Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 111 references

Blind and low-vision users create 37 bespoke vision tools with natural-language coding agents.

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

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

T0 review

2026-08-01 06:45 UTC pith:2FA6WMRB

load-bearing objection First longitudinal study of BLV users building camera-based AT with agentic programming—rich qualitative findings, but '37 tools created' should not be read as '37 tools worked.' the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21760 v1 pith:2FA6WMRB submitted 2026-07-23 cs.HC

Bespoke Visual Assistance: What and How do Blind and Low-Vision People Create with Agentic Programming?

Ellie Seehorn , Gene S-H Kim , Aziz Zeidieh , Ather Jammoa , Kun Lee , Aditi Shah , Jaylin Herskovitz , Anhong Guo
show 1 more author
Venkatesh Potluri
This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords agentic programmingassistive technologyblind and low visionco-designend-user programminggenerative AIcamera-based toolsconversational programming
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that agentic programming—describing a tool in plain language and letting an AI coding agent write the code—can let blind and low-vision (BLV) people author their own camera-based assistive technology. Over two months, five tech-savvy BLV co-designers used a purpose-built instrument called ProgramAT to create 37 tools, including an Uber ride identifier and a hand-gesture interpreter that no commercial assistive app offers. The authors argue this validates a new creation paradigm for accessibility: instead of waiting for general-purpose AT, users can prototype, test, and refine personalized tools in the moment. But the paper also shows that success rarely comes from a single prompt—it emerges through iterative testing, debugging reports, and adjusting to what the underlying AI models can actually do.

Core claim

Agentic programming can meaningfully lower the barrier to creating bespoke camera-based assistive tools for technically experienced BLV users, who in this study produced 37 working prototypes across 68 iterations—several addressing needs unmet by any commercial assistive technology, such as identifying a specific Uber car or interpreting hand gestures in video. The paper documents that creators adopt varied prompt strategies (long structured prompts, short action-oriented prompts, progressive specification), that failures stem from three identifiable sources (unsupported technical requirements, model capability limits, and specification conflicts), and that community sharing of tools and use

What carries the argument

ProgramAT, the study instrument: a mobile app plus a GitHub-based agentic coding environment (using a coding agent under a structured instruction file) that turns natural-language requests into working camera tools. Its load-bearing components are the issue-template structure that converts free-form prompts into grounded specifications, modular 'building-block' code that lets tools reuse and remix prior components, automatic model selection (object detection, OCR, vision-language), an iterative pull-request workflow for refinement, and an audio-first output schema so generated tools speak their results.

Load-bearing premise

The findings rest on five co-designers who are also the paper's authors and all technically experienced; if their success reflects their expertise and motivation rather than the agentic-programming paradigm itself, the central claims about feasibility would be overstated.

What would settle it

Run the same study with BLV participants who are not co-authors and who have no development experience; if most cannot create working tools even with the proposed supports (conversational guidance, tool sharing, personal data), the paradigmatic claim fails. Additionally, have independent sighted evaluators verify tool behavior (e.g., does the Uber identifier actually match a car, does the hand-gesture interpreter recognize correctly) against ground truth; if tools are largely non-functional, the '37 tools' success count collapses.

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

Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If agentic programming works for BLV users, general-purpose commercial assistive apps could adopt plugin-style architectures that let users build custom tools on top of them, rather than waiting for one-size-fits-all features.
  • Design recommendations from the study—conversational scaffolding during creation, community tool-sharing, and bring-your-own-data support—become concrete requirements for future accessibility-oriented coding agents.
  • The finding that tool success depends on iteration and 'experience reports' suggests that agentic AT creation should be designed as a feedback loop, not a one-shot generation step.
  • The prevalence of tools addressing unmet niche needs (Uber identification, hand gestures, food placement) indicates a real long-tail demand that commercial AT leaves unserved and that end-user creation can partially fill.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paradigm likely generalizes beyond camera-based tasks and beyond the BLV community: any disability community with identifiable access needs could use the same conversational-creation loop to build bespoke tools, provided the agent scaffolding and privacy controls are adapted.
  • Because all five co-designers were tech-savvy and authored the paper, the success rate may be an upper bound; less technical users would probably need the proposed conversational scaffolding just to reach the starting line, making the recommendations more critical than the headline '37 tools' number suggests.
  • The privacy concerns raised (e.g., D5's test-with-known-examples strategy) point toward a broader design requirement: AI-authored tools are hard to trust, so observability and user control over data flow must be first-class features of any such system.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents ProgramAT, a mobile agentic programming instrument (natural-language requests mediated by GitHub Copilot) that enables blind and low-vision (BLV) users to author, iterate, and test bespoke camera-based assistive technologies. Through a two-phase longitudinal co-design study with five tech-savvy BLV co-designers (all also paper authors), the authors report 37 created tools across 68 iterations, 24+ hours of interviews, and development-log analysis. The paper addresses three research questions: what tools BLV users would create, why they create them, and what supports are needed. Findings characterize a broad design space (from Uber finders and hand-gesture interpreters to Braille readers and chess-move validators), distinct prompting/iteration strategies, model-capability and specification-conflict failures, and design recommendations for conversational scaffolding, tool sharing, and bring-your-own-data support.

