Bend or PIN: Studying Bend Password Authentication with People with Vision Impairment
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
People living with vision impairment can be vulnerable to attackers when entering passwords on their smartphones, as their technology is more 'observable'. While researchers have proposed tangible interactions such as bend input as an alternative authentication method, limited work have evaluated this method with people with vision impairment. This paper extends previous work by presenting our user study of bend passwords with 16 participants who live with varying levels of vision impairment or blindness. Each participant created their own passwords using both PIN codes and BendyPass, a combination of bend gestures performed on a flexible device. We explored whether BendyPass does indeed offer greater opportunity over PINs and evaluated the usability of both. Our findings show bend passwords have learnability and memorability potential as a tactile authentication method for people with vision impairment, and could be faster to enter than PINs. However, BendyPass still has limitations relating to security and usability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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