Philip T Kortum, and James T Miller. 2008. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 24, 6 (2008), 574–594

    2008

  4. [5]

    B Bebeshko, K Khorolska, N Kotenko, A Desiatko, K Sauanova, S Sagyndykova, and D Tyshchenko. 2021. 3D modelling by means of artificial intelligence.Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology 99, 6 (2021), 1296–1308

    work page 2021

  5. [6]

    Zhuodi Cai. 2024. 3Description: An Intuitive Human-AI Collaborative 3D Mod- eling Approach. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Digital and Interactive Arts (Faro, Portugal) (ARTECH ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 32, 5 pages. doi:10.1145/3632776.3632785

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [7]

    Ruei-Che Chang, Yuxuan Liu, Lotus Zhang, and Anhong Guo. 2024. EditScribe: Non-Visual Image Editing with Natural Language Verification Loops. In Pro- ceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (St. John’s, NL, Canada) (ASSETS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 65, 19 pages....

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [8]

    Ruei-Che Chang, Chih-An Tsao, Fang-Ying Liao, Seraphina Yong, Tom Yeh, and Bing-Yu Chen. 2021. Daedalus in the Dark: Designing for Non-Visual Accessible Construction of Laser-Cut Architecture. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(Virtual Event, USA)(UIST ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 34...

    doi:10.1145/3472749 2021

  8. [9]

    Ruei-Che Chang, Wen-Ping Wang, Chi-Huan Chiang, Te-Yen Wu, Zheer Xu, Justin Luo, Bing-Yu Chen, and Xing-Dong Yang. 2021. AccessibleCircuits: Adap- tive Add-On Circuit Components for People with Blindness or Low Vision. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Mac...

    arXiv 2021

Show all 82 references
  1. [10]

    Kevin Chen, Christopher B Choy, Manolis Savva, Angel X Chang, Thomas Funkhouser, and Silvio Savarese. 2018. Text2Shape: Generating Shapes from Natural Language by Learning Joint Embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.08495 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  2. [12]

    Wobbrock, and Jon E

    Arnavi Chheda-Kothary, Ritesh Kanchi, Chris Sanders, Kevin Xiao, Aditya Sen- gupta, Melanie Kneitmix, Jacob O. Wobbrock, and Jon E. Froehlich. 2025. ArtIn- sight: Enabling AI-Powered Artwork Engagement for Mixed Visual-Ability Fami- lies. In Proceedings of the 30th Internation...

    2025

  3. [13]

    Victoria Clarke and Virginia Braun. 2017. Thematic analysis. The journal of positive psychology 12, 3 (2017), 297–298

    2017

  4. [14]

    Maitraye Das, Thomas Barlow McHugh, Anne Marie Piper, and Darren Gergle

  5. [15]

    Maitraye Das, Anne Marie Piper, and Darren Gergle. 2022. Design and evaluation of accessible collaborative writing techniques for people with vision impairments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 29, 2 (2022), 1–42

    2022

  6. [16]

    Josh Urban Davis, Te-Yen Wu, Bo Shi, Hanyi Lu, Athina Panotopoulou, Emily Whiting, and Xing-Dong Yang. 2020. TangibleCircuits: An Interactive 3D Printed Circuit Education Tool for People with Visual Impairments. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com...

    2020

  7. [17]

    De Felice, T

    F. De Felice, T. Gramegna, F. Renna, G. Attolico, and A. Distante. 2005. A portable system to build 3D models of cultural heritage and to allow their exploration by blind people. In IEEE International Workshop on Haptic Audio Visual Environments and their Applications. 6 pp.–....

    2005

  8. [19]

    Junjie Fei, Mahmoud Ahmed, Jian Ding, Eslam Mohamed Bakr, and Mohamed Elhoseiny. 2024. Kestrel: Point Grounding Multimodal LLM for Part-Aware 3D Vision-Language Understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18937 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  9. [20]

    Timo Götzelmann. 2016. LucentMaps: 3D Printed Audiovisual Tactile Maps for Blind and Visually Impaired People. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Reno, Nevada, USA) (ASSETS ’16). Association for Computing Machinery...