Significance. If its central claim is accepted, the paper provides one of the first empirical demonstrations that agentic programming can lower barriers for BLV users to create personalized camera-based AT, with direct implications for future tool design. The open-source ProgramAT instrument, the two-month longitudinal design, the rich qualitative corpus, and the explicit disclosure of the co-designers-as-authors relationship are notable strengths. However, the study’s validity rests on treating self-reported and code-review-verified tool generation as evidence of functional, in-situ success, and the paper does not report how many of the 37 tools actually reached a working threshold. The design recommendations are plausibly useful, but they would be more convincing if the claim of 'viability' were grounded in a transparent per-tool success/failure accounting and at least some independent functional verification.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §5.2.1] The headline claim that co-designers 'created over 37 tools' conflates artifact generation with functional success. The paper itself notes in §5.2.1 that D2's Phase I tools had a success rate of 0/5, and §5.2.3 documents multiple failures. No per-tool outcome table (working, partially working, abandoned, failed) is provided. This is load-bearing for the central viability claim: before 'viable' can be assessed, the paper should report the number of tools that met the pragmatic success threshold defined in §5.2.2, and how many were abandoned or never functioned adequately.
  2. [§4.4; §5.2.2] There is no objective or sighted ground-truth verification of tool behavior. The code-review procedure in §4.4 checks whether generated code satisfies user-written specifications, not whether the tool produces correct outputs under real-world camera conditions. Success in §5.2.2 is defined by co-designer self-report ('reliably good enough to support a real-world goal'). The supporting quotes emphasize perceived value (novelty, reduced friction) rather than measured accuracy, leaving open the possibility that many tools were 'created' but not actually usable. At minimum, the authors should report the outcome status of each of the 37 tools and, if possible, independently validate a subset (e.g., a sighted evaluator comparing tool outputs on known stimuli). Alternatively, the paper should reframe its claims from 'viable creation paradigm' to 'users can produce prototypes they perceive as us
  3. [§4.1; §5.1.1] All five co-designers are also authors of the paper. While this is disclosed in §4.1, the paper does not discuss how this dual role may shape the qualitative analysis. For example, the claim that the Uber-identifier and hand-gesture interpreter address needs 'unmet by any existing commercial AT' rests on author-participant self-reports and could be influenced by investment in the system's success. The manuscript should include a reflexivity statement addressing researcher-participant positionality, and should distinguish between 'participants found the tool valuable' and 'the tool objectively met an unmet need.' A few sentences of mitigation would materially strengthen trustworthiness.
  4. [§5.1.1, Table 2] The examples cited in the abstract—'identifying Uber rides or interpreting hand gestures'—are presented as success stories, but the table does not indicate whether these tools were ultimately merged, used repeatedly, or abandoned. D2's car finder is described elsewhere as 'stood out' but no functional accuracy data are given; D1's hand-gesture interpreter is described as 'working well' but again without any objective test. Please provide the creation/iteration/outcome trajectory for these two flagship tools, including how many iterations were needed and whether they were still in use at study end.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] There are duplicate figure numbers: two figures are labeled 'Figure 1' (the teaser and the workflow overview) and two are labeled 'Figure 2' (the walkthrough and the timeline). Please renumber.
  2. [§5.2.1] The phrase 'cripepistemologies' appears to be an intentional portmanteau, but it is not clearly defined; if intended, please define it on first use and consider using the more standard 'crip epistemologies'.
  3. [Appendix A] Minor typos in the instruction file: 'runable' should be 'runnable' and 'priroritize' in Appendix C.1.1 should be 'prioritize.'
  4. [§4.4] The description of the thematic-analysis process is useful but does not specify how many diary entries were collected per co-designer or how many were analyzed. Including a small table of data volumes (interviews, diary entries, PRs reviewed) would help readers calibrate the qualitative evidence.
  5. [§5.2.3] The three failure categories (unsupported technical approach, model failure, spec conflict) are clear and well illustrated. Consider providing a summary table of which of the 37 tools fell into each category—this would complement the proposed per-tool outcome reporting and strengthen the paper's analytical contribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; the empirical findings rest on disclosed co-design data, logs, and code artifacts rather than on the paper's own assertions.

