Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 64 references

Conversational Tactile Data Interfaces: Co-Designing Accessible Data Experiences with Blind Users Using Refreshable Tactile Displays and Conversational AI

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Graphy, the first conversational tactile data interface, lets blind users explore charts by touch and ask an AI agent only for what touch cannot resolve.

desk verdict Genuine co-design contribution with real design patterns, but the 'fully instantiated' claim needs a caveat: filtering was researcher-mediated. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14588 v1 pith:S4YBIO67 submitted 2026-07-16 cs.HC

Samuel Reinders , Munazza Zaib , Bongshin Lee , Ingrid Zukerman , Matthew Butler , Thien Autran , Sascha Cowley , Francois Jacobs
show 2 more authors
Lizhen Qu Kim Marriott
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords accessibledatavisualizationrefreshabletactiledisplayconversationalAIco-designblindandlowvisionmultimodalinteractionfeedbacksensemaking
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 works out how to combine a refreshable tactile display — a pin-based screen that renders charts you can feel — with a conversational AI assistant, so that people who are blind or have low vision can explore data on their own. The authors co-designed a working system, Graphy, with three blind co-designers over four workshop rounds and eight months. Their central finding is a division of labor: users make sense of a chart's shape, trends, and relationships through touch first, ask the AI only for calculations and analysis that touch cannot provide, and then return to the chart to verify the AI's answer. The paper contributes three reusable design principles — layered presentation, a tactile feedback grammar, and a select-confirm-ask-verify interaction pattern — as validated starting points for this new class of interface.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the coupling of a refreshable tactile display (an RTD, a pin-based display that renders tactile graphics dynamically) with an LLM-backed conversational agent, bridged by deictic queries that refer to touch-selected data points and by tactile highlighting that lets the chart itself confirm or contradict the agent's speech. The RTD provides a persistent spatial representation of the data; the agent provides calculation and analytical depth; and a feedback grammar — static highlights for user selections, animated highlights for agent references, transitional animations for stepping — tells users who initiated the feedback so they can decide when to trust and when to ver

What would settle it

Run the WS4 free-form data-summary task with a group of blind or low-vision users who have acquired blindness and no prior RTD or tactile-graphics training, and count the order and proportion of touch explorations versus agent queries, plus whether they touch-verify agent answers. If these users default to agent-first queries and skip verification touches, the claimed touch-primary division of labor is specific to experienced tactile readers, not to blind users generally.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Graphy is, to the authors' knowledge, the first conversational tactile data interface: a system combining a multi-line refreshable tactile display with an LLM-powered conversational agent, built through co-design with three blind co-designers. The central discovery is that the two modalities take distinct, complementary roles: touch is the primary sensemaking channel for spatial understanding of the data's shape, trends, and relationships; the conversational agent is reserved for what touch cannot resolve, such as calculation and analysis; and the chart on the tactile display is used to verify the agent's responses. The authors also claim three transferable design findings: a layered present

Load-bearing premise

The observed touch-first pattern, and the design principles built on it, come from three congenitally blind co-designers who were comfortable with tactile graphics and RTDs; if those patterns do not hold for blind users with acquired blindness, less tactile experience, or residual vision, the design recommendations lose much of their force.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the pattern holds, a blind user can independently inspect a chart, select points, ask for calculations, and confirm the answer without sighted help.
  • Designers of accessible data tools should treat the tactile chart as the ground truth for verification, because co-designers consistently returned to touch to check agent responses.
  • Agent responses should be concise, answer-first, segmented into one-sentence chunks, and synchronized with animated tactile highlights so that speech does not compete with touch exploration.
  • The select-confirm-ask-verify pattern provides a concrete, reusable interaction sequence for future conversational tactile data interfaces.
  • Future refreshable displays should support multi-height pins, built-in multi-touch sensing, and reliable actuation under the finger to expand what these interfaces can encode.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: the touch-first, AI-second division of labor resembles a pattern seen in sighted users with high data literacy, who treat LLMs as specialists rather than crutches; a testable extension is to adapt CTDIs to the user's tactile and data experience rather than assuming one interaction style.
  • Beyond the paper: layered presentation could transfer to other tactile media — maps, diagrams, STEM graphics, and densely sampled charts — where isolating components may be the only way to keep them readable; the co-designers hinted at this, but the paper does not test it.
  • Beyond the paper: the verify step offers a natural, unobtrusive signal for measuring user trust in AI answers — tracing behavior after an agent response could serve as a proxy for whether the user found the answer credible.
  • Beyond the paper: if LLM accuracy were somehow guaranteed, users say they would still explore by touch, suggesting the RTD's value is spatial understanding, not just error checking; one could test whether touch-first interaction remains preferred even when the agent is provably correct.
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

