Accessible and Usable Security: Exploring Visually Impaired Users’ Online Security and Privacy Strategies
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
Visually impaired individuals are increasingly reliant on the Internet in their daily lives. Yet, existing security mechanisms may not sufficiently help these users protect their online security and privacy. We explore this issue through two complementary studies. First, we conduct an expert evaluation to assess web-based security cues through JAWS. We propose a set of 9 heuristics combining usable security and web accessibility principles to guide our expert evaluation. We uncover several severe issues that are not identified by automated accessibility checkers. Second, we conduct a task-based user study with 14 visually impaired users to observe their security habits and concerns when navigating the web. Again, our findings suggest that severe usability issues lead users to take risks or force them to choose between accessibility or security. Based on our findings, we provide practical recommendations to remedy these issues by tailoring security information to effectively communicate with visually impaired users.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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