Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 76 references

Skeleton: Visual Authoring of Non-visual Data Experiences

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Giving sighted chart authors a visible, editable navigation structure turns accessibility from compliance into design.

desk verdict Skeleton is a solid systems contribution with a genuinely new authoring paradigm, but the headline causal claim about visibility changing practitioner engagement outruns the uncontrolled, note-based study. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14579 v1 pith:4ROYOFE4 submitted 2026-07-16 cs.HC cs.CV

Frank Elavsky , Chieri Nnadozie , Lucas Nadolskis , Patrick Carrington , Dominik Moritz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.CV
keywords accessibilitydatavisualizationnavigationstructuredirectmanipulationscreenreaderauthoringtoolnon-visualdesignco-design
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

The paper argues that sighted practitioners build accessible data visualizations blind: the navigation structure that assistive technologies traverse exists only as code, with no visual representation to inspect, debug, or iterate on. It introduces Skeleton, an authoring environment that renders navigation structure as an interactive node-link diagram overlaid on the chart, plus a Dimensions API that lets authors describe traversal in terms of data fields. In a study with eight practitioners, making structure visible changed how they worked: they caught structural errors, iterated on labels and topology, reconsidered the design of their own charts, and moved from asking 'does it pass' to asking 'is it good.' A sympathetic reader cares because this identifies a concrete lever—visible, manipulable structure—for improving the quality ceiling of non-visual data experiences.

What carries the argument

The central object is the navigation structure—the nodes, edges, focus states, and input bindings that govern how assistive technology traverses a chart. The argument is carried by Skeleton's dual representation: an abstract schema view of the hierarchy and a spatial canvas overlay on the chart image, linked bidirectionally, so a practitioner sees both the model and the experience. Scaffolding automates node placement by using a visualization rendering engine as a coordinate oracle, and a testing mode instantiates real keyboard navigation with focus highlighting, making traversal sequence visible. These techniques translate the invisible structure into objects a sighted author can perceive a

What would settle it

Replicate the study with verbatim audio recording and an equivalent code-only control condition for the same charts. If practitioners in the hidden-structure condition show comparable self-directed iteration and chart reconsideration, or if the note-based findings do not reproduce, the claim that visible structure caused the shift is not supported.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that invisibility, not lack of skill or care, is what keeps accessible navigation structure from being designed well. Skeleton makes the nodes, edges, spatial positions, and announced text of a navigation structure visible and directly manipulable, closing the feedback loop that sighted authors already have for every other aspect of a visualization. The study of eight practitioners found that with this representation, participants could see problems such as a redundant numerical dimension, refined labels by editing templates, restructured dimensions after keyboard testing, and five of eight reconsidered the architecture of their own charts—some concluding that a chart wa