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper presents Graphy, a conversational tactile data interface (CTDI) combining a refreshable tactile display (Dot Pad) with an LLM-powered conversational agent. Over four co-design workshops with three congenitally blind co-designers across eight months, the authors iteratively refined an initial prototype into a system supporting layered presentation of chart components, touch-driven point selection with audio/Braille/tactile feedback, deictic conversational queries, segmented agent responses with animated tactile highlights, and filtering of data series. The reported design knowledge is that touch is the primary sensemaking channel, the agent is reserved for computation and analysis that touch cannot resolve, and users verify agent responses by tracing the tactile chart. Additional contributions include a tactile feedback grammar distinguishing user- and agent-initiated highlights, and a select-confirm-ask-verify interaction pattern. The paper claims Graphy is the first CTDI and a 'fully instantiated' system that moves beyond the authors' prior Wizard-of-Oz study.

Significance. If the findings hold, this is a meaningful step for accessible data visualization: it demonstrates a concrete multimodal interaction paradigm and derives actionable design recommendations grounded in long-term co-design with BLV users. The longitudinal method, the inclusion of co-designers as co-authors, and the availability of open-source code are notable strengths. The authors are appropriately transparent that the study is formative rather than evaluative and that the small, congenitally blind, tactile-experienced sample limits generalizability. However, a load-bearing gap exists: filtering—presented in §3 as a core agent-driven capability and included in the design recommendations of §6.4—was actually executed by a human researcher behind the scenes (§5.6.1, Fig. 3). This partially undercuts the 'fully instantiated'/'beyond the wizard' claims and weakens the evidence for the filtering recommendation specifically.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3, §5.6.1, Fig. 3, §6.4, §6.6] Filtering is presented as a system capability ('Filtering for focus. Users can isolate individual data series through voice commands to the agent') and as a design recommendation ('Filtering can further aid exploration'). However, §5.6.1 states that 'filtering commands were mediated by the researcher behind the scenes,' and Fig. 3 marks filtering as 'researcher-mediated.' This is a Wizard-of-Oz component in an otherwise instantiated system, and it is not acknowledged in §6.6. It also conflicts with the claim in §5.6.2 that co-designers used 'the full range of interactions unassisted.' The evidence for the filtering recommendation is therefore partly based on researcher behavior rather than the agent's behavior. The authors should either implement filtering in the system or explicitly present it as a simulated capability, and revise the 'fully instantiated' claim, the WOz comparison in §6
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table 2] The legend for the four state symbols (suggested, not yet implemented, implemented/refined, carried forward) is not visible in the provided version; please ensure the symbols render correctly.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption 'T X Y D1 S…D2' is cryptic. Spell out the layer labels (Title, X-axis, Y-axis, Data series, Summary) for readability.
  3. [§5.6.2] The sentence 'By WS4, the co-designers used the full range of interactions unassisted' conflicts with the disclosure in §5.6.1 that filtering was researcher-mediated. Qualify the claim or exclude filtering from the 'full range' description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the co-design findings are observationally grounded and the prior WOz study is not load-bearing; the researcher-mediated filtering is a validity/missing-limitation caveat, not a circularity.

