A Recipe for Success? Exploring Strategies for Improving Non-Visual Access to Cooking Instructions
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
Cooking is an essential activity that enhances quality of life by enabling individuals to prepare their own meals. However, cooking often requires multitasking between cooking tasks and following instructions, which can be challenging to cooks with vision impairments if recipes or other instructions are inaccessible. To explore the practices and challenges of recipe access while cooking, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 people with vision impairments who have cooking experience and four cooking instructors at a vision rehabilitation center. We also asked participants to edit and give feedback on existing recipes. We revealed unique practices and challenges to accessing recipe information at different cooking stages, such as the heavy burden of hand-washing to interact with recipe readers. We also presented the preferred information representation and structure of recipes. We then highlighted design features of technological supports that could facilitate the development of more accessible kitchen technologies for recipe access. Our work contributes nuanced insights and design guidelines to enhance recipe accessibility for people with vision impairments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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