Pith. sign in

REVIEW 8 major objections 62 references

QUARTZ: Qualitative Understanding via Accessible Representation and Visualization

T0 review · 8 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read QUARTZ reports formative evidence that blind and low-vision researchers can independently navigate, comprehend, and interpret qualitative data visualizations, provided the tools are designed together with them.

desk verdict A solid formative RITE study of accessible qualitative visualization, with an honest body and an abstract that oversells the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11364 v1 pith:O3ZJ24ML submitted 2026-08-11 cs.HC

Omar Khan , JooYoung Seo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords accessibilityqualitativedatavisualizationblindandlow-visionusersmultimodalinteractionscreenreadersonificationiterativedesignRITEmethod
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

QUARTZ is a web-based system that gives blind and low-vision (BLV) researchers screen-reader-accessible, multimodal access to four qualitative visualization types: concept maps, network graphs, Sankey diagrams, and coding stripes. The paper's central claim is that BLV researchers can independently navigate, comprehend, and derive meaning from qualitative data visualizations, but only when the tools are designed with them rather than retrofitted to be accessible after the fact. To support that claim, the authors ran a RITE-based usability study with 8 BLV participants who completed 12 tasks across the four visualization types, documenting barriers unique to qualitative visualization: non-linear navigation breakdowns, semantic comprehension gaps, and screen-reader-specific interaction conflicts. The study reports that iterative co-design between sessions progressively resolved these barriers, and it derives design guidelines for a visualization domain that previously had none. If correct, the finding extends accessible-visualization infrastructure from quantitative charts to the analytical instruments of qualitative research.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pairing of a fixed multimodal representation layer with the Rapid Iterative Testing and Evaluation (RITE) method. QUARTZ renders each visualization through four synchronized non-visual channels—semantic HTML with ARIA live regions, keyboard-first navigation patterned on each visualization's topology, interactive sonification that maps structural properties (hierarchy depth, degree centrality, flow magnitude, code identity) to pitch, volume, pan, and duration, and textual summary panels—so that a single navigation action updates all active channels. RITE then treats the evaluation itself as a design intervention: after each participant session, the team reviewed task outcomes, think-aloud data, and facilitator intervention logs, implemented targeted modifications, and recorded each change with its rationale as data. This loop converts observed barriers into system changes between sessions, and the reduction of specific intervention categories across P1 through P8 is the paper's evidence that the barriers were resolved rather than merely documented.

