pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.21338 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-23 · 💻 cs.HC

"If We Had the Information That We Need to Interpret the World Around Us, We Wouldn't Be Disabled:" Barriers and Opportunities in Information Work among Blind and Sighted Colleagues

Yichun Zhao , Miguel A. Nacenta , Mahadeo A. Sukhai , Sowmya Somanath This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 21:20 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords mixed-ability teamsinformation representationsaccessibilitycollaborative knowledge workblind and low visionworkplace stigmasinterdependent work
0
0 comments X

The pith

Mixed-ability teams face four types of failures when using shared information representations like PDFs and charts.

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

The paper studies how teams with blind, low-vision, and sighted professionals collaborate using information representations such as documents, spreadsheets, and charts. Through diary studies, interviews, and focus groups with participants from seven teams, it maps out four kinds of failures in this work and the workarounds people create. These issues are tied to workplace stigmas and change as teams move toward more interdependent ways of sharing information. This framework is intended to help create better designs for tools that support inclusive knowledge work.

Core claim

The authors establish that representation use in mixed visual ability workplaces consists of four interrelated types of failures and workarounds, influenced by stigmas and shaped by evolving social dynamics toward interdependent information work, providing an empirically supported conceptual understanding to improve mixed-ability team experiences.

What carries the argument

Four types of interrelated failures and workarounds in the use of information representations, influenced by workplace stigmas and social dynamics.

If this is right

  • The conceptual understanding can help design tools that support mixed-ability teams in knowledge work.
  • It highlights opportunities to reduce barriers by fostering interdependent information work practices.
  • It identifies how stigmas shape representation use, suggesting targeted interventions in team dynamics.
  • The model provides a basis for evaluating current workplace information systems for accessibility.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar patterns of failures and workarounds may appear in teams facing other disabilities that affect information access.
  • Organizations could apply the framework to audit their information sharing practices for broader inclusivity.
  • New technologies could be tested specifically for how they interact with these four failure types in mixed-ability settings.

Load-bearing premise

The patterns from the 30 participants in seven teams represent the main dimensions of representation use and are not primarily determined by the particular workplaces or by the self-selection of volunteers.

What would settle it

Observing a different set of mixed-ability teams where the four types of failures do not appear or where workarounds follow unrelated patterns would indicate that the conceptual understanding does not generalize.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.21338 by Mahadeo A. Sukhai, Miguel A. Nacenta, Sowmya Somanath, Yichun Zhao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: An example of removing visual structure in spreadsheet. (Confidential content is replaced.) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: P11LB’s table created with screen-reader. (Confiden￾tial content is replaced.) effort to carefully check editing details (n=12). P12LB described the process as: “painstaking[...] keeping track of every heading [...] colon and every semicolon [...] making sure that everything is correct, and it just doesn’t seem like the best use of time.” Nonetheless, P3TB noted the importance of achieving visually profess… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Two ways of creating accessible representations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Despite recognition of the value of diversity, the way work takes place can fail to support blind or low-vision employees, especially in collaborative work settings. This paper examines how professional teams with diverse visual abilities use information representations (e.g., PDF documents, spreadsheets and charts). A diary study with follow-up individual interviews (23 participants with mixed abilities from 5 teams) and 2 separate focus groups (7 participants from 2 other teams) allowed us to characterize key dimensions of the role of representations in the workplace into four types of interrelated failures and workarounds, influenced by workplace stigmas and shaped by evolving social dynamics towards interdependent information work. We contribute this new empirically supported conceptual understanding of representation use in workplaces that can help design and improve the experiences of mixed-ability teams doing knowledge work in the current technological landscape.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports results from a qualitative study using a diary study plus follow-up interviews (23 participants across 5 mixed-ability teams) and two focus groups (7 participants across 2 additional teams). It characterizes how blind, low-vision, and sighted colleagues use information representations (PDFs, spreadsheets, charts) in knowledge work, identifying four interrelated types of failures and workarounds that are shaped by workplace stigmas and evolving social dynamics. The central contribution is an empirically grounded conceptual framework intended to guide design of tools and practices for mixed-ability teams.