full rationale

This paper contains no equations, fitted parameters, or constructed predictions, so the derivation-chain patterns (self-definitional, fitted input called prediction, uniqueness imported from authors, ansatz smuggled via citation, renaming known result) do not apply. The central findings—touch as primary sensemaking channel, the layered presentation, the feedback grammar, and select-confirm-ask-verify—are traced to workshop observations and co-designer quotes in §5 and §6.2, not to the authors' prior Wizard-of-Oz study [47]. The prior WOz work motivates the prototype v1 and supplies comparison points, but the key design outcomes are documented as emerging from co-designer feedback across WS1–WS4 (e.g., D1 proposing the layered overview and filtering, D3's 'scaffolding' quote, and the WS4 tracing pattern). Thus the self-citations are not load-bearing for the paper's central claims. One non-circularity concern should be flagged: §3 and the WS4 scenario present filtering as a Graphy/agent capability ('Users can isolate individual data series through voice commands to the agent'), but §5.6.1 states 'filtering commands were mediated by the researcher behind the scenes,' and Fig. 3's caption marks 'researcher-mediated filtering.' §6.6 does not list this as a limitation, so the 'fully functioning implementation' claim is somewhat overstated. This is a missing-limitation/validity concern about the evidence base for the filtering recommendation, not a circularity, because the filtering concept was user-proposed in WS3 and its observed value is still grounded in co-designer feedback rather than being a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative HCI design study, not a mathematical or empirical model. There are no fitted numerical parameters or postulated physical entities. The load-bearing assumptions concern generalizability of three co-designers, the reliability of the prototype, and the validity of the co-design setting.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Three congenitally blind co-designers with tactile-graphics and RTD experience are representative enough of BLV users for general design recommendations.
    The authors explicitly note in §6.6 that findings may not generalize to acquired blindness, less tactile experience, or residual vision; all participants are congenitally blind with at least some tactile experience (Table 1).
  • domain assumption Observed WS4 interaction patterns reflect stable, internalized strategies rather than novelty effects or researcher presence.
    WS4 was one week after WS3 and involved free-form use, but researchers were present and the system was still being internally developed; the patterns could partly be an artifact of the co-design setting.
  • domain assumption The external finger tracker, speech services, and Dot Pad reliability were sufficient for attributing usage patterns to design choices rather than hardware failures.
    Co-designers reported latency and hardware constraints as friction (§5.6.2), but the paper interprets their behavior primarily as responses to the interface design rather than to system failures.
  • domain assumption Researcher-mediated filtering did not materially distort the co-designers' experience of the agent as a conversational partner.
    Filtering was initiated by voice but executed by a researcher behind the scenes (§5.6.1, Fig. 3), so users did not experience end-to-end agent control of this capability.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conversational Tactile Data Interfaces: Co-Designing Accessible Data Experiences with Blind Users Using Refreshable Tactile Displays and Conversational AI." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4YBIO67

@misc{pith2026260714588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conversational Tactile Data Interfaces: Co-Designing Accessible Data Experiences with Blind Users Using Refreshable Tactile Displays and Conversational AI},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4YBIO67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14588}
}
read the original abstract

Combining refreshable tactile displays (RTDs) with conversational AI offers a promising approach to accessible data visualization for people who are blind or have low vision (BLV). However, it remains an open question how these modalities should be integrated to support accessible data experiences. We address this through a co-design process with three BLV co-designers. Building on our prior Wizard-of-Oz study, we created a conversational tactile data interface (CTDI) that combines an RTD with an LLM-powered conversational agent, refined through four workshops over eight months. In addition to the resulting system, Graphy, we contribute design knowledge and recommendations for CTDIs. Co-designers used touch as the primary sensemaking channel for spatial understanding of the data's shape, trends, and relationships, reserved the agent for what touch could not resolve (e.g., calculation and analysis), and used the chart on the RTD to verify the agent's responses. Key findings include: a layered presentation that scaffolds chart exploration through progressive, interactive layers; a feedback grammar that distinguishes user- and agent-initiated tactile feedback; and a sequential interaction pattern -- select, confirm, ask, verify -- where each step grounds the last.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14588 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We co-designed Graphy, a conversational tactile data interface combining a refreshable tactile display with an LLM-powered conversational agent. A) The layered presentation introduces chart components one at a time, each rendered in isolation on the RTD with a spoken description; B) A user explores a line chart by touch, querying the agent with deictic references to their selected points; C) Agent responses are segm… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The layered presentation introducing a multi-series line chart on the RTD. Each layer is presented with a spoken description before the user [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Interaction flow with Graphy. Touch is the central activity within the layered presentation (T: title, X: x-axis, Y: y-axis, D1...: data series, S: summary); from it, users navigate layers, select data points by gesture or button stepping, query the agent, or filter series. Circles denote agent invocation; the dashed border marks researcher-mediated filtering. 3. In the Memory layer, D1 double-taps the first data po… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Renderings of the data sets used across workshops. (a) line chart of annual rainfall (WS1), (b) multi-series line chart of interest rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fill textures used to distinguish segments in stacked bar charts: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Symbol-to-line clearance gaps between two plus symbols [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The select, confirm, ask, verify interaction pattern observed during free-form use. Users select data points, confirm selections through system feedback, query the agent, then verify responses by touch. 5.6.2 Self-Reported Experience Following the free-form activity, c…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. Z. I. Alam, S. Islam, and E. Hoque. SeeChart: Enabling accessible visualizations through interactive natural language interface for people with visual impairments. InProc. International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI ’23, pp. 46––64. ACM, New York, 2023. doi: 10. 1145/3581641.3584099 2