What would settle it

Run the identical 12-task protocol with the final QUARTZ build, an independent facilitator who was not involved in the system's design, and a fresh sample of BLV users spanning JAWS, NVDA, and ZDSR. If task-completion rates fall substantially relative to the paper's later sessions, or if the barrier categories reported as resolved (workspace entry, relational meaning of edges, AT-intercepted shortcuts) reappear at similar frequencies, the claim that iterative co-design resolved those barriers would be refuted. A cheaper falsifier is to re-code the existing session recordings with participant and facilitator identities masked and compare the barrier and success codes; substantive disagreement on partial completions would undermine the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Existing accessible-visualization systems cover quantitative charts, whose ordered axes, discrete enumerable data points, and deterministic data-to-visual mappings make sequential traversal and numeric sonification tractable. QUARTZ addresses qualitative visualizations, which encode semantic relationships, have non-linear topologies, and reflect interpretive judgment. The paper's discovery is that these differences are categorical, not a matter of degree: the interaction paradigms that make bar charts and scatter plots accessible do not transfer to concept maps, network graphs, Sankey diagrams, or coding stripes. Through 12 tasks with 8 BLV participants, the study identifies three barrier families—structural navigation failures in non-linear topologies, semantic comprehension gaps around relational meaning, and assistive-technology conflicts such as JAWS virtual-cursor interception—and shows that targeted RITE modifications (declared entry affordances, directional and weighted connection announcements, replacing global shortcuts with labeled buttons) reduced those specific barriers in later sessions. The authors present this as formative evidence that BLV researchers can independently navigate, comprehend, and derive meaning from qualitative visualizations, while explicitly noting that eight sessions did not saturate the barrier space and that summative confirmation is future work.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the assumption that the researcher who built QUARTZ, facilitated every session, logged every facilitator intervention, and performed the initial thematic coding could judge task success and barrier resolution without bias; if that judgment systematically favored success, the evidence that design iterations resolved the barriers would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Accessibility solutions for quantitative charts cannot be assumed to carry over to qualitative visualizations; each qualitative type needs its own navigation model, such as tree traversal for concept maps, stage-grid movement for Sankey diagrams, connection-list browsing for network graphs, and segment-level focus for coding stripes.
  • Screen-reader support for graph structures must encode edge direction and relative importance, for example through outgoing and incoming connection lists ordered by weight, rather than rely on node-and-edge enumeration alone.
  • Sonification in this domain works best when it conveys shape and relational structure, such as flow width through pitch, rather than only numerical magnitude.
  • Replacing global keyboard shortcuts that collide with screen-reader virtual cursors with persistent labeled buttons removes a whole class of assistive-technology conflicts for the configurations tested.
  • Design guidelines for accessible qualitative visualization should include declared entry affordances, scaffolded vocabulary, explainable quality metrics, and a balance between recommendation guidance and researcher agency.
  • The three barrier families identified here are distinct from quantitative-chart accessibility barriers, so future qualitative-visualization accessibility work should expect to design for non-linear navigation and semantic comprehension rather than numeric lookup and axis traversal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the central claim generalizes, the same co-design-plus-topology-aware-modality recipe could extend to other qualitative displays the paper did not test, such as affinity diagrams, thematic maps, and journey maps; the paper itself flags these as open territory.
  • The epistemic-verification barrier—users cannot confirm that the non-visual representation matches what a sighted collaborator would see—suggests that fully independent use may require trust-building mechanisms such as inspectable rubrics, previewable exemplars, or collaborative verification, none of which the evaluation directly tests.
  • Because the system changed between sessions and the barrier space was not saturated after eight participants, a fixed-system summative study with a larger, stratified sample is the natural next test; the design-trajectory evidence cannot by itself establish stable usability.
  • The rule-based recommendation layer is deliberately free of generative models, so extending QUARTZ toward raw-text authoring would require a coding pass first; a testable extension would be an in-tool coding interface, which the paper lists as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

8 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents QUARTZ, a web-based system offering screen-reader-accessible, multimodal representations of four qualitative data visualization types (concept maps, network graphs, Sankey diagrams, and coding stripes). The authors report a RITE-based formative evaluation with 8 blind and low-vision participants completing 12 tasks, identifying accessibility barriers specific to qualitative visualizations and documenting iterative design modifications intended to resolve them. The paper contributes the system, empirical findings about non-linear navigation and semantic comprehension barriers, and six design guidelines for accessible qualitative visualization. The authors are notably transparent about confounds and limitations, including the single-facilitator design, the changing system across RITE sessions, and the mixed task outcomes for network graphs.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, this would be a valuable contribution to an underexplored area of accessible visualization: it would provide formative empirical evidence that BLV researchers can engage with qualitative visualizations when the tools are designed with them, and it would supply concrete design guidance where the literature has focused almost exclusively on quantitative charts. The paper has genuine strengths: the domain is well-motivated, the system covers four visualization types with coordinated multimodal access, the RITE process is documented in detail with a full change log (Appendix B.4), the rule-based parameters are disclosed completely (Appendix A), and the authors openly report partial and failed tasks, AT-specific conflicts, and their own positionality and bias risks. The design guidelines in Section 7.2 are concrete and grounded in observed participant behavior. However, the load-bearing claim that iterative co-design 'resolved' barriers is not established by the reported data, and the paper's own evidence suggests the conclusion should be scoped more carefully.