Significance. If the four-type typology proves robust, the work would offer a valuable lens for HCI and accessibility research on collaborative representation use, moving beyond individual assistive technologies to team-level information practices. The multi-method data collection (diaries, interviews, focus groups) from 30 participants provides a solid empirical foundation for the claims, and the emphasis on interdependent work aligns with current trends in accessible collaboration tools.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods section: The description of the qualitative analysis process is insufficiently detailed. There is no account of the coding procedure, how the four failure/workaround types were iteratively derived from the raw diary and interview data, inter-rater reliability checks, or negative-case analysis. Because the central claim is the validity of this specific typology, the absence of these standard safeguards makes it impossible to evaluate whether the four types are well-supported or primarily artifacts of the seven sampled teams.
  2. [Findings] Findings and Discussion: The paper presents the four types as capturing key dimensions of representation use but provides no cross-team saturation checks, explicit comparison of patterns across the seven organizations, or external validation steps. This is load-bearing for the claim that the typology offers a broadly useful conceptual understanding rather than a description of the particular workplaces and self-selected volunteers.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The claim that the four types are 'interrelated' and 'influenced by workplace stigmas' is stated without a forward reference to the specific evidence or section that demonstrates these relationships.
  2. [Findings] The manuscript would benefit from a table or figure that maps the four types to representative participant quotes and team contexts to improve traceability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed feedback, which highlights opportunities to strengthen the transparency of our methods and the robustness of our typology. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will undertake.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The description of the qualitative analysis process is insufficiently detailed. There is no account of the coding procedure, how the four failure/workaround types were iteratively derived from the raw diary and interview data, inter-rater reliability checks, or negative-case analysis. Because the central claim is the validity of this specific typology, the absence of these standard safeguards makes it impossible to evaluate whether the four types are well-supported or primarily artifacts of the seven sampled teams.

    Authors: We agree that the Methods section requires greater specificity to allow evaluation of the typology's development. The original manuscript summarized the overall qualitative approach but did not detail the iterative coding steps, how the four types were derived from diary and interview data, any inter-coder processes, or negative-case analysis. In revision, we will expand this section to describe the coding procedure, including the sequence of open coding, theme refinement, and how the interrelated failure/workaround types were iteratively constructed from the raw data. We will also note any steps taken for analytical rigor, such as team discussions of emerging codes and attention to disconfirming evidence. This will provide the necessary transparency without altering the study's design. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Findings] Findings and Discussion: The paper presents the four types as capturing key dimensions of representation use but provides no cross-team saturation checks, explicit comparison of patterns across the seven organizations, or external validation steps. This is load-bearing for the claim that the typology offers a broadly useful conceptual understanding rather than a description of the particular workplaces and self-selected volunteers.

    Authors: We acknowledge the value of explicitly demonstrating cross-team consistency to support the framework's broader utility. While the types were identified from patterns recurring across the seven teams, the submitted manuscript did not include dedicated saturation checks or side-by-side organizational comparisons. In revision, we will add material to the Findings and Discussion sections that compares how the four types appeared across the sampled teams and organizations, and that reflects on evidence of saturation within the dataset. We will also clarify the scope of the contribution as an empirically derived conceptual framework from this sample of mixed-ability teams, explicitly noting the absence of external validation and the self-selected nature of participants as limitations. These additions will better situate the typology while preserving the qualitative, exploratory character of the work. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical qualitative framework derived from participant data

full rationale

This paper is a qualitative empirical study using diary studies, interviews (23 participants, 5 teams), and focus groups (7 participants, 2 teams) to identify four types of representation failures and workarounds. The central conceptual contribution is explicitly framed as 'empirically supported' and grounded in observed participant reports, workplace stigmas, and social dynamics. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or self-citations appear in the provided text. The derivation chain consists of data collection and thematic analysis rather than any self-referential reduction or imported uniqueness claims. Generalizability concerns (e.g., sampling) are validity issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard qualitative HCI assumptions about the reliability of self-reported diary data and the transferability of findings from a modest sample of professional teams; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Workplace information representations create measurable barriers when visual abilities differ among team members.
    The study begins from the premise that current work practices fail to support blind or low-vision employees in collaborative settings.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5472 in / 1311 out tokens · 30504 ms · 2026-05-09T21:20:02.917057+00:00 · methodology

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

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shaaron Ainsworth. 2006. DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learn- ing with multiple representations.Learning and Instruction16, 3 (June 2006), 183–198. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001 2006

  2. [2]

    2018.Multiple Representations and Multimedia Learning (1 ed.)

