Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Accessible Data Access and Analysis by People who are Blind or Have Low Vision

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper asserts that pairing refreshable tactile displays with conversational agents can let blind and low-vision people explore and analyse data on their own.

desk verdict An honest research agenda—new combination of RTDs and conversational agents for data analysis—but the 'compelling benefits' claim is supported only by subjective WOz feedback, so treat it as a position paper, not a validated system. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23443 v1 pith:HTRE2GJK submitted 2025-06-30 cs.HC

Samuel Reinders , Munazza Zaib , Matthew Butler , Bongshin Lee , Ingrid Zukerman , Lizhen Qu , Kim Marriott This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords accessibledatavisualizationrefreshabletactiledisplayconversationalagentblindandlowvisionmultimodalinteractionanalysisWizard-of-Ozstudy
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

People who are blind or have low vision are largely shut out of data analysis because written or spoken summaries do not allow independent exploration. This paper asserts that combining a refreshable tactile display -- a pin-based screen that renders charts as touchable graphics -- with a conversational agent that answers spoken questions can open up that exploration. The claim is grounded in a Wizard-of-Oz study with 11 participants, in which almost all said the touch-plus-speech combination was better than single formats and traditional tactile graphics alone. The paper then lays out the design work needed to make the combination real, including adapting charts to the low resolution of current displays and handling ambiguous speech queries. If the claim holds, the approach would widen access to government, health, and personal data and remove a barrier to data-related employment.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the multimodal interaction loop between a refreshable tactile display (an electronically controllable grid of pins that renders graphics as raised patterns) and a conversational agent (a speech interface that answers questions and can prompt the user). In the study, a human wizard supplied the agent's side; in the prototype, a conversational AI platform takes that role and a sensor tracks touch on the display. The loop works because the user can touch the chart to form spatial hypotheses while the agent supplies values, definitions, and context that the pins cannot carry. Because current RTDs have at most a few thousand pins and can take up to five seconds to refresh, the agent is also expected to compensate for the simplified graphics by maintaining context during operations such as zooming and panning.