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the observed shift from compliance-oriented to design-oriented engagement was caused by making navigation structure visible—an attribution based on researcher notes rather than verbatim transcripts, with no control condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Accessibility authoring tools should render non-visual structure as a first-class visual design material, not leave it as code.
  • With such a representation, practitioners can verify and debug navigation without manual screen-reader passes, shortening iteration loops.
  • Making structure visible prompts reconsideration of the visualization itself, linking non-visual design quality to visual design decisions.
  • The same principle should transfer to other domains where sighted authors build non-visual structure without feedback, such as PDF reading order, web page structure, and application layouts.
  • The Dimensions API suggests a grammar of navigation in data terms, which could make accessible navigation patterns reusable across chart types and libraries.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If visibility is the causal lever, then adding an analogous inspector to code-only accessibility workflows (e.g., an accessibility tree viewer) should produce similar shifts; this is directly testable.
  • The paper leaves open whether the resulting designs are actually better for blind users; the authors say as much. A natural next step is to pair the visible-structure authoring loop with end-user evaluation of the produced structures.
  • The image-based workflow implies that any 2D graphic, not just charts with tabular data, can be given a navigable structure; this could extend accessible design to infographics, diagrams, and maps that currently lack tooling.
  • The 'designable vs. understood' distinction the authors draw suggests visibility alone is insufficient; mixed-ability co-design becomes more productive when both parties share the same manipulable representation.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the problem that sighted practitioners who author accessible data visualizations build non-visual navigation structures (nodes, edges, input bindings) entirely in code, with no visual representation to inspect or iterate on. The authors propose that this invisibility prevents practitioners from developing judgment about navigation quality. They contribute: an Inspector that renders navigation graphs as interactive node-link diagrams; a Dimensions API that lets authors specify navigation in terms of data dimensions rather than hand-wiring every node and edge; and Skeleton, a direct-manipulation authoring environment with a dual-view editor, a scaffolding engine that repurposes Vega for automatic spatial placement, a live label-template editor with screen-reader preview, and a testing mode. The evaluation consists of longitudinal co-design across three projects (geologic map, Adobe's chart library, Bokeh) with 12 practitioners, plus an in-situ think-aloud study with 8 visualization practitioners using Skeleton as a design probe. The central qualitative claim is that making navigation structure visible changed how practitioners engaged with accessible design: they reconsidered the architecture of their own visualizations, attended to a broader range of input modalities, and shifted from treating accessibility as a compliance task to treating it as a design problem.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a significant and timely contribution to accessible data visualization. The open-source implementation and the longitudinal co-design with three communities are concrete strengths, as is the practice-based validation by a blind expert (CD2) reported in Section 4.3. The design-probe framing is appropriate, and the paper's own Limitations section anticipates several threats to validity. The main risk is that the abstract's causal claim is stronger than the evidence: the study is uncontrolled, note-based, and uses an intentionally problematic default in a task that may elicit the observed behavior regardless of visibility. A careful revision that tempers the causal language and makes the analysis transparent could make this a valuable paper.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §5.2, §5.3] The abstract's central claim—'Making navigation structure visible changed how practitioners engaged with accessible design'—is causal, but the study design cannot support it. In Phase 2 (Section 5.2) every participant used the same visible tool with an intentionally problematic default; there was no arm with invisible structure (e.g., code-only Data Navigator) or a neutral default. Participants' removal of the extra numerical dimension may reflect responsiveness to an obvious defect or demand characteristics during think-aloud, not a shift in orientation. I recommend either adding a comparison condition or, at minimum, reframing the abstract and conclusion as an exploratory design-probe finding rather than a demonstrated causal effect.
  2. [§5.3] The qualitative evidence rests on researcher notes, not verbatim transcripts; audio/video were not recorded. This creates a missing audit trail for the central themes, and thematic coding by researchers who built the tool risks selective emphasis. Quotes in Sections 6.1–6.5 are presented as evidence but are explicitly reconstructions. To support the load-bearing claim, the paper should provide analysis materials (e.g., anonymized notes, codebook, member checks) or explicitly mark quotes as illustrative and de-emphasize their role in establishing the shift.
  3. [§4.2 (Scaffolding speed)] The claim that the scaffold 'dramatically improved authoring speed' rests on two pilot tests (a research team member: 8:22 vs. 0:56; a co-designer: 13:07 incorrect vs. 2:44 correct). These are single, non-controlled trials, one by a co-author. This is insufficient to support a quantitative speed claim and should be reported as anecdotal, not as evidence for DG3.