    Shaaron Ainsworth. 2018.Multiple Representations and Multimedia Learning (1 ed.). Routledge, New York, NY : Routledge, 2018., 96–105. doi:10.4324/ 9781315617572-10

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Maryam Bandukda, Catherine Holloway, Aneesha Singh, and Nadia Berthouze

    work page

  4. [4]

    InProceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Virtual Event, Greece) (ASSETS ’20)

    PLACES: A Framework for Supporting Blind and Partially Sighted Peo- ple in Outdoor Leisure Activities. InProceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Virtual Event, Greece) (ASSETS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 29, 13 pages. doi:10.1145/3373625.3417001

    work page doi:10.1145/3373625.3417001

  5. [5]

    Barowy, Emery D

    Daniel W. Barowy, Emery D. Berger, and Benjamin Zorn. 2018. ExceLint: automat- ically finding spreadsheet formula errors.Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages2, OOPSLA (Oct. 2018), 148:1–148:26. doi:10.1145/3276518

    work page doi:10.1145/3276518 2018

  6. [6]

    Bennett, Erin Brady, and Stacy M

    Cynthia L. Bennett, Erin Brady, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Interdependence as a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design. InProceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 161–173. doi:10.1145/3234695.3236348

    work page doi:10.1145/3234695.3236348 2018

  7. [7]

    Adam Binks, Alice Toniolo, and Miguel A. Nacenta. 2022. Representational transformations: Using maps to write essays.International Journal of Human- Computer Studies165 (Sept. 2022), 102851. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102851

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102851 2022

  8. [8]

    Branham and Shaun K

    Stacy M. Branham and Shaun K. Kane. 2015. The Invisible Work of Accessibility: How Blind Employees Manage Accessibility in Mixed-Ability Workplaces. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (ASSETS ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 163–171. doi:10.1145/2700648.2809864

    work page doi:10.1145/2700648.2809864 2015

  9. [9]

    2023.Thematic analysis.American Psycho- logical Association, Washington, 65–81

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2023.Thematic analysis.American Psycho- logical Association, Washington, 65–81. doi:10.1037/0000319-004

    work page doi:10.1037/0000319-004 2023

  10. [10]

    Andrew Burton-Jones and Camille Grange. 2013. From Use to Effective Use: A Representation Theory Perspective.Information Systems Research24, 3 (Sept. 2013), 632–658. doi:10.1287/isre.1120.0444 Publisher: INFORMS

    work page doi:10.1287/isre.1120.0444 2013

  11. [11]

    Yoonha Cha, Victoria Jackson, Karina Kohl, Rafael Prikladnicki, André van der Hoek, and Stacy Branham. 2025. The Dilemma of Building Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Solutions For Workplace Accessibility. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 47, 17 pag...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713302 2025

  12. [12]

    Matthew Chalmers. 1999. Comparing information access approaches.Journal of the American Society for Information Science50, 12 (1999), 1108–1118. doi:10. 1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:12<1108::AID-ASI10>3.0.CO;2-S

    work page 1999

  13. [13]

    Mengzhu (Katie) Chen, Isabella Pedraza Pineros, Arvind Satyanarayan, and Jonathan Zong. 2025. Tactile Vega-Lite: Rapidly Prototyping Tactile Charts with Smart Defaults. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–23. doi:10.1145/3706598.3714132

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3714132 2025

  14. [14]

    Offenwanger, M

    Pramod Chundury, Yasmin Reyazuddin, J. Bern Jordan, Jonathan Lazar, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2023. TactualPlot: Spatializing Data as Sound using Sensory Substitution for Touchscreen Accessibility.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics(2023), 1–11. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2023.3326937

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2023.3326937 2023

  15. [15]

    William J. Clancey. 1995. Practice Cannot be Reduced to Theory: Knowledge, Representations, and Change in the Workplace. InOrganizational Learning and Technological Change, Cristina Zucchermaglio, Sebastiano Bagnara, and Susan U. Stucky (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 16–46. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-79550- 3_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-79550- 1995

  16. [16]

    It doesn’t win you friends

    Maitraye Das, Darren Gergle, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. “It doesn’t win you friends”: Understanding Accessibility in Collaborative Writing for People with Vision Impairments.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 191:1–191:26. doi:10.1145/3359293

    work page doi:10.1145/3359293 2019

  17. [17]