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    https://www.aph.org/meet-monarch/, 2023

    American Printing House for the Blind - meet Monarch. https://www.aph.org/meet-monarch/, 2023. 2

    2023

  3. [3]

    Braille Authority of North America, 2010

    Braille Authority of North America.Guidelines and Standards for Tactile Graphics. Braille Authority of North America, 2010. 1, 2, 8

    2010

  4. [4]

    Brayda, F

    L. Brayda, F. Leo, C. Baccelliere, C. Vigini, and E. Cocchi. A refreshable tactile display effectively supports cognitive mapping followed by orienta- tion and mobility tasks: A comparative multi-modal study involving blind and low-vision participants. InProc. Multimedia for Accessible Human Computer Interfaces, MAHCI ’19, pp. 9–15. ACM, New York, 2019. d...

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    M. K. Chen, I. Pedraza Pineros, A. Satyanarayan, and J. Zong. Tactile Vega-Lite: Rapidly prototyping tactile charts with smart defaults. InProc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’25, art. no. 931, 23 pp. ACM, New York, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3706598.3714132 2

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    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 interpre- tation.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(9):4712––4727, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3413195 2, 8

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Chundury, J

    P. Chundury, J. B. Jordan, Y . Reyazuddin, N. Elmqvist, and J. Lazar. Sound, touch, or the full monty? A comparative study of accessible data exploration systems for blind users.ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 19(1), art. no. 1, 41 pp., 2026. doi: 10.1145/3798100 1, 2, 7, 9

    work page doi:10.1145/3798100 2026

  8. [8]

    Chundury, Y

    P. Chundury, Y . Reyazuddin, J. B. Jordan, J. Lazar, and N. Elmqvist. Tac- tualPlot: Spatializing data as sound using sensory substitution for touch- screen accessibility.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1):836––846, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3326937 3, 9

    arXiv 2024

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    https://pad.dotincorp.com/, 2022

    Dot Inc - Dot Pad - the first tactile graphics display for the visually im- paired. https://pad.dotincorp.com/, 2022. 2

    2022

  2. [10]

    Elavsky, L

    F. Elavsky, L. Nadolskis, and D. Moritz. Data navigator: An accessibility- centered data navigation toolkit.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1):803––813, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023. 3327393 2, 3, 9

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    A. M. Farahani, P. Adibi, M. S. Ehsani, H.-P. Hutter, and A. Darvishy. Au- tomatic chart understanding: A review.IEEE Access, 11:76202––76221,

  4. [12]

    Gorniak, Y

    J. Gorniak, Y . Kim, D. Wei, and N. W. Kim. VizAbility: Enhancing chart accessibility with LLM-based conversational interaction. InProc. ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’24, art. no. 89, 19 pp. ACM, New York, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3654777.3676414 2

    2024

  5. [13]

    Gyoshev, D

    S. Gyoshev, D. Karastoyanov, N. Stoimenov, V . Cantoni, L. Lombardi, and A. Setti. Exploiting a graphical braille display for art masterpieces. In Proc. International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP), pp. 237–245. Springer, 2018. doi: 10.1007/9...

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    T. He, M. McCracken, D. Hajas, S. Creem-Regehr, and A. Lex. Using tactile charts to support comprehension and learning of complex visu- alizations for blind and low-vision individuals.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 32(1):199––209, 2026. doi: 10. 1109...