  4. [§8 vs. Abstract] The Limitations section appropriately restricts the finding: Skeleton was used as a design probe, output quality was not evaluated, and end-user validation is future work. The abstract and conclusion, however, assert a causal change in engagement. To make the paper internally consistent, the abstract and conclusion should be revised to match the stated limitations, e.g., 'may change how practitioners engage' or 'our observations suggest...'.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.2] Figure 6 is referenced before it appears; the figure numbering should be reordered or the reference should be to a later figure.
  2. [§3.4.2] The heading 'Alternative Dimensions' is unclear; consider renaming to 'Dimensions API' to match the section content.
  3. [Appendix B.3] The opening sentence 'In this appendix subsection, we specifically outline the final work we did before publication of this project to improve it' is informal and first-person; align with the paper's academic style.
  4. [§4.2] The sentence 'Coincidentally, none of our co-designers were crafting visualizations using Vega or Vega-Lite...' is odd; the coincidence is not relevant and the wording should be clarified.
  5. [§5.1] Participants' self-reported accessibility expertise on the 1–5 Likert scale is not reported anywhere in the results. Consider providing a participant table with demographics and expertise levels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central engagement claim is an uncontrolled qualitative inference, but no prediction or derivation reduces by construction to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—'Making navigation structure visible changed how practitioners engaged with accessible design'—is an empirical, qualitative finding from an in-situ study with eight external practitioners, not a mathematical derivation or fitted-parameter prediction. The system builds on the authors' own prior Data Navigator library [14], and several design goals emerged from their own co-design engagements, but the cited library is a published, checkable artifact and no load-bearing conclusion is justified solely by that self-citation. The Dimensions API, Inspector, and Skeleton are presented as new system contributions whose properties are described independently of the study outcomes. The study itself has genuine evidentiary limitations, which the paper partially acknowledges: audio/video were not recorded, quotes are 'reconstructed from these researcher notes, not verbatim transcripts,' there is no control condition isolating visibility from tool novelty or task demand, and Section 8 explicitly states the evaluation 'did not evaluate the structures they produced with the end users.' These are internal-validity and generalizability concerns, not circularity: the observed behaviors (removing the numerical dimension, restructuring charts, asking design questions) are not entailed by definition or by the tool's construction. No step in the paper equates its conclusion with its inputs by construction, and no self-citation chain is used to forbid alternatives or force the result. Thus no circularity step is identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted physical or mathematical parameters. Its central claim rests on domain assumptions about the sufficiency of graph-based navigation, the reliability of Vega/CV geometry reconstruction, and the trustworthiness of note-based qualitative data. The Dimensions API is the main invented conceptual entity; the Skeleton tool itself is an implementation rather than a postulated theoretical entity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Data Navigator's node/edge graph is the right abstraction for non-visual navigation experiences.
    The entire tool inherits this model from the authors' prior work (Data Navigator [14]). If navigation is better modeled by other structures—such as egocentric audio-game spaces, which their own co-design encountered in Section 3.1 for within-map spatial navigation—Skeleton's scope is narrower than claimed.
  • domain assumption Vega scale evaluation reconstructs the relative geometry of marks in an uploaded chart image.
    The scaffolding engine (Section 4.2, Appendix B.1) treats Vega as a coordinate oracle. This assumes the uploaded image was produced by an encoding whose relative geometry matches a Vega-Lite specification with the user-provided field mappings; it is validated for common chart types, not arbitrary bespoke images.
  • domain assumption The saturation-based CV pass isolates data marks from chart chrome in uploaded images.
    Appendix B.3 assumes data marks are colored while axes/gridlines/labels are desaturated. The authors test four canonical chart types and call the result 'promising but early'; monochrome charts or colored chart chrome would break the alignment.
  • domain assumption Reconstructed notes from eight sessions are reliable enough for thematic analysis.
    Section 5.3 states quotes are reconstructed from researcher notes and audio/video was not recorded. The central qualitative findings about what participants said and noticed depend on these notes being accurate and not selectively filtered.
invented entities (1)
  • Dimensions API navigation-dimension abstraction independent evidence
    purpose: Lets practitioners specify navigation in terms of data fields (e.g., a categorical month dimension) instead of hand-wiring every node and edge; the build step then generates a Data Navigator node-link structure.
    This is a new conceptual abstraction introduced by the paper. It is implemented, open-sourced, and generates concrete, inspectable Data Navigator structures, so it can be tested independently outside this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Skeleton: Visual Authoring of Non-visual Data Experiences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ROYOFE4