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

    work page

  18. [18]

    InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22)

    Co11ab: Augmenting Accessibility in Synchronous Collaborative Writing for People with Vision Impairments. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. doi:10.1145/3491102.3501918

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501918 2022

  19. [19]

    Maitraye Das, Anne Marie Piper, and Darren Gergle. 2022. Design and Eval- uation of Accessible Collaborative Writing Techniques for People with Vision Impairments.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction29, 2 (April 2022). doi:10.1145/3480169

    work page doi:10.1145/3480169 2022

  20. [20]

    Randall Davis, Howard Shrobe, and Peter Szolovits. 1993. What Is a Knowledge Representation?AI Magazine14, 11 (March 1993), 17–17. doi:10.1609/aimag. v14i1.1029

    work page doi:10.1609/aimag 1993

  21. [21]

    Erica de Vries. 2012. Learning with External Representations. InEncyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, Norbert M. Seel (Ed.). Springer US, Boston, MA, 2016–

    work page 2012

  22. [22]

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_675

    work page doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_675

  23. [23]

    Doherty, José C

    Gavin J. Doherty, José C. Campos, and Michael D. Harrison. 2000. Representa- tional Reasoning and Verification.Formal Aspects of Computing12, 4 (Dec. 2000), 260–277. doi:10.1007/PL00003934

    work page doi:10.1007/pl00003934 2000

  24. [24]

    Danis, Wendy A

    Thomas Erickson, Catalina M. Danis, Wendy A. Kellogg, and Mary E. Helander

    work page

  25. [25]

    InProceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work

    Assistance: the work practices of human administrative assistants and their implications for it and organizations. InProceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. ACM, San Diego CA USA, 609–618. doi:10.1145/1460563.1460658

    work page doi:10.1145/1460563.1460658 2008

  26. [26]

    Be My Eyes. [n. d.]. How to Make Your Workplace More Inclusive for Visually Impaired Employees. https://www.bemyeyes.com/blog/how-to-make-your- workplace-more-inclusive-for-visually-impaired-employees

    work page

  27. [27]

    Nosheen Fayyaz, Shah Khusro, and Imranuddin. 2023. Enhancing accessibility for the blind and visually impaired: Presenting semantic information in PDF tables.Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences35, 7 (july 2023), 101617. doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2023.101617

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2023.101617 2023

  28. [28]

    American Foundation for the Blind. [n. d.]. American Foundation for the Blind’s Workplace Technology Study. https://www.afb.org/research-and-initiatives/ employment/workplace-tech-study

    work page

  29. [29]

    Rosemarie Garland-Thomson. 2011. Misfits: A Feminist Materialist Disability Concept.Hypatia26, 3 (2011), 591–609. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01206.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01206.x 2011

  30. [30]

    Rosemarie Garland-Thomson. 2014. The Story of My Work: How I Became Disabled.Disability Studies Quarterly34, 2 (March 2014). doi:10.18061/dsq.v34i2. CHIWORK ’26, June 22–25, 2026, Linz, Austria Yichun Zhao, Miguel A. Nacenta, Mahadeo A. Sukhai, and Sowmya Somanath 4254

    work page doi:10.18061/dsq.v34i2 2014

  31. [31]

    Google. 2026. Google Workspace Marketplace: Productivity. https://workspace. google.com/marketplace/category/productivity Accessed: April 10, 2026

    work page 2026

  32. [32]

    Sara Hamideh Kerdar, Liane Bächler, and Britta Marleen Kirchhoff. 2024. The ac- cessibility of digital technologies for people with visual impairment and blindness: a scoping review.Discover Computing27, 1 (Aug. 2024), 24. doi:10.1007/s10791- 024-09460-7

    work page doi:10.1007/s10791- 2024

  33. [33]

    Mina Huh, Yi-Hao Peng, and Amy Pavel. 2023. GenAssist: Making Image Gen- eration Accessible. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’23). Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. doi:10.1145/3586183.3606735

    work page doi:10.1145/3586183.3606735 2023

  34. [34]

    1995.Cognition in the Wild

    Edwin Hutchins. 1995.Cognition in the Wild. The MIT Press. doi:10.7551/ mitpress/1881.001.0001

    work page 1995

  35. [35]