What would settle it

A controlled study in which blind participants carry out the same data-analysis tasks with the touch-plus-speech system and with a speech-only alternative would settle the claim: if the multimodal system does not improve accuracy, completion time, or the user's sense of independent interpretation, the asserted benefit is not supported. A more direct check is whether users can reliably identify trends, values, and extremes in standard line and bar charts rendered on a 2,400-pin display even with agent assistance.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central assertion is that pairing refreshable tactile displays with conversational agents offers strong benefits for the data access needs of blind and low-vision users, and that this pairing has not previously been considered for data analysis. Its evidence is a Wizard-of-Oz study with 11 participants who completed data-understanding and analysis tasks on line charts, bar charts, and isarithmic maps. Participants nearly all reported that the combination was better than the RTD alone, the agent alone, or traditional tactile graphics; touch dominated initial exploration, while gestures and speech came in when identifying values and extrema. The paper also reports early co-design work and a working prototype, and it frames the open problems: rendering visualizations within a 2,400- to 3,840-pin display, managing slow refresh during zoom and pan, resolving ambiguous spoken requests, and deciding when speech, touch, or both should carry the answer.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on pin-based tactile screens with only a few thousand pins and refresh times up to five seconds being able to render data charts clearly enough for analytical tasks, with a spoken agent filling the gaps left by the coarse display.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the pairing works, blind and low-vision users could independently explore data, validate findings, and answer their own questions rather than relying on sighted assistants or pre-written summaries.
  • The system could open up education, workplace, and personal-data domains, including statistics, stock analysis, personal finance, health, and weather.
  • Data-visualization designers would need to adapt charts to the pin-grid constraints, accepting simplification and reduced accuracy in exchange for readability.
  • Conversational agents in this setting should use large language models for language-related tasks such as paraphrasing and vocabulary expansion, not for delivering factual data, because hallucinations are hard to verify without sight.
  • Interaction design must keep users spatially oriented during slow display refreshes, using mechanisms such as scroll bars, mini-maps, or actuated pins.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As an editorial inference, the same touch-plus-speech loop could generalize beyond the chart types studied into a broader accessible data workbench, where the conversational agent acts as a spatial interpreter for whatever is rendered on the pins, including networks, scatterplots, or geographic maps.
  • A testable extension the paper leaves open is isolating the agent's proactive suggestions from its reactive answers; the paper promises proactivity as a benefit but reports no data yet on whether unsolicited guidance helps or intrudes.
  • The low pin resolution could push the field to develop new tactile encodings, such as variable-height pins or dynamically actuated markers, that might also inform haptic displays for sighted users.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a position and research-agenda paper describing an ongoing project to combine refreshable tactile displays (RTDs) with conversational agents to support data access and analysis by people who are blind or have low vision (BLV). It reviews related work in accessible visualization, RTDs, and conversational agents; summarizes a Wizard-of-Oz study with 11 BLV participants that is reported in a separate IEEE VIS 2024 paper; describes early co-design sessions and a prototype using the Graphiti RTD, the RASA conversational AI platform, and a Leap Motion controller; and enumerates key research challenges in tactile rendering, conversational ambiguity handling, multimodal interaction, and support for individual user needs. The paper concludes by asserting that the combination of RTDs and conversational agents offers compelling benefits for BLV data access.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the work would address a significant equity gap in data literacy, personal data access, and employment opportunities for BLV people. The paper has real strengths: it is grounded in a relevant body of prior work, it reports early co-design engagement with BLV users, it names concrete technologies and a concrete prototype architecture, and it is unusually honest about the open technical challenges in Section 5. As a roadmap, the paper is useful and timely. However, the manuscript itself provides no quantitative evidence that the proposed system enables accurate or efficient data analysis; the central assertion in Section 6 outruns the evidence presented, and the paper would need either a more cautious framing or additional evaluation data before the claim could be accepted as demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4 and Section 6] The central conclusion, 'We assert that the combination of RTDs and conversational agents offers compelling benefits...', is not supported by the evidence reported in this manuscript. The WOz study summarized in Section 4 involved 11 participants and reports subjective preferences and interaction patterns, but it does not report objective measures such as task completion, accuracy, time, or error rates, and it used a wizard rather than the implemented RASA-based system. Because the details reside in a separate publication [33], this paper alone does not establish the effectiveness of the proposed combination. The conclusion should be tempered to 'promising direction' or the manuscript should include quantitative evidence from the study or from an evaluation of the actual prototype.
  2. [Section 5.1] The load-bearing feasibility assumption is explicitly left unresolved. The paper notes that RTDs have only 2,400 to 3,840 pins and refresh rates that can take up to 5 seconds, and then states that 'It is not known how useful current design guidelines regarding tactile graphics are when it comes to rendering graphics on RTDs' and that 'Trials must be undertaken' to determine which visualization types are suited to RTDs. That means the manuscript itself acknowledges that the readability/simplification/accuracy trade-off has not been tested. Since the claimed benefits depend on users being able to accurately read and interpret data from RTD renderings, this missing evidence is central to the paper's thesis and should be addressed, either with pilot results, a concrete and falsifiable evaluation plan, or an explicitly exploratory framing.
  3. [Section 4] The description of the current prototype is too preliminary to support the paper's claims. The implemented system uses the Graphiti RTD and RASA, but the only user study described was a Wizard-of-Oz study, and the paper states that gesture recognition is still planned ('we intend to train a gesture model to recognize dynamic touch gestures like pinching and swiping'). No evaluation of the real prototype is reported, and the co-design sessions are described only by topic, not by findings. If the paper is intended as a position or late-breaking-work statement, that should be made explicit in the title and framing; if it is intended as a technical contribution, the missing prototype evaluation is a substantial gap.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.4] There is a typo in the sentence 'allowing them to set boundaries lie that determine independence of interpretation'; it should likely read 'set boundaries that determine'.
  2. [References] Reference [36] spells the system name as 'V oxlens' with an unwanted space; it should read 'Voxlens'.
  3. [Section 2.2] In the sentence about Elavsky et al., the name is rendered as 'Elavskyet al.' without a space; it should be 'Elavsky et al.'.
  4. [Figures] Figures 1 through 3 would benefit from more descriptive captions, and Figure 3 in particular is not referenced or described in the body text; the reader is left unsure what interaction is being demonstrated.
  5. [Section 5.2] The discussion of LLM use is clear but quite brief; a sentence clarifying whether the RASA-based system already incorporates any LLM component, or whether that is only a future direction, would reduce ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's WOz findings are empirical and self-contained, and its only self-citations are motivational or archival, not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The paper makes no fitted-parameter claims, no equations, and no uniqueness theorems, so the main circularity patterns do not apply. Its central assertion that combining RTDs and conversational agents offers compelling benefits is an evidence-informed research proposition, not a derivation from its own inputs. The WOz study in Section 4 is empirical, involving 11 participants, and its findings are reported in the paper itself; reference [33] is the archival version of the same study and therefore constitutes independent support rather than a circular premise. The only self-citations are [14], [31], [32], and [33], used respectively for prior stakeholder perspectives, earlier design work, inspiration for combining conversation with tactile models, and the WOz study; none is invoked to forbid alternatives or to justify the central claim by authority. Section 5.1 explicitly flags the RTD resolution, refresh-rate, readability, and accuracy trade-offs as unresolved and states that trials must be undertaken, so the authors do not claim to have established the effectiveness of low-resolution RTDs from their own assumptions. The acknowledged gap between the asserted benefits and current evidence is an empirical or correctness concern, not circularity.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented entities. It relies on domain assumptions about the effectiveness of tactile graphics, the future affordability of RTDs, and the ability to build a reliable conversational agent.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Tactile graphics are an effective best-practice medium for BLV users to understand graphics (Braille Authority guidelines cited in Section 2.1).
    The paper builds its proposal on the premise that tactile graphics provide independent exploration and agency; this is standard practice but not quantitatively validated for RTDs.
  • domain assumption RTDs will become affordable and widely available (Monarch, DotPad, Graphiti mentioned in Section 1).
    The cost and availability of RTDs is expected to improve, but the system's practical impact depends on this not yet established market development.
  • domain assumption Conversational agents can be designed to handle ambiguity, co-reference, and error-prone multimodal input (Section 5.2).
    The proposed agent behavior assumes advances in dialogue systems and error handling; the paper lists these as open challenges.
  • domain assumption LLM hallucinations can be avoided by restricting LLMs to language-related tasks such as paraphrasing rather than factual data delivery (Section 5.2).
    This is a design assumption that large language models will not be used for factual content, thus mitigating hallucination risk.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accessible Data Access and Analysis by People who are Blind or Have Low Vision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HTRE2GJK