@misc{pith2026260714579,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Skeleton: Visual Authoring of Non-visual Data Experiences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ROYOFE4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14579}
}
read the original abstract

When sighted practitioners author accessible data visualizations, they build navigation structures (the nodes, edges, and input bindings that govern how assistive technologies traverse an interface) entirely in code, with no visual representation. Without a representation to react to, practitioners cannot develop judgment about what makes navigation good or bad, and the quality ceiling of non-visual experiences is set by the absence of a feedback loop. We address this problem through longitudinal co-design with practitioners across cartography, design systems, and open-source visualization, and make three contributions. First, we introduce an Inspector that renders navigation graphs as interactive node-link diagrams, and a Dimensions API that expresses navigation in terms of data dimensions rather than explicit graph construction. Second we present Skeleton, a direct-manipulation authoring environment in which the properties of an accessible navigation structure are translated into visual representations authors can observe and manipulate. Key techniques include a dual-view editor that simultaneously shows the system's navigation model and the end user's spatial experience, a scaffolding engine that automates spatial node placement by repurposing a visualization rendering pipeline, a live label-template editor with real-time screen-reader-output preview, and a testing mode that makes traversal sequence visually trackable. Third, we evaluate Skeleton through an in-situ study with 8 practitioners across visualization design, engineering, and research. Making navigation structure visible changed how practitioners engaged with accessible design: they reconsidered the architecture of their own visualizations, attended to a broader range of input modalities, and shifted from treating accessibility as a compliance task to treating it as a design problem. (abstract shortened for arxiv)

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14579 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Skeleton being used to build a navigation structure over a line chart. A: a dual tree visualization of nodes and edges built for a line chart with 3 lines, spanning over 12 months. B: a direct-manipulation canvas that resides over a static png image of a line chart. C: a skeleton-like structure of nodes, edges, and group outlines that correspond to the schema shown in (A), overlaid on the visual space of the chart i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Our visual design work in Figma over a static geologic infographic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Input data transformed into a navigable structure using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Re-creation of P8’s moment of realization, placing nodes manually: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Computed layout for marks via Vega’s visualization engine plus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Group label pattern builder, including an array of aggregate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Alhadreti and P

    O. Alhadreti and P. Mayhew. Rethinking thinking aloud: A comparison of three think-aloud protocols. InProceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18, pp. 1–12. ACM, Apr

    2018

  2. [2]

    Biggs, C

    B. Biggs, C. Toth, T. Stockman, J. M. Coughlan, and B. N. Walker. Eval- uation of a non-visual auditory choropleth and travel map viewer. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Auditory Display (ICAD 2022), pp. 82–90. International Community for Auditory Display, June 2022. PMCID: PMC10010675. doi: 10.21785/icad2022.027 3

    doi:10.21785/icad2022.027 2022

  3. [3]

    Blanco, J

    M. Blanco, J. Zong, and A. Satyanarayan. Olli: An Extensible Visualiza- tion Library for Screen Reader Accessibility. InIEEE VIS Posters, 2022. https://vis.csail.mit.edu/pubs/olli. 3, 4

    2022

  4. [4]

    Bornschein, D

    J. Bornschein, D. Prescher, and G. Weber. Collaborative Creation of Digital Tactile Graphics. InProceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility - ASSETS ’15, ASSETS ’15, pp. 117–126. Association for Computing Machinery, ACM Press, New York, NY , USA, Oct. 2015. doi: 10.1145/2700648.2809869 3

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Bostock, V

    M. Bostock, V . Ogievetsky, and J. Heer. D³ data-driven documents.IEEE TVCG, 17(12):2301–2309, Dec. 2011. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2011.185 2

    doi:10.1109/tvcg.2011.185 2011

  6. [6]

    Braun and V

    V . Braun and V . Clarke. Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qual- itative Research in Psychology, 3(2):77–101, Jan. 2006. doi: 10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa 6

    2006

  7. [7]