    2016

  10. [21]

    Götzelmann

    T. Götzelmann. 2018. Autonomous Selection and Printing of 3D Models for People Who Are Blind. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 11, 3, Article 14 (Sept. 2018), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/3241066

    2018 doi

  11. [22]

    Jaylin Herskovitz, Andi Xu, Rahaf Alharbi, and Anhong Guo. 2023. Hacking, Switching, Combining: Understanding and Supporting DIY Assistive Technology Design by Blind People. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI...

    2023

  12. [25]

    Leona Holloway, Matthew Butler, and Kim Marriott. 2022. 3D Printed Street Crossings: Supporting Orientation and Mobility Training with People who are Blind or have Low Vision. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA...

    2022

  13. [26]

    Leona Holloway, Matthew Butler, and Kim Marriott. 2023. TactIcons: Designing 3D Printed Map Icons for People who are Blind or have Low Vision. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing...

    2023

  14. [27]

    Leona Holloway, Kim Marriott, and Matthew Butler. 2018. Accessible Maps for the Blind: Comparing 3D Printed Models with Tactile Graphics. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). Association for Computing ...

    2018

  15. [28]

    Mina Huh and Amy Pavel. 2024. DesignChecker: Visual Design Support for Blind and Low Vision Web Developers. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(UIST ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,...

    2024

  16. [29]

    Mina Huh, Yi-Hao Peng, and Amy Pavel. 2023. GenAssist: Making Image Gen- eration Accessible. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (San Francisco, CA, USA) (UIST ’23). Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

    2023

  17. [30]

    Mina Huh, Saelyne Yang, Yi-Hao Peng, Xiang ’Anthony’ Chen, Young-Ho Kim, and Amy Pavel. 2023. AVscript: Accessible Video Editing with Audio-Visual Scripts. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association...

    2023

  18. [31]

    Edwin L Hutchins, James D Hollan, and Donald A Norman. 1985. Direct manipu- lation interfaces. Human–computer interaction 1, 4 (1985), 311–338

    1985

  19. [33]

    Jeeeun Kim and Tom Yeh. 2015. Toward 3D-Printed Movable Tactile Pictures for Children with Visual Impairments. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2015

  20. [34]

    Richard E Ladner. 2015. Design for user empowerment. interactions 22, 2 (2015), 24–29

    2015

  21. [35]

    Cheuk Yin Phipson Lee, Zhuohao Zhang, Jaylin Herskovitz, JooYoung Seo, and Anhong Guo. 2022. CollabAlly: Accessible Collaboration Awareness in Document Editing. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). Ass...

    2022

  22. [36]

    Seonghee Lee, Maho Kohga, Steve Landau, Sile O’Modhrain, and Hari Subra- monyam. 2024. AltCanvas: A Tile-Based Editor for Visual Content Creation with Generative AI for Blind or Visually Impaired People. In Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Comp...

    2024

  23. [37]

    Barbara Leporini, Valentina Rossetti, Francesco Furfari, Susanna Pelagatti, and Andrea Quarta. 2020. Design Guidelines for an Interactive 3D Model as a Sup- porting Tool for Exploring a Cultural Site by Visually Impaired and Sighted People. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 13, 3, Ar...

    2020 doi

  24. [38]

    Chenghao Li, Chaoning Zhang, Atish Waghwase, Lik-Hang Lee, François Rameau, Yang Yang, Sung-Ho Bae, and Choong Seon Hong. 2023. Generative AI meets 3D: A Survey on Text-to-3D in AIGC Era. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.06131

    2023 doi arXiv

  25. [40]

    Jiasheng Li, Zeyu Yan, Ebrima Haddy Jarjue, Ashrith Shetty, and Huaishu Peng

  26. [41]

    Yixun Liang, Xin Yang, Jiantao Lin, Haodong Li, Xiaogang Xu, and Yingcong Chen. 2024. LucidDreamer: Towards High-Fidelity Text-to-3D Generation via Interval Score Matching . In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . IEEE Computer Society, ...