    Yongfeng Ji, Charles Perin, and Miguel A. Nacenta. 2025. The Effect of Visual Aids on Reading Numeric Data Tables.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics31, 1 (2025), 995–1005. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456403

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3456403 2025

  36. [36]

    Jones and Greta W

    Patricia M. Jones and Greta W. Chin. 1998. Varieties of Representational Forms: Towards Designing an Information Infrastructure for an Organization.Proceed- ings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting42, 3 (Oct. 1998), 346–349. doi:10.1177/154193129804200335

    work page doi:10.1177/154193129804200335 1998

  37. [37]

    Bern Jordan, Victoria Van Hyning, Mason A

    J. Bern Jordan, Victoria Van Hyning, Mason A. Jones, Rachael Bradley Mont- gomery, Elizabeth Bottner, and Evan Tansil. 2024. Information Wayfinding of Screen Reader Users: Five Personas to Expand Conceptualizations of User Ex- periences.ASSETS. Annual ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies2024, 47 (2024), 1–7

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Crescentia Jung, Shubham Mehta, Atharva Kulkarni, Yuhang Zhao, and Yea- Seul Kim. 2022. Communicating Visualizations without Visuals: Investigation of Visualization Alternative Text for People with Visual Impairments.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics28, 1 (Jan. 2022), 1095–1105. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114846

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2021.3114846 2022

  39. [39]

    They Aren’t Built For Me

    Areen Khalaila, Lane Harrison, Nam Wook Kim, and Dylan Cashman. 2025. “They Aren’t Built For Me”: An Exploratory Study of Strategies for Measurement of Graphical Primitives in Tactile Graphics. arXiv:2508.14289 (Aug. 2025). doi:10. 48550/arXiv.2508.14289 arXiv:2508.14289 [cs]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Gyeongdeok Kim, Chungman Lim, and Gunhyuk Park. 2025. I-Scratch: Inde- pendent Slide Creation With Auditory Comment and Haptic Interface for the Blind and Visually Impaired. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–23. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713553

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713553 2025

  41. [41]

    David Kirsh. 2010. Thinking with external representations.AI & SOCIETY25, 4 (Nov. 2010), 441–454. doi:10.1007/s00146-010-0272-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00146-010-0272-8 2010

  42. [42]

    Reinhard Koutny. 2024. Exploring Space: User Interfaces for Blind and Visually Impaired People for Spatial and Non-verbal Information. InComputers Helping People with Special Needs, Klaus Miesenberger, Petr Peňáz, and Makato Kobayashi (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 267–274. doi:10.1007/978-3-031- 62846-7_32

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031- 2024

  43. [43]

    Anukriti Kumar and Lucy Lu Wang. 2024. Uncovering the New Accessibility Crisis in Scholarly PDFs: Publishing Model and Platform Changes Contribute to Declining Scholarly Document Accessibility in the Last Decade. InProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (St. John’s, NL, Canada)(ASSETS ’24). Associatio...

    work page doi:10.1145/3663548.3675634 2024

  44. [44]

    Larkin and Herbert A

    Jill H. Larkin and Herbert A. Simon. 1987. Why a Diagram is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words.Cognitive Science11, 1 (Jan. 1987), 65–100. doi:10.1016/ S0364-0213(87)80026-5

    work page 1987

  45. [45]

    Jonathan Lazar, Suranjan Chakraborty, Dustin Carroll, Robert Weir, Bryan Size- more, and Haley Henderson. 2013. Development and Evaluation of Two Proto- types for Providing Weather Map Data to Blind Users Through Sonification. 8, 4 (2013)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    Cheuk Yin Phipson Lee, Zhuohao Zhang, Jaylin Herskovitz, JooYoung Seo, and Anhong Guo. 2022. CollabAlly: Accessible Collaboration Awareness in Document Editing. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–17. doi:10.1145/3491102.3517635

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517635 2022

  47. [47]

    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. , Article 70 (2024), 22 pages. doi:10.1145/3663548.3675600

    work page doi:10.1145/3663548.3675600 2024

  48. [48]

    2017.Representation, Inclusion, and Innovation: Multidisciplinary Explorations

    Clayton Lewis. 2017.Representation, Inclusion, and Innovation: Multidisciplinary Explorations. Morgan & Claypool Publishers

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    Caitlin Malone. [n. d.].Designing Tables. Indiana University. https://iu.pressbooks. pub/edsaccessibility/chapter/table-design/

    work page

  50. [50]