    Brewster

    S. Brewster. Visualization tools for blind people using multiple modalities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 24(11-12):613–621, Jan. 2002. doi: 10. 1080/09638280110111388 2

    2002

  8. [8]

    Butler, L

    M. Butler, L. M. Holloway, S. Reinders, C. Goncu, and K. Marriott. Tech- nology developments in touch-based accessible graphics: A systematic review of research 2010-2020. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’21, pp. 1–15. ACM, May

    2010

Show all 76 references
  1. [10]

    Cullen and O

    C. Cullen and O. Metatla. Co-designing inclusive multisensory story mapping with children with mixed visual abilities. InIDC ’19, IDC ’19, pp. 361–373. ACM, June 2019. doi: 10.1145/3311927.3323146 3

    2019

  2. [11]

    de Greef, D

    L. de Greef, D. Moritz, and C. Bennett. Interdependent variables: Re- motely designing tactile graphics for an accessible workflow. InProceed- ings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’21, art. no. 36, 6 pages. ACM, Oct. 20...

    2021

  3. [13]

    Elavsky, C

    F. Elavsky, C. Bennett, and D. Moritz. How accessible is my visualization? evaluating visualization accessibility with chartability.Computer Graphics Forum, 41(3):57–70, June 2022. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14522 4, 8

    2022 doi

  4. [14]

    Elavsky, L

    F. Elavsky, L. Nadolskis, and D. Moritz. Data navigator: An accessibility- centered data navigation toolkit.IEEE TVCG, 2023. doi: 10.1109/tvcg. 2023.3327393 2, 3

    2023

  5. [15]

    Endert, L

    A. Endert, L. Bradel, and C. North. Beyond control panels: Direct manip- ulation for visual analytics.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 33(4):6–13, July 2013. doi: 10.1109/mcg.2013.53 1

    2013 doi

  6. [16]

    Eswaramoorthy, F

    P. Eswaramoorthy, F. Elavsky, T. Allard, and gabalafou. Quansight- Labs/bokeh-a11y-audit, Feb. 2025. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.14923642 4

    2025 doi

  7. [17]

    D. Fan, A. Fay Siu, H. Rao, G. S.-H. Kim, X. Vazquez, L. Greco et al. The accessibility of data visualizations on the web for screen reader users: Practices and experiences during covid-19.ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 16(1):1–29, Mar. 2023. doi: 10.1145/3557899 2

    2023 doi

  8. [18]

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

  9. [19]

    Fisher, I

    D. Fisher, I. Popov, S. Drucker, and m. schraefel. Trust me, i’m par- tially right: incremental visualization lets analysts explore large datasets faster. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’12, pp. 1673–1682. ACM, May 2012. doi: ...

    2012

  10. [21]

    Harboe and E

    G. Harboe and E. M. Huang. Real-world affinity diagramming prac- tices: Bridging the paper-digital gap. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’15, pp. 95–104. ACM, Apr. 2015. doi: 10.1145/2702123.2702561 6

    2015

  11. [22]

    G. R. Hayes. The relationship of action research to human-computer interaction.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 18(3):1– 20, July 2011. doi: 10.1145/1993060.1993065 2, 3

    2011

  12. [23]

    Heer and M

    J. Heer and M. Agrawala. Design considerations for collaborative visual analytics. In2007 IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology, pp. 171–178. IEEE, 2007. doi: 10.1109/vast.2007.4389011 1

    2007

  13. [24]

    Hermann, A

    T. Hermann, A. Hunt, and J. G. Neuhoff, eds.The Sonification Handbook. Logos Verlag Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Dec. 2011. ISBN: 978-3-8325- 2819-5. 2

    2011

  14. [25]

    Holloway, P

    L. Holloway, P. Cracknell, K. Stephens, M. Fanshawe, S. Reinders, K. Mar- riott et al. Refreshable tactile displays for accessible data visualisation,

  15. [27]