    2024

  27. [42]

    In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Bend, OR, USA) (UIST ’22)

    TangibleGrid: Tangible Web Layout Design for Blind Users. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Bend, OR, USA) (UIST ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 47, 12 pages. doi:10.1145/3526113.3545627

  28. [44]

    Sebastian Lieb, Benjamin Rosenmeier, Thorsten Thormählen, and Knut Buettner

  29. [45]

    Xingyu" Bruce" Liu, Ruolin Wang, Dingzeyu Li, Xiang Anthony Chen, and Amy Pavel. 2022. Crossa11y: Identifying video accessibility issues via cross-modal grounding. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–14

    2022

  30. [46]

    Tiange Luo, Chris Rockwell, Honglak Lee, and Justin Johnson. 2023. Scal- able 3D Captioning with Pretrained Models. https://openreview.net/forum? id=jUpVFjRdUV

    2023

  31. [47]

    Vivian Liu, Jo Vermeulen, George Fitzmaurice, and Justin Matejka. 2023. 3DALL- E: Integrating Text-to-Image AI in 3D Design Workflows. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Pittsburgh, PA, USA) (DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    2023

  32. [49]

    Aboubakar Mountapmbeme, Obianuju Okafor, and Stephanie Ludi. 2022. Address- ing accessibility barriers in programming for people with visual impairments: A literature review. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) 15, 1 (2022), 1–26

    2022

  33. [50]

    Oscar Michel, Roi Bar-On, Richard Liu, Sagie Benaim, and Rana Hanocka

  34. [51]

    OpenAI. 2024. GPT-4o. https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/

    2024

  35. [52]

    OpenSCAD. 2021. OpenSCAD: The Programmers Solid 3D CAD Modeller. https: //openscad.org/. Accessed: April 16, 2025

    2021

  36. [53]

    Maulishree Pandey, Vaishnav Kameswaran, Hrishikesh V Rao, Sile O’Modhrain, and Steve Oney. 2021. Understanding accessibility and collaboration in program- ming for people with visual impairments. Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–30

    2021

  37. [54]

    Peya Mowar, Yi-Hao Peng, Jason Wu, Aaron Steinfeld, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2025. CodeA11y: Making AI Coding Assistants Useful for Accessible Web Development. arXiv:2502.10884 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.10884

    2025 arXiv

  38. [55]

    Yi-Hao Peng, JiWoong Jang, Jeffrey P Bigham, and Amy Pavel. 2021. Say It All: Feedback for Improving Non-Visual Presentation Accessibility. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Ma...

    2021

  39. [56]

    Barron, and Ben Mildenhall

    Ben Poole, Ajay Jain, Jonathan T. Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. 2022. DreamFusion: Text-to-3D using 2D Diffusion. arXiv (2022)

    2022

  40. [57]

    Froehlich, and Jennifer Mankoff

    Venkatesh Potluri, Liang He, Christine Chen, Jon E. Froehlich, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2019. A Multi-Modal Approach for Blind and Visually Impaired De- velopers to Edit Webpage Designs. In Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibil...

    2019

  41. [58]

    Yi-Hao Peng, Peggy Chi, Anjuli Kannan, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Irfan Essa

  42. [59]

    Venkatesh Potluri, John Thompson, James Devine, Bongshin Lee, Nora Morsi, Peli De Halleux, Steve Hodges, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2022. PSST: Enabling Blind or Visually Impaired Developers to Author Sonifications of Streaming Sensor Data. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Sym...

    2022

  43. [60]

    Zekun Qi, Runpei Dong, Shaochen Zhang, Haoran Geng, Chunrui Han, Zheng Ge, Li Yi, and Kaisheng Ma. 2024. ShapeLLM: Universal 3D Object Understanding for Embodied Interaction. In Computer Vision – ECCV 2024: 18th European Conference, Milan, Italy, September 29–October 4, 2024, ...

