"They Aren't Built For Me": An Exploratory Study of Strategies for Measurement of Graphical Primitives in Tactile Graphics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancements in accessibility technologies such as low-cost swell form printers or refreshable tactile displays promise to allow blind or low-vision (BLV) people to analyze data by transforming visual representations directly to tactile representations. However, it is possible that design guidelines derived from experiments on the visual perception system may not be suited for the tactile perception system. We investigate the potential mismatch between familiar visual encodings and tactile perception in an exploratory study into the strategies employed by BLV people to measure common graphical primitives converted to tactile representations. First, we replicate the Cleveland and McGill study on graphical perception using swell form printing with eleven BLV subjects. Then, we present results from a group interview in which we describe the strategies used by our subjects to read four common chart types. While our results suggest that familiar encodings based on visual perception studies can be useful in tactile graphics, our subjects also expressed a desire to use encodings designed explicitly for BLV people. Based on this study, we identify gaps between the perceptual expectations of common charts and the perceptual tools available in tactile perception. Then, we present a set of guidelines for the design of tactile graphics that accounts for these gaps. Supplemental material is available at https://osf.io/3nsfp/?view_only=7b7b8dcbae1d4c9a8bb4325053d13d9f.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".