    Aparajita Marathe and Anne Marie Piper. 2025. The Accessibility Paradox: How Blind and Low Vision Employees Experience and Negotiate Accessibility in the Technology Industry. (Aug. 2025). doi:10.1145/3757666 arXiv:2508.18492 [cs]

    work page doi:10.1145/3757666 2025

  51. [51]

    D. Marks. 1997. Models of disability.Disability and Rehabilitation19, 3 (March 1997), 85–91. doi:10.3109/09638289709166831

    work page doi:10.3109/09638289709166831 1997

  52. [52]

    Courtney McKim. 2023. Meaningful Member-Checking: A Structured Approach to Member-Checking.American Journal of Qualitative Research7, 2 (Feb. 2023), 41–52

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Mia Mingus. 2011. Access Intimacy: The Missing Link. https://leavingevidence. wordpress.com/2011/05/05/access-intimacy-the-missing-link/

    work page 2011

  54. [54]

    Omar Moured, Morris Baumgarten-Egemole, Alina Roitberg, Karin Muller, Thorsten Schwarz, and Rainer Stiefelhagen. 2024. Chart4Blind: An Intelligent In- terface for Chart Accessibility Conversion. InProceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 504–514. doi:10.1145/3640543.3645175 arXiv:2403.06693 [cs]

    work page doi:10.1145/3640543.3645175 2024

  55. [55]

    Frauke Mörike and Ioannis Kiossis. 2024. Workarounds as enabling factor in the use of assistive technology amongst white-collar workers with visual impair- ment.Journal of Enabling Technologiesahead-of-print, ahead-of-print (Jan. 2024). doi:10.1108/JET-02-2024-0020

    work page doi:10.1108/jet-02-2024-0020 2024

  56. [56]

    Martin M. Nielsen. 2003. Representations at Work.Outlines. Critical Practice Studies5, 2 (Aug. 2003), 69–77. doi:10.7146/ocps.v5i2.2156

    work page doi:10.7146/ocps.v5i2.2156 2003

  57. [57]

    Brett Oppegaard, Qiang Xu, and Thomas Hurtut. 2023. Audio Describing Tables and Charts: A re-visualization process for sharing complex data sets with people who are blind or who have low-vision. 70 (sept 2023), 14–18

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Rao, Sile O’Modhrain, and Steve Oney

    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 Interaction5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 129:1–129:30. doi:10.1145/3449203

    work page doi:10.1145/3449203 2021

  59. [59]

    Minoli Perera, Bongshin Lee, Eun Kyoung Choe, and Kim Marriott. 2024. Visual Cues for Data Analysis Features Amplify Challenges for Blind Spreadsheet Users. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642753

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642753 2024

  60. [60]

    Venkatesh Potluri, Maulishree Pandey, Andrew Begel, Michael Barnett, and Scott Reitherman. 2022. CodeWalk: Facilitating Shared Awareness in Mixed- Ability Collaborative Software Development. InProceedings of the 24th In- ternational ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (AS- SETS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, U...

    work page doi:10.1145/3517428.3544812 2022

  61. [61]

    Parameswaran

    Sajjadur Rahman, Mangesh Bendre, Yuyang Liu, Shichu Zhu, Zhaoyuan Su, Karrie Karahalios, and Aditya G. Parameswaran. 2021. NOAH: interactive spreadsheet exploration with dynamic hierarchical overviews.Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment14, 6 (Feb. 2021), 970–983. doi:10.14778/3447689.3447701

    work page doi:10.14778/3447689.3447701 2021

  62. [62]

    Samuel Reinders, Matthew Butler, Ingrid Zukerman, Bongshin Lee, Lizhen Qu, and Kim Marriott. 2025. When Refreshable Tactile Displays Meet Conversational Agents: Investigating Accessible Data Presentation and Analysis with Touch and Speech.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics31, 1 (2025), 864–874. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456358

    work page doi:10.1109/tvcg.2024.3456358 2025

  63. [63]

    Mike Scaife and Yvonne Rogers. 1996. External cognition: how do graphical representations work?International Journal of Human-Computer Studies45, 2 (Aug. 1996), 185–213. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0048

    work page doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0048 1996

  64. [64]

    Government Digital Service. 2024. Tables. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content- design/tables