    E. L. Hutchins, J. D. Hollan, and D. A. Norman. Direct manipulation interfaces.Human–Computer Interaction, 1(4):311–338, Dec. 1985. doi: 10.1207/s15327051hci0104_2 1, 2

    1985 doi

  16. [28]

    Hutchinson, W

    H. Hutchinson, W. Mackay, B. Westerlund, B. B. Bederson, A. Druin, C. Plaisant et al. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with fam- ilies. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 17–24. ACM, Apr. 2003. doi: 10.1145/642611. 642616 2

    2003 doi

  17. [29]

    customization is key

    S. Jones, I. Pedraza Pineros, D. Hajas, J. Zong, and A. Satyanarayan. “customization is key”: Reconfigurable textual tokens for accessible data visualizations. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’24, pp. 1–14. ACM, May 2024. doi: 10....

    2024

  18. [30]

    S. C. S. Joyner, A. Riegelhuth, K. Garrity, Y .-S. Kim, and N. W. Kim. Visualization accessibility in the wild: Challenges faced by visualization designers. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–19. ACM, Apr. 2022. doi: 10.1145/3491102.3517630 2, 3, 8

    2022

  19. [31]

    C. Jung, S. Mehta, A. Kulkarni, Y . Zhao, and Y .-S. Kim. Communicating visualizations without visuals: Investigation of visualization alternative text for people with visual impairments.IEEE TVCG, 28(1):1095–1105, Jan. 2022. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2021.3114846 2

    2022

  20. [33]

    Kim, Y .-S

    H. Kim, Y .-S. Kim, and J. Hullman. Erie: A declarative grammar for data sonification. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’24, pp. 1–19. ACM, May 2024. doi: 10. 1145/3613904.3642442 2, 3

    2024

  21. [34]

    J. Kim, A. Srinivasan, N. W. Kim, and Y .-S. Kim. Exploring chart question answering for blind and low vision users. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’23, pp. 1–15. ACM, Apr. 2023. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581532 2

    2023

  22. [35]

    N. W. Kim, G. Ataguba, S. C. Joyner, C. Zhao, and H. Im. Beyond alternative text and tables: Comparative analysis of visualization tools and accessibility methods.Computer Graphics Forum, 42(3):323–335, June

  23. [36]

    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, June 2021. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14298 2

    2021 doi

  24. [37]

    Liu and J

    Z. Liu and J. Heer. The effects of interactive latency on exploratory visual analysis.IEEE TVCG, 20(12):2122–2131, Dec. 2014. doi: 10.1109/tvcg. 2014.2346452 1

    2014

  25. [38]

    Lundgard, C

    A. Lundgard, C. Lee, and A. Satyanarayan. Sociotechnical considerations for accessible visualization design. In2019 IEEE Visualization Conference (VIS), pp. 16–20. IEEE, Oct. 2019. doi: 10.1109/visual.2019.8933762 3

    2019

  26. [39]

    Lundgard and A

    A. Lundgard and A. Satyanarayan. Accessible visualization via natural language descriptions: A four-level model of semantic content.IEEE TVCG, 28(1):1073–1083, Jan. 2022. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2021.3114770 2

    2022

  27. [40]

    doi: 10.1111/cgf.14833 2, 3

    doi

  28. [41]

    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 data representation.IEEE TVCG, 32(1):659–669, Jan. 2026. doi: 10. 1109/tvcg.2025.3634254 2

    2026

  29. [42]

    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, Apr. 2021. doi: 10.1145/3457875 2

    2021 doi

  30. [43]

    A. M. McNutt. No grammar to rule them all: A survey of json-style dsls for visualization.IEEE TVCG, pp. 1–11, 2022. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2022. 3209460 1

    2022 doi

  31. [44]

    C. Mei*, J. Pollock*, D. Hajas, J. Zong, and A. Satyanarayan. Benthic: Perceptually congruent structures for accessible charts and diagrams. In Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’25, pp. 1–17. ACM, Oct. 2025. ...