major comments (8)
  1. [§3.1, §5.6] The abstract and conclusion claim that iterative co-design 'resolved' accessibility barriers, but the RITE trajectory confounds system version with participant identity, assistive-technology configuration, interaction modality, and session order. The paper acknowledges this in §6.5.5 ('not controlled experimental evidence'), yet the contribution language still asserts resolution. Specific confounds visible in the paper: P4's zero in Fig. 8b is structural because network-graph tasks were skipped; P5 used ZDSR, an untested screen reader, and required facilitator remote control; P7-P8 used zoom and mouse rather than keyboard navigation; and P8, on the newest build, recorded the highest intervention count (16). To support the 'resolved' claim, the authors should either add a fixed-system evaluation with an independent observer or reframe the contribution to 'surfaced and partially addressed barriers' across the RITE trajectory. This is load-bearing for the paper's design-knowledge contribution.
  2. [§6.3.1, Fig. 5, §6.4.2, Fig. 6] The first author built QUARTZ, facilitated every session, categorized facilitator interventions, and conducted the initial thematic coding. The paper acknowledges this bias risk in §3.1, and the mitigation (a priori task criteria and consensus with the second author) is reasonable but does not remove the structural dependence on a single invested evaluator for the pre/post comparisons that ground the 'resolution' claim. I recommend adding an independent coding of task outcomes and intervention categories, such as a second coder blind to session order with agreement statistics, or explicitly presenting the trajectory as exploratory and removing causal 'resolved' language from the contributions. Without this, the central empirical claim is not independently verifiable from the reported evidence.
  3. [§5.2, Table 2, §6.2.3, §6.5.4] The conclusion that BLV users 'can independently navigate, comprehend, and derive meaning' from qualitative data visualizations is stronger than the reported task data. Fig. 5 shows many partial and failed outcomes, especially for network graph tasks (T4-T6), and the same section notes that network graphs were consistently the most challenging visualization type. Additionally, Fig. 6 reports AUS scores aggregated across successive system versions (mean 70.6, s=21.6), so the 'above-average mean AUS' statement is a property of the design trajectory, not a benchmark of the final build, as the paper itself notes. Please report per-type success rates and explicitly scope the conclusion to the visualization types and task levels where success was actually observed.
  4. [§3.1, reference [46]] There is an internal inconsistency about P4's assistive technology: Table 2 lists P4 as using NVDA on Windows, but §6.2.3 quotes P4 as making 'JAWS compatibility' the gating factor and §6.5.4 attributes 'JAWS virtual cursor' conflicts to P4. Please reconcile the participant table with the quoted AT attribution.
  5. [§4.2.3, Appendix A.2] In §3.1, the citation [46] appears to be the wrong reference: the claim about R2's daily screen-reader use surfacing interaction barriers is supported by [30] and likely should cite the VoxLens paper [47] rather than the language-preferences paper currently listed as [46].
  6. [Fig. 5 caption] The Evaluation Panel is described in §4.2.3 as reporting a 1-5 readiness score with an export threshold of 3, while Appendix A.2 describes a 0-100 additive point allocation with a ready threshold of 60. Please clarify the relationship between these two scoring systems so readers can map the interface labels to the underlying calculation.
  7. [Fig. 7 caption] Figure 5 uses only symbols (✓, ∼, ✗) to present task outcomes; given the paper's focus on accessibility, the symbol-only legend may not be usable by screen reader users. Please add an accessible textual equivalent or a data table in the caption or body text.
  8. [§6.4.2, Fig. 6] Given the small sample and RITE-induced system changes, the AUS score distribution in Fig. 6 would benefit from a brief note that the scores are not directly comparable across sessions; the text makes this point in §6.4.2, but the figure caption does not.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the study's claims are empirical, self-contained, and the non-controlled aspects are explicitly acknowledged rather than disguised as derivations.

full rationale

The paper contains no formal derivation, no equations, and no fitted predictive model, so the enumerated circularity patterns (self-definitional, fitted-input-as-prediction, imported uniqueness, ansatz-by-citation, renaming) do not find a purchase. The argument chain is empirical: build QUARTZ, run RITE sessions, surface barriers, make targeted modifications, observe later sessions, and infer design guidance. The paper explicitly disclaims controlled causal evidence at Section 6.5.5 ('direct comparison across sessions reflects both system improvement and individual differences... not controlled experimental evidence') and again in Section 7.4, deferring summative claims to future fixed-system evaluation. The one self-citation, Khan and Seo [23], supplies background motivation and design-goal grounding, but the present study's central findings rest on its own task-completion data, think-aloud quotations, facilitator intervention logs, and RITE change log, and the problem framing is independently corroborated by other cited work (e.g., [1], [26], [36]). The facilitator-bias concern raised in Section 3.1 is an internal-validity limitation that the authors acknowledge, not a circular reduction of the conclusion to its inputs. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from prior author work. Accordingly, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