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    1997.The Social Model of Disability

    Tom Shakespeare. 1997.The Social Model of Disability. Psychology Press, 2–197

    work page 1997

  66. [66]

    2006.Disability Rights and Wrongs

    Tom Shakespeare. 2006.Disability Rights and Wrongs. Routledge, London. doi:10.4324/9780203640098

    work page doi:10.4324/9780203640098 2006

  67. [67]

    71.Improving Human-AI Partner-ships in Child Welfare: Understanding Worker Practices, Challenges, and Desires for Algorithmic Decision Sup-port,

    Ather Sharif, Olivia H. Wang, Alida T. Muongchan, Katharina Reinecke, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2022. VoxLens: Making Online Data Visualizations Accessible with an Interactive JavaScript Plug-In. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19. doi:10.1145/...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517431 2022

  68. [68]

    2025.AltGen: AI-Driven Alt Text Generation for Enhancing EPUB Accessibility

    Yixian Shen, Hang Zhang, Yanxin Shen, Lun Wang, Chuanqi Shi, Shaoshuai Du, and Yiyi Tao. 2025.AltGen: AI-Driven Alt Text Generation for Enhancing EPUB Accessibility. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 78–83. https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/10.1145/3730436.3730449

    work page doi:10.1145/3730436.3730449 2025

  69. [69]

    Ben Shneiderman. 1996. The Eyes Have It: A Task by Data Type Taxonomy for Information Visualizations. InProceedings of the 1996 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages (VL ’96). IEEE Computer Society, USA, 336

    work page 1996

  70. [70]

    Alexa Siu, Gene S-H Kim, Sile O’Modhrain, and Sean Follmer. 2022. Supporting Accessible Data Visualization Through Audio Data Narratives. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–19. doi:10.1145/3491102.3517678

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517678 2022

  71. [71]

    In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10)

    Thomas N. Smyth, Satish Kumar, Indrani Medhi, and Kentaro Toyama. 2010. Where there’s a will there’s a way: mobile media sharing in urban india. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA)(CHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 753–762. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753436

    work page doi:10.1145/1753326.1753436 2010

  72. [72]

    Tony Stockman. 2004. THE DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF AUDITORY ACCESS TO SPREADSHEETS. (2004)

    work page 2004

  73. [73]

    Lucy Suchman. 1995. Making Work Visible.Commun. ACM38, 9 (1995), 56–64. doi:10.1145/223248.223263

    work page doi:10.1145/223248.223263 1995

  74. [74]

    Carol Thomas. 2004. Rescuing a social relational understanding of dis- ability.Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research6, 1 (2004), 22–36. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410409512637 doi:10.1080/15017410409512637 Barriers and Opportunities in Information Work among Blind and Sighted Colleagues CHIWORK ’26, June 22–25, 2026, Linz, Austria

    work page doi:10.1080/15017410409512637 2004

  75. [75]

    National Informatics Centre (NIC) User Experience Design & Technology Di- vision (UxDT). [n. d.]. UX Design Guidelines: Enhancing Visual Accessibil- ity. https://www.uxdt.nic.in/guidelines/ux-design-guidelines/enhancing-visual- accessibility

    work page

  76. [76]

    Beatrice Vincenzi, Alex Taylor, and Susanne Stumpf. 2021. Interdependence in Action: People with Visual Impairments and their Guides Co-constituting Common Spaces.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction5, CSCW1 (2021), 1–25. doi:10.1145/3449143

    work page doi:10.1145/3449143 2021

  77. [77]

    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 2025. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    Yair Wand and Ron Weber. 1995. On the deep structure of information systems. Information Systems Journal5, 3 (July 1995), 203–223. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575. 1995.tb00108.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575 1995

  79. [79]

    Yanan Wang, Arjun Srinivasan, and Yea-Seul Kim. 2024. Enabling Tabular Data Exploration for Blind and Low-Vision Users. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Copenhagen, Denmark)(DIS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1218–1233. doi:10.1145/3643834.3661609

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3661609 2024

  80. [80]

    Yanan Wang, Ruobin Wang, Crescentia Jung, and Yea-Seul Kim. 2022. What makes web data tables accessible? Insights and a tool for rendering accessible tables for people with visual impairments. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–20. doi:10.1145/3491102. 3517469

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102 2022

Showing first 80 references.