full rationale

This is an empirical co-design study rather than a formal derivation, so the circularity checks for self-definitional equations, fitted predictions, and imported uniqueness do not directly apply. The central claim—that agentic programming can let tech-savvy BLV users prototype bespoke camera-based AT—is evidenced by observed artifacts (37 tools, 68 iterations), development logs, diary entries, interviews, and AI-assisted code reviews, with the study instrument open-sourced. The paper does not derive a quantitative result from a fitted parameter or invoke a uniqueness theorem. Several citations are to the authors' own prior work (e.g., [45], [47], [55]), but they support contextual claims such as the value of expert recruitment or prior DIY-AT approaches, not the load-bearing conclusion; removing them would not collapse the argument. The most notable validity concern—disclosed in Section 4.1, that 'all of whom are authors on this paper'—creates a risk of self-report bias, and Section 6.4 candidly lists limitations (small sample, reliance on AI reliability, stateless design, and inability to verify visual outputs). These are threats to generalizability and objective functional verification, not examples of the paper's conclusions being equivalent to its inputs by construction. The paper even documents failures (e.g., D2's Phase I 0/5 success rate) and reports that the 37-tool count includes created, not necessarily all successfully working, tools. Thus no specific circular step can be quoted and exhibited under the required standard.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an empirical qualitative study; there are no numeric free parameters. The axioms above capture the load-bearing domain assumptions about participant independence, generalizability of the tool stack, the code-review process, and the study's production of tools. No new theoretical entities are proposed; ProgramAT is an open-sourced software instrument, not a postulated entity.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The five co-designers, all authors, provide unbiased and accurate self-reports of tool success and failure.
    The findings in Section 5.2 rest on co-designers' qualitative evaluations of their tools; no independent sighted verification or objective performance metric is reported.
  • domain assumption The specific agentic programming stack (GitHub Copilot, Gemini, YOLO, etc.) is representative of agentic programming tools generally.
    The discussion and recommendations (Section 6) generalize from ProgramAT to 'agentic programming environments', yet the system is a bespoke retrofit with custom instructions (Appendix A).
  • domain assumption The AI-assisted code review, using Claude Sonnet 4.6 and manual lead-author review, correctly identifies specification violations and code quality.
    Section 4.4 describes the review process; the findings on tool failures (e.g., spec conflicts) rely on this review being accurate.
  • domain assumption The minimum expectation of at least four tools per co-designer does not artificially inflate creation activity.
    The minimum expectation may prime participants to create tools they otherwise would not; the paper interprets the 37 tools as evidence of desire.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bespoke Visual Assistance: What and How do Blind and Low-Vision People Create with Agentic Programming?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2FA6WMRB

@misc{pith2026260721760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bespoke Visual Assistance: What and How do Blind and Low-Vision People Create with Agentic Programming?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2FA6WMRB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21760}
}
Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

AI-powered assistive technologies have long supported blind and low vision (BLV) people in everyday tasks, but they are general-purpose and often fall short of meeting complex, individualized, in-situ accessibility needs. Though agentic programming tools, like GitHub Copilot, have the potential to bridge this gap by lowering the technical barriers to building personal AT using natural language, the practical applicability of this creation paradigm has been unknown. We address this knowledge gap through a two-phase longitudinal co-design study with five tech-savvy BLV users using ProgramAT, an agentic programming tool that supports the creation, iteration, and testing of camera-based AT. Overall, co-designers created over 37 tools, with some addressing needs unmet by any existing commercial AT such as identifying Uber rides or interpreting hand gestures. Qualitative feedback from our co-designers and analysis of development logs surface BLV strategies for tool creation, along with key challenges including model capability limits, specification conflicts, and barriers to successful creation. We discuss recommendations to provide appropriate conversational scaffolding, community tool sharing capabilities, and support for specialized models and personal datasets for future agentic programming environments to empower BLV users to create bespoke visual assistance for themselves.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21760 by Aditi Shah, Anhong Guo, Ather Jammoa, Aziz Zeidieh, Ellie Seehorn, Gene S-H Kim, Jaylin Herskovitz, Kun Lee, Venkatesh Potluri.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: This paper explores how agentic programming might be used to create personal, bespoke assistive technologies. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: A walkthrough of how users create and use AT tools through the ProgramAT mobile app interface. In deployment mode, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Timeline of the study methods. Phase I: A preliminary deployment with two co-designers to refine the study instrument. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bespoke AT creation process from the GitHub web interface. (1) Open an issue to create the initial prompt. (2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sushma Adepu and Rachel F Adler. 2016. A comparison of performance and preference on mobile devices vs. desktop computers. In2016 IEEE 7th Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEM- CON). IEEE, 1–7