    2025

  32. [45]

    D. L. Mansur, M. M. Blattner, and K. I. Joy. Sound graphs: A numerical data analysis method for the blind.Journal of Medical Systems, 9(3):163– 174, June 1985. doi: 10.1007/bf00996201 2

    1985 doi

  33. [46]

    B. A. Myers. Taxonomies of visual programming and program visualiza- tion.Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 1(1):97–123, Mar. 1990. doi: 10.1016/S1045-926X(05)80036-9 2

    1990 doi

  34. [47]

    Poco and J

    J. Poco and J. Heer. Reverse-engineering visualizations: Recovering visual encodings from chart images.Computer Graphics Forum, 36(3):353–363,

  35. [48]

    L. Race, C. Fleet, D. Montour, L. Yazzolino, M. Salsiccia, C. Ferrari et al. Designing while blind: Nonvisual tools and inclusive workflows for tactile graphic creation. InThe 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’23, pp. 1–8. ACM,...

    2023

  36. [49]

    Rawling, E

    J. Rawling, E. Carson, J. Attig, D. Mickelson, W. Mode, M. Johnson et al. Quaternary geology of wisconsin. Technical report, Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey, 2025. doi: 10.54915/xqpw9883 3

    2025 doi

  37. [50]

    Mowar, A

    P. Mowar, A. Steinfeld, and J. P. Bigham. iTagPDF: Towards finally automating PDF accessibility. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–17. ACM, Apr. 2026. Best Paper Award. doi: 10.1145/3772318.3790289 3

    2026

  38. [51]

    Satyanarayan, D

    A. Satyanarayan, D. Moritz, K. Wongsuphasawat, and J. Heer. Vega-lite: A grammar of interactive graphics.IEEE TVCG, 23(1):341–350, Jan

  39. [52]

    Savva, N

    M. Savva, N. Kong, A. Chhajta, L. Fei-Fei, M. Agrawala, and J. Heer. Revision: automated classification, analysis and redesign of chart images. InProceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, UIST ’11, pp. 393–402. ACM, Oct. 2011. doi:...

    2011

  40. [53]

    Schön and J

    D. Schön and J. Bennett. Reflective conversation with materials, Apr

  41. [55]

    Sharif, S

    A. Sharif, S. S. Chintalapati, J. O. Wobbrock, and K. Reinecke. Under- standing screen-reader users’ experiences with online data visualizations. InProceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’21, pp. 1–16. ACM, Oct. 20...

    2021

  42. [56]

    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 TVCG, 31(1):864–874, Jan. 2025. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2024.3456358 2

    2025

  43. [57]

    Sharif, J

    A. Sharif, J. G. Kim, J. Z. Xu, and J. O. Wobbrock. Understanding and reducing the challenges faced by creators of accessible online data visualizations. InThe 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS ’24, pp. 1–20. ACM, Oct. 2024. doi...

    2024

  44. [58]

    doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2016.2599030 1, 2, 5, 13

    2016

  45. [59]

    Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming lan- guages.Computer, 16(8):57–69, Aug

    Shneiderman. Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming lan- guages.Computer, 16(8):57–69, Aug. 1983. doi: 10.1109/mc.1983. 1654471 2

    1983 doi

  46. [60]

    Shneiderman, C

    B. Shneiderman, C. Williamson, and C. Ahlberg. Dynamic queries: database searching by direct manipulation. InProceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, CHI ’92, pp. 669–670. ACM Press, 1992. doi: 10.1145/142750.143082 1

    1992

  47. [61]

    D. C. Smith.Pygmalion: A Computer Program to Model and Stimulate Creative Thought. 1977. doi: 10.1007/978-3-0348-5744-4 2

    1977 doi

  48. [62]

    V . Sorge. Polyfilling accessible chemistry diagrams. InLecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 43–50. Springer International Publishing, 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41264-1_6 2

    2016 doi

  49. [63]