    2024 doi

  44. [61]

    Amit Raj, Srinivas Kaza, Ben Poole, Michael Niemeyer, Nataniel Ruiz, Ben Milden- hall, Shiran Zada, Kfir Aberman, Michael Rubinstein, Jonathan Barron, Yuanzhen Li, and Varun Jampani. 2023. DreamBooth3D: Subject-Driven Text-to-3D Gen- eration. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Con...

    2023

  45. [62]

    Samuel Reinders, Swamy Ananthanarayan, Matthew Butler, and Kim Marriott

  46. [63]

    Venkatesh Potluri, Maulishree Pandey, Andrew Begel, Michael Barnett, and Scott Reitherman. 2022. CodeWalk: Facilitating Shared Awareness in Mixed-Ability Collaborative Software Development. In Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Acce...

    2022

  47. [64]

    V Rossetti, F Furfari, B Leporini, S Pelagatti, and A Quarta. 2018. Smart Cultural Site: an Interactive 3d Model Accessible to People with Visual Impairment. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 364, 1 (jun 2018), 012019. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/364/1/012019

    2018 doi

  48. [65]

    Clark Saben, Jessica Zeitz, and Prashant Chandrasekar. 2024. Enabling Blind and Low-Vision (BLV) Developers with LLM-Driven Code Debugging. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 40, 3 (2024), 204–215

    2024

  49. [67]

    Elen Sargsyan, Bernard Oriola, Marc J-M Macé, Marcos Serrano, and Christophe Jouffrais. 2023. 3D Printed Interactive Multi-Storey Model for People with Visual Impairments. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’...

    2023 doi

  50. [68]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(DIS ’23)

    Designing Conversational Multimodal 3D Printed Models with People who are Blind. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2172–2188. doi:10.1145/3563657.3595989

    2023

  51. [69]

    Hey Model!

    Samuel Reinders, Matthew Butler, and Kim Marriott. 2020. "Hey Model!" – Natural User Interactions and Agency in Accessible Interactive 3D Models. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Comp...

    2020

  52. [70]

    JooYoung Seo and Megan Rogge. 2023. Coding non-visually in visual studio code: collaboration towards accessible development environment for blind program- mers. In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–9

    2023

  53. [71]

    Lei Shi, Holly Lawson, Zhuohao Zhang, and Shiri Azenkot. 2019. Designing Inter- active 3D Printed Models with Teachers of the Visually Impaired. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI ’19). Association for Co...

    2019

  54. [72]

    Lei Shi, Idan Zelzer, Catherine Feng, and Shiri Azenkot. 2016. Tickers and Talker: An Accessible Labeling Toolkit for 3D Printed Models. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16) . Association for Comp...

    2016

  55. [73]

    Lei Shi, Yuhang Zhao, and Shiri Azenkot. 2017. Designing Interactions for 3D Printed Models with Blind People. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (ASSETS ’17). Association for Computing Ma...

    2017

  56. [74]

    Anastasia Schaadhardt, Alexis Hiniker, and Jacob O Wobbrock. 2021. Understand- ing blind screen-reader users’ experiences of digital artboards. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    2021

  57. [75]

    Tiina Sarjakoski, and Suvi Weckman

    Friederike Schwarzbach, Tapani Sarjakoski, Juha Oksanen, L. Tiina Sarjakoski, and Suvi Weckman. 2012. Physical 3D models from LIDAR data as tactile maps for visually impaired persons . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 169–183. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12272-9_11

    2012 doi

  58. [76]

    Alexa F Siu, Eric J Gonzalez, Shenli Yuan, Jason B Ginsberg, and Sean Follmer. 2018. Shapeshift: 2D spatial manipulation and self-actuation of tabletop shape displays for tangible and haptic interaction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing S...