@misc{pith2026250623443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accessible Data Access and Analysis by People who are Blind or Have Low Vision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HTRE2GJK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23443}
}
read the original abstract

Our work aims to develop new assistive technologies that enable blind or low vision (BLV) people to explore and analyze data readily. At present, barriers exist for BLV people to explore and analyze data, restricting access to government, health and personal data, and limiting employment opportunities. This work explores the co-design and development of an innovative system to support data access, with a focus on the use of refreshable tactile displays (RTDs) and conversational agents. The envisaged system will use a combination of tactile graphics and speech to communicate with BLV users, and proactively assist with data analysis tasks. As well as addressing significant equity gaps, our work expects to produce innovations in assistive technology, multimodal interfaces, dialogue systems, and natural language understanding and generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23443 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We are exploring how refreshable tactile displays (RTDs) can be combined with conversational agents to assist blind or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Ultraleap LMC tracks touch input on the RTDs surface. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Graphiti RTD is placed in a stand with a monitor arm that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Supporting Multimodal Data Interaction on Refreshable Tactile Displays: An Architecture to Combine Touch and Conversational AI

    cs.HC 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A multimodal architecture fuses touch on a refreshable tactile display with a conversational AI agent, enabling deictic chart queries such as "what is the trend between these points?"

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [33]

    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 Visualization (VIS), 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04806 2

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.04806 2024

  2. [1]

    siri talks at you

    A. Abdolrahmani, R. Kuber, and S. M. Branham. "siri talks at you": An empirical investigation of voice-activated personal assistant (vapa) usage by individuals who are blind. In Proc. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility, ASSETS ’18, 10 pages, pp. 249–258. ACM, New York, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3234695.3236344 3

    arXiv 2018

  3. [2]

    M. Z. I. Alam, S. Islam, and E. Hoque. Seechart: Enabling accessible visualizations through interactive natural language interface for people with visual impairments. In Proc. International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, IUI ’23, 19 pages, p. 46–64. ACM, New York, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3581641.3584099 1

    arXiv 2023

  4. [3]