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

No invented entities. The system's parameters are design choices, not fitted constants used to make predictions; they are listed for transparency. The main assumptions are domain-level premises about the validity of the evaluation approach, which the paper itself acknowledges as limitations.

free parameters (4)
  • Detection layer keyword weights and confidence gate = Table 3: weights 0.4-0.9; gate 0.3
    Hand-calibrated rule values for selecting a visualization type; the paper states they are 'deliberate calibrations for our setting rather than empirically optimized constants' (Section 4.2.1).
  • Readiness scoring point allocations and threshold = Table 4: 10-40 points per criterion; ready threshold 60/100
    Chosen by hand to define 'publication readiness'; not fit to outcome data, but they determine whether a visualization is flagged ready, influencing DG2/DG3 claims.
  • Complexity thresholds per visualization type = concept map nodes 3-100, depth 2-6; network edge ratio; Sankey stages 3-7; coding stripe counts 2-50
    Hand-specified bounds that trigger warnings; they shape the complexity feedback that the study evaluates.
  • Sonification parameter mappings = Table 1: pitch 220-880 Hz, base 261.63 Hz, etc.
    Designer-chosen auditory encodings; the study assesses their usefulness but does not optimize them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Multimodal screen-reader, sonification, and keyboard interaction is an appropriate and sufficient modality set for BLV users to interpret qualitative visualizations.
    The entire QUARTZ design rests on this; prior work supports it for quantitative charts, and the paper extends it to qualitative structures (Section 4.2.4).
  • domain assumption The four tested visualization types (concept map, network graph, Sankey, coding stripes) are representative of qualitative data visualization practice.
    Section 5.3 constructs author-generated stimuli 'designed to represent realistic qualitative data at moderate complexity'; Section 7.4 acknowledges other types (affinity diagrams, thematic maps) are not covered.
  • domain assumption Task completion and facilitator intervention counts are valid indicators of accessibility and comprehension.
    Section 5.4 maps tasks to orientation/navigation/interpretation; Section 5.6 categorizes interventions, but no inter-rater reliability or external validation is reported.
  • domain assumption RITE modifications between participants allow the trajectory of intervention counts to be interpreted as system improvement rather than individual differences.
    The paper explicitly cautions in Section 6.5.5 that 'direct comparison across sessions reflects both system improvement and individual differences', yet the RITE trajectory is presented as improvement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QUARTZ: Qualitative Understanding via Accessible Representation and Visualization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O3ZJ24ML

@misc{pith2026260811364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QUARTZ: Qualitative Understanding via Accessible Representation and Visualization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O3ZJ24ML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11364}
}
read the original abstract

Qualitative data visualizations -- concept maps, network graphs, Sankey diagrams, and coding stripes -- are integral to research practice, yet remain entirely inaccessible to blind and low-vision (BLV) researchers. While visualization has seen advanced multimodal solutions for quantitative charts, qualitative visualizations, and their non-linear, semantically rich structures have received no attention. We present QUARTZ, a web-based system that provides screen-reader-accessible, multimodal representations of qualitative data visualizations. Using the Rapid Iterative Testing and Evaluation (RITE) method, we conducted a user study with 8 BLV participants who completed 12 tasks across four visualization types. Our findings expose accessibility barriers unique to qualitative visualizations -- non-linear navigation breakdowns and semantic comprehension gaps absent from quantitative chart research---and document how iterative co-design with BLV users resolved them. We contribute empirical evidence and design guidelines for an underexplored visualization domain, advancing the infrastructure BLV researchers need to participate independently in qualitative inquiry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11364 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. QUARTZ’s four visualization types. Visualization serves as an analytic instrument in qualitative research, not merely a reporting tool. Miles et al. [36] describe qual￾itative data displays: matrices, networks, and flow charts, as tools for organizing and examining data that complement textual analy￾sis. Henderson and Segal [18] argue that qualitative visualization communicates findings that resist textual expressio… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. QUARTZ’s system architecture. our setting rather than empirically optimized constants, following the tradition of rule-based visualization recommendation [29]. 4.2.2 Non-Visual Iteration (DG2). QUARTZ supports iterative re￾finement of qualitative visualizations without visual access through keyboard-driven editing affordances that provide non-visual feed￾back at each step. In concept maps, researchers can edit node … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A user’s workflow through QUARTZ. coded text segments and announcements identifying the applied codes and position within the document. Modality coordination and user control. Navigation handlers are structured so that a single keystroke triggers updates across all active modalities; for example, cycling to a new connection in the network graph calls the sonification engine and sets the live region announcement text… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Screenshots of modals from QUARTZ that inform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Task completion outcomes across the 12 study [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Participants’ post-session AUS scores. 6.5.1 Structural Navigation Barriers. The most pervasive barriers involved focus management. P6 described repeated episodes where "it’s reading from the top, ’data visualization!’, when I’m trying to go to a section, it kept on ju…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Facilitator intervention frequency across [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Interventions matching each modification’s target barrier, per participant. Dashed lines mark when each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [46]