    2016

  2. [3]

    Leila Aflatoony, Su Jin Lee, and Jon Sanford. 2023. Collective making: Co- designing 3D printed assistive technologies with occupational therapists, de- signers, and end-users.Assistive Technology35, 2 (2023), 153–162

    2023

  3. [4]

    Mehmet Akhoroz and Caglar Yildirim. 2025. Conversational AI as a Coding Assistant: Understanding Programmers’ Interactions with and Expectations from Large Language Models for Coding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16508(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [5]

    Gus Alexiou. 2023. OKO App Leverages AI To Help Blind Pedestrians Recognize Traffic Signals. https://www.forbes.com/sites/gusalexiou/2023/08/10/oko-app- deploys-ai-to-make-crossing-the-street-safer-for-blind-pedestrians//

    2023

  5. [6]

    Brewer, and Sarita Schoenebeck

    Rahaf Alharbi, Robin N. Brewer, and Sarita Schoenebeck. 2022. Understanding Emerging Obfuscation Technologies in Visual Description Services for Blind and Low Vision People.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, CSCW2, Article 469 (Nov. 2022), 33 pages. doi:10.1145/3555570

    work page doi:10.1145/3555570 2022

  6. [9]

    Anthropic. 2026. Claude Code | Anthropic’s agentic coding system. https: //www.anthropic.com/product/claude-code

    2026

  7. [10]

    Anysphere. 2024. Cursor - The AI Code Editor. https://cursor.com/

    2024

  8. [11]

    Tobias Baum, Olga Liskin, Kai Niklas, and Kurt Schneider. 2016. Factors in- fluencing code review processes in industry. InProceedings of the 2016 24th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (Seattle, WA, USA)(FSE 2016). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 85–96. doi:10.1145/2950290.2950323

    arXiv 2016

  9. [12]

    Jeffrey P Bigham and Patrick Carrington. 2018. Learning from the front: People with disabilities as early adopters of AI.Proceedings of the 2018 HCIC Human- Computer Interaction Consortium(2018)

    2018

  10. [13]

    Melanie Birks, Ysanne Chapman, and Karen Francis. 2008. Memoing in qualita- tive research: Probing data and processes.Journal of research in nursing13, 1 (2008), 68–75

    2008

  11. [14]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology3, 2 (2006), 77–101

    2006

  12. [15]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches.Counselling and psychotherapy research21, 1 (2021), 37–47

    2021

  13. [16]

    Chang, Megan Kelly Hofmann, Amy Hurst, and Shaun K

    Erin Buehler, Stacy Branham, Abdullah Ali, Jeremy J. Chang, Megan Kelly Hofmann, Amy Hurst, and Shaun K. Kane. 2015. Sharing is Caring: Assistive Technology Designs on Thingiverse. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    arXiv 2015

  14. [17]

    Erin Buehler, Amy Hurst, and Megan Hofmann. 2014. Coming to grips: 3D printing for accessibility. InProceedings of the 16th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility(Rochester, New York, USA)(ASSETS ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 291–292. doi:10. 1145/2661334.2661345

    arXiv 2014

  15. [18]

    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 ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal Seehorn et al. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25)...

    doi:10.1145/3706598 2025

  16. [20]

    Parmit K Chilana, Celena Alcock, Shruti Dembla, Anson Ho, Ada Hurst, Brett Armstrong, and Philip J Guo. 2015. Perceptions of non-CS majors in intro pro- gramming: The rise of the conversational programmer. In2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 251–259

    2015

  17. [21]

    Jeanne Choi, Dasom Choi, Sejun Jeong, Hwajung Hong, and Joseph Seering

  18. [22]