    2018

  59. [77]

    Siu, Son Kim, Joshua A

    Alexa F. Siu, Son Kim, Joshua A. Miele, and Sean Follmer. 2019. shapeCAD: An Accessible 3D Modelling Workflow for the Blind and Visually-Impaired Via 2.5D Shape Displays. In Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Pittsbur...

    2019

  60. [78]

    Stack Overflow. 2022. Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2022. Online survey results. https://survey.stackoverflow.co/2022/ Accessed: April 15, 2025

    2022

  61. [79]

    Chunyi Sun, Junlin Han, Weijian Deng, Xinlong Wang, Zishan Qin, and Stephen Gould. 2024. 3D-GPT: Procedural 3D Modeling with Large Language Models. https://openreview.net/forum?id=ttMwEuEPeB

    2024

  62. [80]

    Lei Shi, Yuhang Zhao, and Shiri Azenkot. 2017. Markit and Talkit: a low-barrier toolkit to augment 3D printed models with audio annotations. In Proceedings of the 30th annual acm symposium on user interface software and technology . 493–506

    2017

  63. [81]

    Yawar Siddiqui, Tom Monnier, Filippos Kokkinos, Mahendra Kariya, Yanir Kleiman, Emilien Garreau, Oran Gafni, Natalia Neverova, Andrea Vedaldi, Ro- man Shapovalov, and David Novotny. 2024. Meta 3D AssetGen: Text-to-Mesh Generation with High-Quality Geometry, Texture, and PBR Ma...

    2024

  64. [82]

    Jiale Xu, Xintao Wang, Weihao Cheng, Yan-Pei Cao, Ying Shan, Xiaohu Qie, and Shenghua Gao. 2023. Dream3D: Zero-Shot Text-to-3D Synthesis Using 3D Shape Prior and Text-to-Image Diffusion Models . In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) . IE...

    2023

  65. [83]

    Mengxi Zhang, Huaxiao Liu, Changhao Du, Tengmei Wang, Han Li, Pei Huang, and Chunyang Chen. 2025. Distinguishing GUI Component States for Blind Users using Large Language Models. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2025)

    2025

  66. [84]

    Wobbrock

    Mingrui Ray Zhang, Ruolin Wang, Xuhai Xu, Qisheng Li, Ather Sharif, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2021. Voicemoji: Emoji Entry Using Voice for Visually Impaired People. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Associ...

    2021

  67. [85]

    Wobbrock

    Zhuohao Zhang, Gene S-H Kim, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2023. Developing and Deploying a Real-World Solution for Accessible Slide Reading and Authoring for Blind Users. In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (New York, NY, ...

    2023

  68. [86]

    Saiganesh Swaminathan, Thijs Roumen, Robert Kovacs, David Stangl, Stefanie Mueller, and Patrick Baudisch. 2016. Linespace: A Sensemaking Platform for the Blind. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’...

    2016

  69. [92]

    Zhuohao Zhang, John R Thompson, Aditi Shah, Manish Agrawal, Alper Sarikaya, Jacob O Wobbrock, Edward Cutrell, and Bongshin Lee. 2024. ChartA11y: Design- ing accessible touch experiences of visualizations with blind smartphone users. In Proceedings of the 26th International ACM...

    2024

  70. [93]

    Wobbrock

    Zhuohao (Jerry) Zhang and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2023. A11yBoard: Making Digital Artboards Accessible to Blind and Low-Vision Users. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, N...

    2023

  71. [2020]

    In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessi- bility (Virtual Event, Greece)(ASSETS ’20)

    Haptic and Auditive Mesh Inspection for Blind 3D Modelers. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessi- bility (Virtual Event, Greece)(ASSETS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 38, 10 pages. doi:...

  72. [2021]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03221 (2021)

    Text2Mesh: Text-Driven Neural Stylization for Meshes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.03221 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  73. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Co11ab: augmenting accessibility in synchronous collaborative writing for people with vision impairments. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–18

    2022

  74. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23)

    Slide Gestalt: Automatic Structure Extraction in Slide Decks for Non-Visual Access. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 829, 14 pages. doi:...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.