    Meet Monarch, 2023

    American Printing House for the Blind. Meet Monarch, 2023. 1, 2

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    M. Báez, C. M. Cutrupi, M. Matera, I. Possaghi, E. Pucci, G. Spadone, C. Cappiello, and A. Pasquale. Exploring challenges for conversational web browsing with blind and visually impaired users. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 234:1–234:7. ACM, 2022. doi: 10.1145/3491101.3519832 2

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Brayda, F

    L. Brayda, F. Leo, C. Baccelliere, C. Vigini, and E. Cocchi. A refreshable tactile display effectively supports cognitive mapping followed by orienta- tion and mobility tasks: A comparative multi-modal study involving blind and low-vision participants. In Proc. 2nd Workshop on Multimedia for Accessible Human Computer Interfaces, MAHCI ’19, 7 pages, p. 9–1...

    work page arXiv 2019

  7. [6]

    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. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Fac- tors in Computing Systems, CHI ’21, article no. 278, 15 pages. ACM, New York, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3411764.3445207 2

    arXiv 2010

  8. [7]

    nobody speaks that fast!

    D. Choi, D. Kwak, M. Cho, and S. Lee. "nobody speaks that fast!" an empirical study of speech rate in conversational agents for people with vision impairments. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’20, 13 pages, p. 1–13. ACM, New York, 2020. doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376569 3

    arXiv 2020

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    Christmann, R

    P. Christmann, R. S. Roy, and G. Weikum. Conversational question answering on heterogeneous sources. In E. Amigó, P. Castells, J. Gonzalo, B. Carterette, J. S. Culpepper, and G. Kazai, eds., Proc. ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 1...

    2022

  2. [9]

    Dot Pad, 2022

    Dot Inc. Dot Pad, 2022. 1, 2

    2022

  3. [10]

    Elavsky, L

    F. Elavsky, L. Nadolskis, and D. Moritz. Data navigator: An accessibility- centered data navigation toolkit. IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, 30(01):803–813, jan 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023 .3327393 2

    2024 doi

  4. [11]

    E. Fast, B. Chen, J. Mendelsohn, J. Bassen, and M. S. Bernstein. Iris: A conversational agent for complex tasks. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 473. ACM, 2018. doi: 10. 1145/3173574.3174047 2

    2018

  5. [12]

    T. Gao, M. Dontcheva, E. Adar, Z. Liu, and K. G. Karahalios. Datatone: Managing ambiguity in natural language interfaces for data visualization. In C. Latulipe, B. Hartmann, and T. Grossman, eds., Proc. ACM Sympo- sium on User Interface Software & Technology, pp. 489–500. ACM,...

    2015

  6. [13]

    Holloway, S

    L. Holloway, S. Ananthanarayan, M. Butler, M. T. De Silva, K. Ellis, C. Goncu, K. Stephens, and K. Marriott. Animations at your fingertips: Using a refreshable tactile display to convey motion graphics for people who are blind or have low vision. In Proc. ACM SIGACCESS Confere...

    2022

  7. [14]

    Holloway, P

    L. Holloway, P. Cracknell, K. Stephens, M. Fanshawe, S. Reinders, K. Mar- riott, and M. Butler. Refreshable tactile displays for accessible data visual- isation. IEEE Visualization (VIS), 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.15836 2

    2023 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    J. Kim, A. Srinivasan, N. W. Kim, and Y .-S. Kim. Exploring chart question answering for blind and low vision users. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’23, article no. 828, 15 pages. ACM, New York, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581532 1

    2023

  9. [17]

    N. W. Kim, S. C. Joyner, A. Riegelhuth, and Y . Kim. Accessible visual- ization: Design space, opportunities, and challenges. Computer Graphics Forum, 40(3):173–188, 2021. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14298 1

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    Kramer, B

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

    2010

  11. [19]

    B. Lee, E. K. Choe, P. Isenberg, K. Marriott, and J. Stasko. Reaching broader audiences with data visualization. IEEE computer graphics and applications, 40(2):82–90, 2020. 1

    2020

  12. [20]

    B. Lee, K. Marriott, D. Szafir, and G. Weber. Inclusive Data Visualization (Dagstuhl Seminar 23252), 2024. doi: 10.4230/DagRep.13.6.81 1