    Md Shain Shahid Chowdhury, Md Naseef Ur Rahman Chowdhury, Fariha Fer- dous Neha, and Ahshanul Haque. 2024. Ai-powered code reviews: Leveraging large language models. In2024 International Conference on Signal Processing and Advance Research in Computing (SPARC), Vol. 1. IEEE, 1–6

    2024

  19. [23]

    Rodolfo Cossovich, Steve Hodges, Jin Kang, and Audrey Girouard. 2023. Co- designing new keyboard and mouse solutions with people living with motor impairments. InProceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(New York, NY, USA)(ASSETS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 98, 7...

    arXiv 2023

  20. [25]

    Rakhi Dandona and Lalit Dandona. 2001. Socioeconomic status and blindness. British journal of ophthalmology85, 12 (2001), 1484–1488

    2001

  21. [26]

    Melissa DeJonckheere, Lisa M Vaughn, Tyler G James, and Amanda C Schon- delmeyer. 2024. Qualitative thematic analysis in a mixed methods study: Guide- lines and considerations for integration.Journal of Mixed Methods Research18, 3 (2024), 258–269

    2024

  22. [28]

    Sophia DiCuffa, Amanda Zambrana, Priyanshi Yadav, Sashidhar Madiraju, Khushi Suman, and Eman Abdullah AlOmar. 2025. Exploring Prompt Patterns in AI-Assisted Code Generation: Towards Faster and More Effective Developer- AI Collaboration. In2025 IEEE 4th International Conference on Computing and Machine Intelligence (ICMI). IEEE, 1–7

    2025

  23. [29]

    Patricia A Dwyer. 2020. Analysis and synthesis. InA step-by-step guide to conducting an integrative review. Springer, 57–70

    2020

  24. [30]

    Kirsten Ellis, Ross de Vent, Reuben Kirkham, and Patrick Olivier. 2020. Bespoke Reflections: Creating a One-Handed Braille Keyboard. 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 13, 13 pages. doi:10.1145/3...

    arXiv 2020

  25. [31]

    Be My Eyes. 2024. Introducing: Be My AI. https://www.bemyeyes.com/blog/ introducing-be-my-ai

    2024

  26. [32]

    Ahmed Fawzy, Amjed Tahir, and Kelly Blincoe. 2025. Vibe Coding in Practice: Motivations, Challenges, and a Future Outlook – a Grey Literature Review. arXiv:2510.00328 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.00328

    arXiv 2025

  27. [33]

    Cristina Fona. 2023. Qualitative data analysis: Using thematic analysis. In Researching and analysing business. Routledge, 130–145

    2023

  28. [34]

    Bhanuka Gamage, Thanh-Toan Do, Nicholas Seow Chiang Price, Arthur Lowery, and Kim Marriott. 2023. What do Blind and Low-Vision People Really Want from Assistive Smart Devices? Comparison of the Literature with a Focus Study. In Proceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(New York, NY, USA)(ASSETS ’23). Ass...

    doi:10.1145/3597638 2023

  29. [36]

    Vladimir Geroimenko. 2025. Key principles of good prompt design. InThe Essential Guide to Prompt Engineering: Key Principles, Techniques, Challenges, and Security Risks. Springer, 17–36

    2025

  30. [37]

    Github. 2025. About issues - GitHub Docs. https://docs.github.com/en/issues/ tracking-your-work-with-issues/learning-about-issues/about-issues

    2025

  31. [38]

    GitHub. 2025. GitHub Copilot·Your AI pair programmer. https://github.com/ features/copilot

    2025

  32. [39]

    Pareesa Ameneh Golnari, Adarsh Kumarappan, Wen Wen, Xiaoyu Liu, Gabriel Ryan, Yuting Sun, Shengyu Fu, and Elsie Nallipogu. 2026. DevBench: A Realistic, Developer-Informed Benchmark for Code Generation Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.11895(2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [40]

    Diana Grüger, Kevin Krings, Sven Hoffmann, Nino Bohn, and Thomas Ludwig

  34. [41]

    Asif Haider and Thomas Zimmermann

    Md. Asif Haider and Thomas Zimmermann. 2026. Understanding Dominant Themes in Reviewing Agentic AI-authored Code. arXiv:2601.19287 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19287

    arXiv 2026

  35. [42]