    2026

  7. [15]

    Holloway, S

    L. Holloway, S. Ananthanarayan, M. Butler, M. T. De Silva, K. Ellis, C. Goncu et al. Animations at your fingertips: Using a refreshable tactile display to convey motion graphics for people who are blind or have low vision. InProc. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Acce...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Holloway, P

    L. Holloway, P. Cracknell, K. Stephens, M. Fanshawe, S. Reinders, K. Mar- riott et al. Refreshable tactile displays for accessible data visualisation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15836, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.15836 2

    2024 doi arXiv

  9. [18]

    Hoque, P

    E. Hoque, P. Kavehzadeh, and A. Masry. Chart question answering: State of the art and future directions.Computer Graphics Forum, 41(3):555–572,

  10. [20]

    C. Jung, S. Mehta, A. Kulkarni, Y . Zhao, and Y .-S. Kim. Communicat- ing visualizations without visuals: Investigation of visualization alter- native text for people with visual impairments.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):1095–1105, 2022. doi: ...

    2022

  11. [21]

    Kavaz, A

    E. Kavaz, A. Puig, and I. Rodríguez. Chatbot-based natural language interfaces for data visualisation: A scoping review.Applied Sciences, 13(12), art. no. 7025, 2023. doi: 10.3390/app13127025 2

    2023 doi

  12. [22]

    Khalaila and D

    A. Khalaila and D. Cashman. Speculating a tactile grammar: Toward task- aligned chart design for non-visual perception. InProc. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’25, art. no. 123, 4 pp. ACM, New York, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3663547.3759744 2

    2025

  13. [23]

    They Aren’t Built for Me

    A. Khalaila, L. Harrison, N. W. Kim, and D. Cashman. “They Aren’t Built for Me”: An exploratory study of strategies for measurement of graphical primitives in tactile graphics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 32(1):1–12, 2026. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2025. 3...

    2026 doi

  14. [24]

    H. Kim, M. Chung, E. Kim, and Y . Yoo. Automatic video-to-audiotactile conversion of golf broadcasting on a refreshable pin array. InProc. ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, SUI ’24, art. no. 15, 8 pp. ACM, New York, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3677386.3682092 2

    2024

  15. [25]

    J. Kim, A. Srinivasan, N. W. Kim, and Y .-S. Kim. Exploring chart question answering for blind and low vision users. InProc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’23, art. no. 828, 15 pp. ACM, New York, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581532 2, 9

    2023

  16. [26]

    J. Y . Kim, J. H. Kim, and H. C. Park. Information output device. U.S. Patent 12,260,743. https://patents.google.com/patent/US12260743B2/,

  17. [27]

    N. W. Kim, S. C. Joyner, A. Riegelhuth, and Y . Kim. Accessible visual- ization: Design space, opportunities, and challenges.Computer Graphics Forum, 40(3):173––188, 2021. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14298 2

    2021 doi

  18. [28]

    S. Kim, Y . Ryu, J. Cho, and E.-S. Ryu. Towards tangible vision for the visually impaired through 2D multiarray braille display.Sensors, 19(23), art. no. 5319, 2019. doi: 10.3390/s19235319 2

    2019 doi

  19. [29]

    S.-g. Kim, A. Kim, E. Kim, M. Chung, and Y . Yoo. Automatic accessible multimodal translation of graphics using a refreshable pin array. InProc. ACM International Conference on Multimedia, MM ’25, pp. 7123––7132. ACM, New York, 2025. doi: 10.1145/3746027.3754586 2

    2025

  20. [30]

    Kramer, B

    G. Kramer, B. Walker, T. Bonebright, P. Cook, J. H. Flowers, N. Miner et al. Sonification report: Status of the field and research agenda. Techni- cal report, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2010. 1, 2

    2010

  21. [31]

    B. Lee, E. K. Choe, P. Isenberg, K. Marriott, and J. Stasko. Reaching broader audiences with data visualization.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 40(2):82–90, 2020. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2020.2968244 2

    2020

  22. [32]