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    D. Lee, S. Kim, M. Lee, H. Lee, J. Park, S. Lee, and K. Jung. Ask- ing clarification questions to handle ambiguity in open-domain QA. In H. Bouamor, J. Pino, and K. Bali, eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 202...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Marriott, B

    K. Marriott, B. Lee, M. Butler, E. Cutrell, K. Ellis, C. Goncu, M. Hearst, K. McCoy, and D. A. Szafir. Inclusive data visualization for people with disabilities: a call to action. Interactions, 28(3):47–51, 5 pages, apr 2021. doi: 10.1145/3457875 1

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    HyperBraille, 2012

    Metec. HyperBraille, 2012. 2

    2012

  16. [24]

    Mitra, A

    R. Mitra, A. Narechania, A. Endert, and J. Stasko. Facilitating conversa- tional interaction in natural language interfaces for visualization. In 2022 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS), pp. 6–10, 2022. doi: 10. 1109/VIS54862.2022.00010 2

    2022

  17. [25]

    R. K. Namdev and P. Maes. An interactive and intuitive stem accessibility system for the blind and visually impaired. In PETRA: International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments, pp. 1–7. ACM, 2015. doi: 10.1145/2769493.2769502 2

    2015

  18. [26]

    Narechania, A

    A. Narechania, A. Srinivasan, and J. Stasko. Nl4dv: A toolkit for gener- ating analytic specifications for data visualization from natural language queries. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 27(2):369–379, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2020.3030378 2

    2021

  19. [27]

    B. A. of North America. Guidelines and Standards for Tactile Graphics. Braille Authority of North America, 2010. 1

    2010

  20. [28]

    Ohshima, M

    H. Ohshima, M. Kobayashi, and S. Shimada. Development of blind football play-by-play system for visually impaired spectators: Tangible sports. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1–6. ACM, 2021. doi: 10.1145/3411763.3451737 2

    2021

  21. [29]

    Graphiti, 2016

    Orbit Research. Graphiti, 2016. 1

    2016

  22. [30]

    L. C. Quero, J. D. I. Bartolomé, D. Lee, Y . Lee, S. Lee, and J. Cho. Jido: A conversational tactile map for blind people. In J. P. Bigham, S. Azenkot, and S. K. Kane, eds.,Proc. ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility, pp. 682–684. ACM, 2019. doi: 10.1145/330856...

    2019

  23. [31]

    Reinders, S

    S. Reinders, S. Ananthanarayan, M. Butler, and K. Marriott. Designing conversational multimodal 3d printed models with people who are blind. In Proc. 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, DIS ’23, 17 pages, p. 2172–2188. ACM, New York, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3563657. ...

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    hey model!

    S. Reinders, M. Butler, and K. Marriott. "hey model!" – natural user interactions and agency in accessible interactive 3d models. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’20, 13 pages, p. 1–13. ACM, New York, 2020. doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376145 2

    2020

  25. [34]

    Rowell and S

    J. Rowell and S. Ungar. The world of touch: an international survey of tactile maps. part 1: production. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 21(3):98–104, 2003. doi: 10.1177/02646196030210030 1

    2003 doi

  26. [35]

    Schmitz and T

    B. Schmitz and T. Ertl. Interactively displaying maps on a tactile graphics display. In SKALID 2012 Spatial Knowledge Acquisition with Limited Information Displays, pp. 13–18, 2012. 2

    2012

  27. [36]

    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. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’22, article no. 478, 19 pages. ACM, New...

    2022

  28. [37]

    J. R. Thompson, J. J. Martinez, A. Sarikaya, E. Cutrell, and B. Lee. Chart reader: Accessible visualization experiences designed with screen reader users. In Proc. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’23, article no. 802, 18 pages. ACM, New York, 2023. do...

    2023

  29. [38]

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

    2021

  30. [39]

    L. Zeng, M. Miao, and G. Weber. Interactive audio-haptic map explorer on a tactile display. Interacting with Computers, 27(4):413–429, 2015. doi: 10.1093/iwc/iwu006 2, 3

    2015 doi

  31. [40]

    L. Zeng, G. Weber, I. Zoller, P. Lotz, T. A. Kern, J. Reisinger, T. Meiss, T. Opitz, T. Rossner, and N. Stefanova.Examples of haptic system develop- ment, pp. 525–554. Springer, 2014. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-04536-3_14 2, 3

    2014 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.