    Supported Coop

    Enhancing Craftsmanship: Evaluation of AR-Assisted Learning of Work Steps in Woodworking: Enhancing Craftsmanship: Evaluation of AR-Assisted Learning of Work Steps in Woodworking.Comput. Supported Coop. Work34, 4 (Dec. 2025), 1159–1220. doi:10.1007/s10606-025-09532-2

    work page doi:10.1007/s10606-025-09532-2 2025

  36. [43]

    Liwen He, Yifan Li, Mingming Fan, Liang He, and Yuhang Zhao. 2023. A Multi- modal Toolkit to Support DIY Assistive Technology Creation for Blind and Low Vision People. InAdjunct Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(San Francisco, CA, USA)(UIST ’23 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY...

    arXiv 2023

  37. [44]

    Brandon Haworth, Muhammad Usman, Melanie Baljko, and Foad Hamidi. 2016. The use of working prototypes for participatory design with people with dis- abilities. InInternational Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs. Springer, 134–141

    2016

  38. [45]

    Jaylin Herskovitz, Ellie Seehorn, Ather Jammoa, Jason Meddaugh, and Anhong Guo. 2026. A11yExtensions: Accessibility Extensions to Augment Mobile AI Assistive Technology In-Situ. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 204, 23 pages. doi:10.114...

    arXiv 2026

  39. [46]

    Jaylin Herskovitz. 2024. DIY assistive software: End-user programming for personalized assistive technology.ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing 137 (2024), 1–1

    2024

  40. [47]

    Jaylin Herskovitz, Andi Xu, Rahaf Alharbi, and Anhong Guo. 2024. Progra- mAlly: Creating Custom Visual Access Programs via Multi-Modal End-User Programming. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(UIST ’24). Associ- ation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 85, 15 pages....

    arXiv 2024

  41. [48]

    Jaylin Herskovitz, Andi Xu, Rahaf Alharbi, and Anhong Guo. 2023. Hacking, Switching, Combining: Understanding and Supporting DIY Assistive Tech- nology Design by Blind People. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Asso- ciation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 57, 17 p...

    arXiv 2023

  42. [49]

    It only needs to work for one of us

    Shuxu Huffman, Robin Angelini, Raja Kushalnagar, and Katta Spiel. 2025. "It only needs to work for one of us": Rethinking DIY Deaf Tech Through Situated Co- Design. InProceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, 7 pages. doi:10...

    arXiv 2025

  43. [51]

    Amy Hurst and Jasmine Tobias. 2011. Empowering individuals with do-it- yourself assistive technology. InThe proceedings of the 13th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. 11–18

    2011

  44. [52]

    Mina Huh, Zihui Xue, Ujjaini Das, Kumar Ashutosh, Kristen Grauman, and Amy Pavel. 2025. Vid2Coach: Transforming How-To Videos into Task Assistants. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–24

    2025

  45. [54]

    Froehlich

    Dhruv Jain, Audrey Desjardins, Leah Findlater, and Jon E. Froehlich. 2019. Au- toethnography of a Hard of Hearing Traveler. InProceedings of the 21st Interna- tional ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(ASSETS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 236–248. doi:10.1145/3308561.3353800

    arXiv 2019

  46. [55]

    Kamath, Aziz N

    Sanchita S. Kamath, Aziz N. Zeidieh, Venkatesh Potluri, Sile O’Modhrain, Ken- neth Perry, and JooYoung Seo. 2026. Three Modalities, Two Design Probes, One Prototype, and No Vision: Experience-Based Co-Design of a Multi-modal 3D Data Visualization Tool. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association fo...

    arXiv 2026

  47. [56]

    Kitani, Jeffrey P

    Hernisa Kacorri, Kris M. Kitani, Jeffrey P. Bigham, and Chieko Asakawa. 2017. People with Visual Impairment Training Personal Object Recognizers: Feasibil- ity and Challenges. InProceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Denver, Colorado, USA)(CHI ’17). Association for Com- puting Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 5839–5849. ...

    arXiv 2017

  48. [57]

    Amy J. Ko, Robin Abraham, Laura Beckwith, Alan Blackwell, Margaret Burnett, Martin Erwig, Chris Scaffidi, Joseph Lawrance, Henry Lieberman, Brad Myers, Mary Beth Rosson, Gregg Rothermel, Mary Shaw, and Susan Wiedenbeck. 2011. The state of the art in end-user software engineering.ACM Comput. Surv.43, 3, Article 21 (April 2011), 44 pages. doi:10.1145/192264...