    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 (ASSETS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery...

    arXiv 2022

  2. [30]

    Hayes, and Devva Kasnitz

    Jennifer Mankoff, Gillian R. Hayes, and Devva Kasnitz. 2010. Disability Studies as a Source of Critical Inquiry for the Field of Assistive Technology. InProceedings of the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3–10. doi:10.1145/1878803.1878807

    arXiv 2010

  3. [47]

    Wang, Alida T

    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. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–19. doi:10.1145/3491102. 3517431

    doi:10.1145/3491102 2022

  4. [1]

    Aishwarya

    O. Aishwarya. 2022. Performing Qualitative Data Analysis as a Blind Researcher: Challenges, Workarounds and Design Recommendations. InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal Khan and Seo (ASSETS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [2]

    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. ACM, Galway Ireland, 161–173. doi:10.1145/3234695.3236348

    arXiv 2018

  6. [3]

    Bennett and Daniela K

    Cynthia L. Bennett and Daniela K. Rosner. 2019. The Promise of Empathy: Design, Disability, and Knowing the "Other". InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3290605.3300528

    arXiv 2019

  7. [4]

    Matthew Blanco, Jonathan Zong, and Arvind Satyanarayan. 2022. Olli: An Extensible Visualization Library for Screen Reader Accessibility. InProceedings of the IEEE VIS 2022 Conference. Proceedings of the IEEE VIS 2022 Conference. Conference Name: Ieee Vis: Visualization & Visual Analytics. https://virtual. ieeevis.org/year/2022/poster_v-vis-posters-1030.html

    work page 2022

  8. [5]

    Jessica G Borger. 2024. Making science accessible for blind and low-vision people, and those with diverse needs.Immunology & Cell Biology102, 5 (2024), 308–314. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/imcb.12760. doi:10.1111/imcb.12760

    work page doi:10.1111/imcb.12760 2024

Show all 62 references
  1. [6]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psy- chology.Qualitative Research in Psychology3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006 doi

  2. [7]

    Mengzhu (Katie) Chen, Isabella Pedraza Pineros, Arvind Satyanarayan, and Jonathan Zong. 2025. Tactile Vega-Lite: Rapidly Prototyping Tactile Charts with Smart Defaults. InACM Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI). doi:10.1145/ 3706598.3714132

    2025

  3. [8]

    Jinho Choi, Sanghun Jung, Deok Gun Park, Jaegul Choo, and Niklas Elmqvist

  4. [9]

    Bern Jordan, Yasmin Reyazuddin, Niklas Elmqvist, and Jonathan Lazar

    Pramod Chundury, J. Bern Jordan, Yasmin Reyazuddin, Niklas Elmqvist, and Jonathan Lazar. 2026. Sound, Touch, or the Full Monty? A Comparative Study of Accessible Data Exploration Systems for Blind Users.ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing19, 1 (March 2026), 1:1–1:41. doi:...