    B. Lee, K. Marriott, D. Szafir, and G. Weber. Inclusive data visualization (Dagstuhl Seminar 23252).Dagstuhl Reports, 13(6):81–105, 2024. doi: 10.4230/DagRep.13.6.81 2

    2024 doi

  23. [33]

    Lundgard and A

    A. Lundgard and A. Satyanarayan. Accessible visualization via natural language descriptions: A four-level model of semantic content.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):1073––1083,

  24. [34]

    Mankoff, G

    J. Mankoff, G. R. Hayes, and D. Kasnitz. Disability studies as a source of critical inquiry for the field of assistive technology. InProc. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’10, pp. 3–10. ACM, New York, 2010. doi: 10.1145/1878803.1878807 3

    2010

  25. [35]

    Manzoni, S

    M. Manzoni, S. Mascetti, D. Ahmetovic, R. Crabb, and J. M. Coughlan. MapIO: A gestural and conversational interface for tactile maps.IEEE Access, 13:84038–84056, 2025. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3566286 2

    2025

  26. [36]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114770 1, 2, 8

    2021

  27. [37]

    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: 10.1145/3457875 2

    2021 doi

  28. [38]

    Motoyoshi, S

    T. Motoyoshi, S. Mizushima, K. Sawai, T. Tamamoto, H. Masuta, K. Koy- anagi et al. Prototype development of a shape presentation system using linear actuators. InProc. International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs (ICCHP), pp. 226–230. Springer, 2018....

    2018

  29. [39]

    Marriott, M

    K. Marriott, M. Butler, L. Holloway, W. Jolley, B. Lee, B. Maguire et al. From Vision to Touch: Bridging visual and tactile principles for accessible 10 © 2026 IEEE. This is the author’s version of the article that has been published in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and C...

    2026

  30. [40]

    Ohshima, M

    H. Ohshima, M. Kobayashi, and S. Shimada. Development of blind foot- ball play-by-play system for visually impaired spectators: Tangible sports. InExt. Abstr. of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA ’21, art. no. 209, 6 pp. ACM, New York, 2021. doi:...

    2021

  31. [41]

    http://www.orbitresearch.com/product/graphiti/,

    Orbit Research - Graphiti - a breakthrough in non-visual access to all forms of graphical information. http://www.orbitresearch.com/product/graphiti/,

  32. [42]

    R. K. Namdev and P. Maes. An interactive and intuitive STEM accessibility system for the blind and visually impaired. InProc. International Confer- ence on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments (PE- TRA), pp. 1––7. ACM, New York, 2015. doi: 10.1145/2769493.2769502 2

    2015

  33. [43]

    Ramôa and K

    G. Ramôa and K. Müller. Leveraging dynamic audio-tactile uis to assist visually impaired users in exploring line charts through tactile graphic readers. InProc. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Acces- sibility, ASSETS ’25, art. no. 28, 15 pp. ACM, New York, 2025. doi:...

    2025

  34. [44]

    Reinders, S

    S. Reinders, S. Ananthanarayan, M. Butler, and K. Marriott. Designing conversational multimodal 3D printed models with people who are blind. InProc. ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’23, pp. 2172––2188. ACM, New York, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3563657.3595989 2

    2023

  35. [45]

    T. Park, J. Jung, and J. Cho. A method for automatically translating print books into electronic Braille books.Science China Information Sciences, 59(7), art. no. 072101, 2016. doi: 10.1007/s11432-016-5575-z 2

    2016 doi

  36. [46]

    It Brought the Model to Life

    S. Reinders, M. Butler, and K. Marriott. “It Brought the Model to Life”: Exploring the embodiment of multimodal I3Ms for people who are blind or have low vision. InProc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’25, art. no. 367, 19 pp. ACM, New York, 2025. do...

    2025

  37. [47]

    Reinders, M

    S. Reinders, M. Butler, I. Zukerman, B. Lee, L. Qu, and K. Marriott. When Refreshable Tactile Displays Meet Conversational Agents: Investigating accessible data presentation and analysis with touch and speech.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(1):864––874,

  38. [48]

    Hey Model!

