OneButtonPIN: A Single Button Authentication Method for Blind or Low Vision Users to Improve Accessibility and Prevent Eavesdropping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Personal Identification Number (PIN) is a widely adopted authentication method used by smartphones, ATMs, etc. PINs offer strong security and can be reset when compromised (unlike biometric authentication). However, PINs can be inaccessible for blind or low vision (BLV) users due to screen readers voicing PINs to bystanders or potential shoulder surfing attack risks---bystanders could watch the PIN being entered without the user noticing. To address this, we present OneButtonPIN, an interface to improve PIN entry accessibility and security for BLV users. Here, a single on-screen button, when pressed and held, triggers a haptic vibration sequence. A digit is entered by counting the vibrations and releasing the button. We explored introducing random timings to the vibration sequence to increase security. A week-long evaluation with 9 BLV participants and a security study with 10 sighted participants acting as shoulder surfers demonstrated OneButtonPIN's usability and resilience against eavesdropping.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".