    2026 doi

  5. [10]

    Mathias Decuypere. 2020. Visual Network Analysis: a qualitative method for researching sociomaterial practice.Qualitative Research20, 1 (Feb. 2020), 73–90. doi:10.1177/1468794118816613

    2020 doi

  6. [11]

    Frank Elavsky, Cynthia Bennett, and Dominik Moritz. 2022. How accessible is my visualization? Evaluating visualization accessibility with Chartability.Computer Graphics Forum41, 3 (June 2022), 57–70. doi:10.1111/cgf.14522

    2022 doi

  7. [12]

    Frank Elavsky, Lucas Nadolskis, and Dominik Moritz. 2023. Data Navigator: An Accessibility-Centered Data Navigation Toolkit.IEEE Transactions on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics(2023), 1–11. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2023.3327393

    2023

  8. [13]

    Talking the Same Language

    Ibrahim Emara. 2025. “Talking the Same Language”: The Influence of Sharing a Visual Impairment Identity Between Researchers and Participants on Enhanc- ing Participant Recruitment and Fostering Rapport During Interviews With Blind Individuals.International Journal of Qualitati...

    2025 doi

  9. [14]

    Fable Tech Labs. [n. d.]. Accessible Usability Scale (AUS). https://makeitfable.com/accessible-usability-scale/

  10. [15]

    Danyang Fan, Alexa Fay Siu, Hrishikesh Rao, Gene Sung-Ho Kim, Xavier Vazquez, Lucy Greco, Sile O’Modhrain, and Sean Follmer. 2023. The Accessibility of Data Visualizations on the Web for Screen Reader Users: Practices and Experiences During COVID-19.ACM Transactions on Accessi...

    2023 doi

  11. [16]

    Mohammad Ghoniem, Jean-Daniel Fekete, and Philippe Castagliola. 2005. On the Readability of Graphs Using Node-Link and Matrix-Based Representations: A Controlled Experiment and Statistical Analysis.Information Visualization4, 2 (June 2005), 114–135. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ivs.9500092

    2005 doi

  12. [17]

    Guillermo Rauch. 2016. Next.js by Vercel - The React Framework. https://nextjs. org/

    2016

  13. [18]

    Stuart Henderson and Eden H. Segal. 2013. Visualizing Qualitative Data in Evaluation Research.New Directions for Evaluation2013, 139 (2013), 53–71. _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ev.20067. doi:10.1002/ev. 20067

    2013 doi

  14. [19]

    Md Naimul Hoque, Md Ehtesham-Ul-Haque, Niklas Elmqvist, and Syed Masum Billah. 2023. Accessible Data Representation with Natural Sound. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, ...

    2023

  15. [20]

    Jordan Walke. 2013. React. https://react.dev/

    2013

  16. [21]

    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, ...

    2022

  17. [22]

    Tigwell, and Roshan L

    Chloe Keilers, Garreth W. Tigwell, and Roshan L. Peiris. 2023. Data Visualization Accessibility for Blind and Low Vision Audiences. InUniversal Access in Human- Computer Interaction: 17th International Conference, UAHCI 2023, Held as Part of the 25th HCI International Conferen...

    2023 doi

  18. [23]

    I Don’t Trust Any Professional Research Tool

    Omar Khan and JooYoung Seo. 2026. "I Don’t Trust Any Professional Research Tool": A Re-Imagination of Knowledge Production Workflows by, with, and for Blind and Low-Vision Researchers. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). As...

    2026

  19. [24]

    Dae Hyun Kim, Enamul Hoque, and Maneesh Agrawala. 2020. Answering Ques- tions about Charts and Generating Visual Explanations. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–13. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376467

    2020

  20. [25]

    N. W. Kim, S. C. Joyner, A. Riegelhuth, and Y. Kim. 2021. Accessible Visualization: Design Space, Opportunities, and Challenges.Computer Graphics Forum40, 3 (June 2021), 173–188. doi:10.1111/cgf.14298

    2021 doi

  21. [27]

    Ladner, Brianna Blaser, Andreas Stefik, and Amy J

    Richard E. Ladner, Brianna Blaser, Andreas Stefik, and Amy J. Ko. 2023. Disabil- ity in Computer Science Education. InProceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 2 (SIGCSE 2023). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1248....