    arXiv 2011

  49. [58]

    Elizabeth Keating and Gene Mirus. 2003. American Sign Language in virtual space: Interactions between deaf users of computer-mediated video communi- cation and the impact of technology on language practices.Language in Society 32, 5 (2003), 693–714

    2003

  50. [59]

    Kevin Krings, Nino S Bohn, and Thomas Ludwig. 2025. (R) evolution of Program- ming: Vibe Coding as a Post-Coding Paradigm.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.12364 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  51. [60]

    Ben Kosa, Hsuanling Lee, Jasmine Li, Sanbrita Mondal, Yuhang Zhao, and Liang He. 2026. Not Seeing the Whole Picture: Challenges and Opportunities in Using AI for Co-Making Physical, DIY-AT for People with Visual Impairments. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    arXiv 2026

  52. [61]

    Cheuk Yin Phipson Lee, Zhuohao Zhang, Jaylin Herskovitz, JooYoung Seo, and Anhong Guo. 2022. CollabAlly: Accessible Collaboration Awareness in Docu- ment Editing. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 596, 17 pages. ...

    arXiv 2022

  53. [62]

    Richard E Ladner. 2015. Design for user empowerment.interactions22, 2 (2015), 24–29

    2015

  54. [64]

    Jaewook Lee, Davin Win Kyi, Leejun Kim, Jenny Peng, Gagyeom Lim, Jeremy Zhengqi Huang, Dhruv Jain, and Jon E Froehlich. 2025. SonoCraftAR: Towards Supporting Personalized Authoring of Sound-Reactive AR Interfaces by Deaf and Hard of Hearing Users. In2025 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, 536–540

    2025

  55. [65]

    Franklin Mingzhe Li, Jamie Dorst, Peter Cederberg, and Patrick Carrington. 2021. Non-Visual Cooking: Exploring Practices and Challenges of Meal Preparation by People with Visual Impairments. InProceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Virtual Event, USA)(ASSETS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, ...

    arXiv 2021

  56. [66]

    Kyungjun Lee. 2020. Teachable object recognizers for the blind: using first- person vision.ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing123 (2020), 1–1

    2020

  57. [67]

    It Feels Like Taking a Gamble

    Franklin Mingzhe Li, Franchesca Spektor, Meng Xia, Mina Huh, Peter Cederberg, Yuqi Gong, Kristen Shinohara, and Patrick Carrington. 2022. “It Feels Like Taking a Gamble”: Exploring Perceptions, Practices, and Challenges of Using Makeup and Cosmetics for People with Visual Impairments. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing ...

    arXiv 2022

  58. [69]

    Mixuan Li and Leila Aflatoony. 2024. Exploring the Potential of Generative AI in DIY Assistive Technology Design by Occupational Therapists. InProceedings 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 109, 6 pages. doi:...

    arXiv 2024

  59. [70]

    Franklin Mingzhe Li, Lotus Zhang, Maryam Bandukda, Abigale Stangl, Kristen Shinohara, Leah Findlater, and Patrick Carrington. 2023. Understanding Visual Arts Experiences of Blind People. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Artic...

    arXiv 2023

  60. [71]

    Qianou Ma, Kenneth R Koedinger, and Tongshuang Wu. 2026. Not Everyone Wins with LLMs: Behavioral Patterns and Pedagogical Implications for AI Literacy in Programmatic Data Science. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 139, 22 pages. doi:10....

    doi:10.1145/3772318 2026

  61. [72]

    Hong Yi Lin, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Christoph Treude, and Wachiraphan Charoenwet. 2024. Improving automated code reviews: Learning from expe- rience. InProceedings of the 21st International Conference on Mining Software Repositories. 278–283

    2024

  62. [73]

    Medeiros, Lee Stearns, Leah Findlater, Chuan Chen, and Jon E

    Alexander J. Medeiros, Lee Stearns, Leah Findlater, Chuan Chen, and Jon E. Froehlich. 2017. Recognizing Clothing Colors and Visual Textures Using a Finger-Mounted Camera: An Initial Investigation. InProceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Bal- timore, Maryland, USA)(ASSETS ’17). Association for Computi...

    arXiv 2017

  63. [74]

    Yoshiaki Matsuzawa, Takashi Ohata, Manabu Sugiura, and Sanshiro Sakai. 2015. Language migration in non-CS introductory programming through mutual language translation environment. InProceedings of the 46th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 185–190