    I. E. Sutherland. Sketchpad: A man-machine graphical communication system. InProceedings of the May 21-23, 1963, spring joint computer conference on - AFIPS ’63 (Spring), AFIPS ’63 (Spring), p. 329. ACM Press, New York, NY , USA, 1963. doi: 10.1145/1461551.1461591 2

    1963

  50. [64]

    Sharif and B

    A. Sharif and B. Forouraghi. evographs — a jquery plugin to create web accessible graphs. In2018 15th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), pp. 1–4. IEEE, Jan. 2018. doi: 10. 1109/ccnc.2018.8319239 3

    2018

  51. [65]

    Thatcher

    J. Thatcher. Screen reader/2: access to os/2 and the graphical user in- terface. InProceedings of the first annual ACM conference on Assistive technologies - Assets ’94, Assets ’94, pp. 39–46. ACM Press, 1994. doi: 10.1145/191028.191039 2

    1994

  52. [66]

    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. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’22, art. no. 478, 19 pages. ACM, Apr. 2022. do...

    2022

  53. [67]

    Understanding success criterion 2.1.1: keyboard

    WAI. Understanding success criterion 2.1.1: keyboard. WCAG stan- dard, W3C, 2017. Accessed: 2026-03-20, https://www.w3.org/WAI/ WCAG21/Understanding/keyboard.html. 2

    2017

  54. [68]

    H. Wickham. A layered grammar of graphics.Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 19(1):3–28, Jan. 2010. doi: 10.1198/jcgs.2009. 07098 1

    2010 doi

  55. [69]

    Wilkinson

    L. Wilkinson. The grammar of graphics. InHandbook of Computational Statistics, pp. 375–414. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Dec. 2011. doi: 10. 1007/978-3-642-21551-3_13 1

    2011

  56. [70]

    B. L. Wimer, R. Kanchi, K. Frierson, V . Potluri, R. Metoyer, J. Mankoff et al. Nonvisual support for understanding and reasoning about data structures, 2026. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2601.19168 3

    2026 doi

  57. [71]

    J. Zong. Using real names of disabled participant-contributors to practice citational justice in accessibility. In2025 IEEE Workshop on Accessible Data Visualization (AccessViz), pp. 30–33. IEEE, Nov. 2025. doi: 10. 1109/accessviz68666.2025.00011 3

    2025

  58. [72]

    Teitelbaum and T

    T. Teitelbaum and T. Reps. Cornell program synthesizer.Communications of the ACM, 24(9):563–573, 1981. doi: 10.1145/358746.358755 2

    1981

  59. [73]

    J. Zong, I. Pedraza Pineros, M. K. Chen, D. Hajas, and A. Satyanarayan. Umwelt: Accessible structured editing of multi-modal data representations. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’24, pp. 1–20. ACM, May 2024. doi: 10.1145/3613904....

    2024 doi

  60. [74]

    J. R. Thompson, J. J. Martinez, A. Sarikaya, E. Cutrell, and B. Lee. Chart reader: Accessible visualization experiences designed with screen reader users. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’23, pp. 1–18. ACM, Apr. 2023. doi: 10...

    2023

  61. [80]

    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, June 2022. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14519 2, 3

    2022 doi

  62. [82]

    Leveraging visualization as a scaffolding en- gine

    J. Zong, J. Pollock, D. Wootton, and A. Satyanarayan. Animated vega-lite: Unifying animation with a grammar of interactive graphics.IEEE TVCG, 29(1):149–159, Jan. 2023. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2022.3209369 1 A DIMENSIONSAPI REFERENCE Each dimension in theDimensions API(Section 3.4) ...

    2023

  63. [1996]

    doi: 10.1145/229868.230044 8

  64. [2017]

    doi: 10.1111/cgf.13193 14

    doi

  65. [2018]

    doi: 10.1145/3173574.3173618 6

  66. [2021]

    doi: 10.1145/3411764.3445207 2

  67. [2023]

    doi: 10.1109/access.2023.3298050 2

    2023

  68. [2024]

    doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2401.15836 2

    doi arXiv

Pith tools

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