    2023

  22. [28]

    Alan Lundgard and Arvind Satyanarayan. 2022. Accessible Visualization via Natural Language Descriptions: A Four-Level Model of Semantic Content.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics28, 1 (Jan. 2022), 1073–1083. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2021.3114770

    2022

  23. [29]

    Jock Mackinlay. 1986. Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information.ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)5, 2 (April 1986), 110–141. doi:10.1145/22949.22950

    1986

  24. [31]

    Yotam Mann. 2015. Interactive Music with Tone.js. InProceed- ings of the Web Audio Conference (W AC). Web Audio Conference, 7. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Interactive-Music-with-Tone.js- Mann/556edb742fac75ea0ba8d6ed9f9bfa5e1e294469

    2015

  25. [32]

    Kim Marriott, Bongshin Lee, Matthew Butler, Ed Cutrell, Kirsten Ellis, Ca- gatay Goncu, Marti Hearst, Kathleen McCoy, and Danielle Szafir. 2021. In- clusive data visualization for people with disabilities: A call to action | IX Magazine Issue XXVIII.3 May - June 2021.Interacti...

    2021

  26. [33]

    and Wixon, Dennis and McGee, Mick and Welsh, Dan

    Medlock, Michael C. and Wixon, Dennis and McGee, Mick and Welsh, Dan

  27. [34]

    Michael Curran. 2025. NVDA 2025.3.3 User Guide. https://download.nvaccess. org/documentation/userGuide.html

    2025

  28. [35]

    Mike Bostock. 2011. D3 by Observable | The JavaScript library for bespoke data visualization. https://d3js.org/

    2011

  29. [36]

    Miles, A

    Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldana. 2014.Qualitative Data Analysis. SAGE. Google-Books-ID: 3CNrUbTu6CsC

    2014

  30. [37]

    Emily Nelson and Sheryl Chatfield. 2022. A Conversation in Time: A New Concept for Creating Stream Graphs for Qualitative Data Visualization.The Qualitative Report27, 11 (Nov. 2022), 2605–2622. doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5713

    2022

  31. [38]

    Joseph Novak and Alberto Cañas. 2006. The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct Them. (Jan. 2006)

    2006

  32. [39]

    NV Access. 2025. NonVisual desktop access (NVDA). https://www.nvaccess.org/

    2025

  33. [40]

    Alis Oancea, Teresa Florez Petour, and Jeanette Atkinson. 2017. Qualitative network analysis tools for the configurative articulation of cultural value and impact from research.Research Evaluation26, 4 (Oct. 2017), 302–315. doi:10. 1093/reseval/rvx014

    2017

  34. [41]

    Georgia Panagiotidou and Andrew Vande Moere. 2022. Communicating qualita- tive uncertainty in data visualization: Two cases from within the digital humani- ties.Information Design Journal27, 1 (Dec. 2022), 52–63. doi:10.1075/idj.22014.pan

    2022 doi

  35. [42]

    Pokorny, Alex Norman, Anthony P

    Jennifer J. Pokorny, Alex Norman, Anthony P. Zanesco, Susan Bauer-Wu, Baljin- der K. Sahdra, and Clifford D. Saron. 2018. Network analysis for the visualization and analysis of qualitative data.Psychological Methods23, 1 (2018), 169–183. doi:10.1037/met0000129 QUARTZ: Qualitat...

    2018 doi

  36. [43]

    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...

    2025

  37. [44]

    Kamath, Aziz Zeidieh, Saairam Venkatesh, and Sean McCurry

    JooYoung Seo, Sanchita S. Kamath, Aziz Zeidieh, Saairam Venkatesh, and Sean McCurry. 2024. MAIDR Meets AI: Exploring Multimodal LLM-Based Data Visual- ization Interpretation by and with Blind and Low-Vision Users. InProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conferenc...

    2024

  38. [45]

    JooYoung Seo, Yilin Xia, Bongshin Lee, Sean Mccurry, and Yu Jun Yam. 2024. MAIDR: Making Statistical Visualizations Accessible with Multimodal Data Rep- resentation. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, 1–22. doi:10.1...

    2024

  39. [48]

    Arjun Srinivasan, Tim Harshbarger, Darrell Hilliker, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2023. Azimuth: Designing Accessible Dashboards for Screen Reader Users. InThe 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. ACM, New York NY USA, 1–16. doi:10.1145/3597638.3608405

    2023

  40. [49]

    Drucker, and Ken Hinckley

    Arjun Srinivasan, Bongshin Lee, Nathalie Henry Riche, Steven M. Drucker, and Ken Hinckley. 2020. InChorus: Designing Consistent Multimodal Interactions for Data Visualization on Tablet Devices. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI...