    2015

  64. [75]

    Farhani Momotaz, Md Ehtesham-Ul-Haque, and Syed Masum Billah. 2023. Understanding the Usages, Lifecycle, and Opportunities of Screen Readers’ Plugins.ACM Trans. Access. Comput.16, 2, Article 17 (July 2023), 35 pages. doi:10.1145/3582697

    work page doi:10.1145/3582697 2023

  65. [76]

    Microsoft. 2021. Seeing AI. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/seeing-ai

    2021

  66. [77]

    Peya Mowar, Yi-Hao Peng, Jason Wu, Aaron Steinfeld, and Jeffrey P Bigham

  67. [78]

    Cecily Morrison, Edward Cutrell, Martin Grayson, Anja Thieme, Alex Taylor, Geert Roumen, Camilla Longden, Sebastian Tschiatschek, Rita Faia Marques, and Abigail Sellen. 2021. Social Sensemaking with AI: Designing an Open-ended AI Experience with a Blind Child. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(...

    arXiv 2021

  68. [79]

    Hyanghee Park and Joonhwan Lee. 2021. Designing a Conversational Agent for Sexual Assault Survivors: Defining Burden of Self-Disclosure and Envisioning Survivor-Centered Solutions. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 634, 1...

    arXiv 2021

  69. [80]

    InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Codea11y: Making ai coding assistants useful for accessible web develop- ment. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    2025

  70. [81]

    OpenAI. 2023. Introducing GPTs. https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpts/

    2023

  71. [82]

    Deepak Babu Piskala. 2026. Spec-Driven Development: From Code to Contract in the Age of AI Coding Assistants.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.00180(2026)

    arXiv 2026

  72. [83]

    Betsy Phillips and Hongxin Zhao. 1993. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment.Assistive technology5, 1 (1993), 36–45

    1993

  73. [84]

    Patricia Piedade, Nikoletta Matsur, Catarina Alexandra Rebelo Rodrigues, Fran- cisco Cecilio, Afonso Marques, Rings Of Saturn, Isabel Neto, and Hugo Nicolau

  74. [85]

    Mitchel Resnick, John Maloney, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Natalie Rusk, Eve- lyn Eastmond, Karen Brennan, Amon Millner, Eric Rosenbaum, Jay Silver, Brian Silverman, et al. 2009. Scratch: programming for all.Commun. ACM52, 11 (2009), 60–67

    2009

  75. [86]

    Ayon Roy, Enamul Karim, Minhaz Bin Farukee, and Fillia Makedon. 2024. Chat- GPT as an Assistive Technology: Enhancing Human-Computer Interaction for People with Speech Impairments. InProceedings of the 17th International Confer- ence on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments(Crete, Greece) (PETRA ’24). Association for Computing Machinery...

    arXiv 2024

  76. [87]

    Milne and Lucy J Rubin

    Lauren R. Milne and Lucy J Rubin. 2025. Blocks4All and Beyond Demonstration: Making Block-Based Programming More Universally Accessible. InProceed- ings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–4

    2025

  77. [88]

    Muhammad Shihab Rashid, Christian Bock, Yuan Zhuang, Alexander Buch- holz, Tim Esler, Simon Valentin, Luca Franceschi, Martin Wistuba, Prabhu Teja Sivaprasad, Woo Jung Kim, et al . 2025. Swe-polybench: A multi-language benchmark for repository level evaluation of coding agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08703(2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [89]

    Saquib Sarwar, David Wilson, and Khairul Mahbub. 2026. Grassroots Maker Perspectives on Participation in Do-It-Yourself Assistive Technology Develop- ment. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 1605, 16 pages. doi:10.1145/3772318.3790477

    arXiv 2026

  79. [90]

    Disabled People

    Ather Sharif, Aedan Liam McCall, and Kianna Roces Bolante. 2022. Should I Say “Disabled People” or “People with Disabilities”? Language Preferences of Disabled People Between Identity- and Person-First Language. InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Athens, Greece)(ASSETS ’22). Association for Com...

    arXiv 2022

  80. [91]

    Neelamani Samal, Suresh Kaswan, Reshma, Rabina Bagga, Parul Goyal, and Lisha Yugal. 2025. Small but Mighty: A Comparative Review of Small Language Models and Their Advantages. InInternational Conference on AI Systems and Sustainable Technologies. Springer, 293–303. ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal Seehorn et al

    2025

Showing first 80 references.

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