Evaluating a Tool for Improving Accessibility to Charts and Graphs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports a case study of the iterative design and evaluation of a natural language-driven assistive technology, iGraph -Lite, providing people who are blind access to line graphs. Two laboratory-based usability studies involving blind and sighted people are presented with a discussion of the ensuing implementation of changes. Blind participants were found to adopt different graph interrogation strategies than sighted participants. A small field study is then reported in which a blind user who works with graphs took part to determine the degree to which the iGraph -Lite commands would meet the needs of blind graph experts. The final study invited sighted graph experts and novices to visually inspect and explain a set of line graphs comparable to those used in the usability studies. It aimed to highlight the concepts and the range of words sighted people use, to ascertain the appropriateness of the iGraph -Lite lexicon. A set of preliminary guidelines is presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it