    2020

  41. [50]

    Knut Sveidqvist and Contributors to Mermaid. 2014. Mermaid: Generate diagrams from markdown-like text. original-date: 2014-11-01T23:52:32Z. https://github. com/mermaid-js/mermaid

    2014

  42. [51]

    Mike Thelwall and Tamara Nevill. 2021. Is research with qualitative data more prevalent and impactful now? Interviews, case studies, focus groups and ethno- graphies.Library & Information Science Research43, 2 (April 2021), 101094. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101094

    2021

  43. [52]

    John R Thompson, Jesse J Martinez, Alper Sarikaya, Edward Cutrell, and Bongshin Lee. 2023. Chart Reader: Accessible Visualization Experiences Designed with Screen Reader Users. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg Germany...

    2023 doi

  44. [53]

    Tien Tran, Hae-Na Lee, and Ji Hwan Park. 2024. Discovering Accessible Data Visualizations for People with ADHD. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19. doi:10.1145/3...

    2024

  45. [54]

    Leland Wilkinson. 2012. The Grammar of Graphics. InHandbook of Computational Statistics, James E. Gentle, Wolfgang Karl Härdle, and Yuichi Mori (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 375–414. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21551- 3_13

    2012 doi

  46. [55]

    Wimer, Ritesh Kanchi, Kaija Frierson, Venkatesh Potluri, Ronald A

    Brianna L. Wimer, Ritesh Kanchi, Kaija Frierson, Venkatesh Potluri, Ronald A. Metoyer, Jennifer Mankoff, Miya Natsuhara, and Matt X. Wang. 2026. Non- visual Support for Understanding and Reasoning about Data Structures. InPro- ceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Facto...

    2026

  47. [56]

    Wobbrock, Shaun K

    Jacob O. Wobbrock, Shaun K. Kane, Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Susumu Harada, and Jon Froehlich. 2011. Ability-Based Design: Concept, Principles and Examples.ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing3, 3 (April 2011), 9:1–9:27. doi:10.1145/ 1952383.1952384

    2011

  48. [57]

    Haixia Zhao, Catherine Plaisant, Ben Shneiderman, and Jonathan Lazar. 2008. Data Sonification for Users with Visual Impairment: A Case Study with Georef- erenced Data.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.15, 1 (May 2008), 4:1–4:28. doi:10.1145/1352782.1352786

    2008

  49. [58]

    Sukhai, and Sowmya Somanath

    Yichun Zhao, Miguel A Nacenta, Mahadeo A. Sukhai, and Sowmya Somanath

  50. [59]

    Jonathan Zong, Crystal Lee, Alan Lundgard, JiWoong Jang, Daniel Hajas, and Arvind Satyanarayan. 2022. Rich Screen Reader Experiences for Accessible Data Visualization.Computer Graphics Forum (Proc. EuroVis)(June 2022). doi:10.1111/ cgf.14519

    2022

  51. [60]

    Visualization Readiness

    Jonathan Zong, Isabella Pedraza Pineros, Mengzhu (Katie) Chen, Daniel Hajas, and Arvind Satyanarayan. 2024. Umwelt: Accessible Structured Editing of Multi- Modal Data Representations. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Ass...

    2024

  52. [2005]

    InCost-Justifying Usability

    The Rapid Iterative Test and Evaluation Method: Better Products in Less Time. InCost-Justifying Usability. Morgan Kaufmann, 489–517. doi:10.1016/B978- 012095811-5/50017-1

    doi

  53. [2019]

    doi:10.1111/ cgf.13686

    Visualizing for the Non-Visual: Enabling the Visually Impaired to Use Visualization.Computer Graphics Forum38, 3 (June 2019), 249–260. doi:10.1111/ cgf.13686

    2019

  54. [2024]

    InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24)

    TADA: Making Node-link Diagrams Accessible to Blind and Low-Vision People. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–20. doi:10.1145/3613904.3642222

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.