    S. Reinders, M. Butler, and K. Marriott. “Hey Model!” – natural user interactions and agency in accessible interactive 3D models. InProc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’20, pp. 1–13. ACM, New York, 2020. doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376145 2

    2020

  39. [49]

    Rowell and S

    J. Rowell and S. Ungar. The world of touch: An international survey of tactile maps. Part 1: Production.British Journal of Visual Impairment, 21(3):98–104, 2003. doi: 10.1177/026461960302100303 2

    2003 doi

  40. [50]

    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. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’24, art. no. 57, ...

    2024

  41. [52]

    Reinders, M

    S. Reinders, M. Zaib, M. Butler, B. Lee, I. Zukerman, L. Qu et al. Sup- porting multimodal data interaction on refreshable tactile displays: An architecture to combine touch and conversational AI. InProc. IEEE Pa- cific Visualization Conference (PacificVis), pp. 73–78. IEEE, 2...

    2026

  42. [53]

    A. Siu, G. S-H Kim, S. O’Modhrain, and S. Follmer. Supporting accessible data visualization through audio data narratives. InProc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’22, art. no. 476, 19 pp. ACM, New York, 2022. doi: 10.1145/3491102.3517678 2

    2022

  43. [54]

    Smiley, S

    J. Smiley, S. Ananthanarayan, L. M. Holloway, M. Butler, and T. Dwyer. MagnePins: A modular, affordable, and DIY refreshable braille and tac- tile display. InProc. ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST ’25, art. no. 69, 12 pp. ACM, New York, 2025. doi: ...

    2025

  44. [55]

    J. R. Thompson, J. J. Martinez, A. Sarikaya, E. Cutrell, and B. Lee. Chart Reader: Accessible visualization experiences designed with screen reader users. InProc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’23, art. no. 802, 18 pp. ACM, New York, 2023. doi: 10. ...

    2023

  45. [56]

    Sharif, O

    A. Sharif, O. H. Wang, A. T. Muongchan, K. Reinecke, and J. O. Wob- brock. V oxLens: Making online data visualizations accessible with an interactive JavaScript plug-in. InProc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’22, art. no. 478, 19 pp. ACM, New York,

  46. [57]

    doi: 10.1145/3491102.3517431 2

  47. [58]

    L. Zeng, M. Miao, and G. Weber. Interactive audio-haptic map explorer on a tactile display.Interacting with Computers, 27(4):413–429, 2015. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwu006 2

    2015 doi

  48. [59]

    L. Zeng, G. Weber, I. Zoller, P. Lotz, T. A. Kern, J. Reisinger et al. Examples of haptic system development. In C. Hatzfeld and T. A. Kern, eds.,Engineering Haptic Devices: A Beginner’s Guide, pp. 525–554. Springer, 2nd ed., 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4471-6518-7_14 9

    2014 doi

  49. [60]

    Y . Zhao, Y . Zhang, Y . Zhang, X. Zhao, J. Wang, Z. Shao et al. LEV A: Using large language models to enhance visual analytics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(3):1830––1847, 2025. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2024.3368060 2

    2025

  50. [61]

    J. O. Wobbrock, M. R. Morris, and A. D. Wilson. User-defined gestures for surface computing. InProc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’09, pp. 1083–1092. ACM, New York, 2009. doi: 10.1145/1518701.1518866 3

    2009

  51. [62]

    W. Yang, J. Huang, R. Wang, W. Zhang, H. Liu, and J. Xiao. A survey on tactile displays for visually impaired people.IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 14(4):712––721, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TOH.2021.3085915 2

    2021

  52. [66]

    J. Zong, C. Lee, A. Lundgard, J. Jang, D. Hajas, and A. Satyanarayan. Rich screen reader experiences for accessible data visualization.Computer Graphics Forum, 41(3):15––27, 2022. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14519 1, 2, 3, 8, 9

    2022 doi

  53. [67]

    J. Zong, I. Pedraza Pineros, M. K. Chen, D. Hajas, and A. Satyanarayan. Umwelt: Accessible structured editing of multi-modal data representations. InProc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’24, art. no. 46, 20 pp. ACM, New York, 2024. doi: 10.1145/36139...

    2024 doi

  54. [2022]

    doi: 10.1111/cgf.14573 2

    doi

  55. [2023]

    doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3298050 2

    2023

  56. [2025]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2024.3456358 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.