Examining the accessibility of ChatGPT for competency-based personalised learning for specially-abled people
Abstract
Purpose This study examines the web accessibility issues faced by users with disabilities when using ChatGPT, a popular chatbot. It is crucial for users with disabilities to have barrier-free access to Internet communications technology to be on par with other users. Because of its roots in artificial intelligence (AI) technology, ChatGPT can empower individuals with various abilities, providing access to the Internet and potentially leading to a substantial boost in digital inclusion for these users. Design/methodology/approach The researchers focused on ensuring ease of access to ChatGPT’s webpage to achieve the study objective. They conducted manual testing with a visually impaired researcher. They used axe DevTools and Accessibility Insights to investigate the target page’s three most commonly used states for accessibility issues. Findings The researchers identified substantial and crucial web accessibility issues on the target page. These issues resulted in frustration and hindered complete access to information about ChatGPT’s features. The researchers stress the significance of prioritising web accessibility and urge web designers to integrate Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) standards into the initial stages of web development rather than addressing them as corrective measures. Given the United Nations' recognition of access to information and communication technology (ICT) as a pivotal Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for users with disabilities, it is i…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
GenAI can be used to facilitate individualized learning in students with disabilities, but accessibility standards remain important issues.
“Notably, Patvardhan et al. (2024) demonstrate that GenAI can be used to facilitate individualized learning in students with disabilities, but accessibility standards are still important issues.”
From Mapping the impact of generative AI in higher education: A scoping review of psychological and equity dimensions. (2026) · cites this paper as Patvardhan et al. (2024)
Cites
ChatGPT outperforms humans in emotional awareness evaluations
Elyoseph, Z., Hadar-Shoval, D., Asraf, K., & Lvovsky, M. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1199058 · Cited by 324 · see citing works
Beyond Conformance: The Role of Accessibility Evaluation Methods
Brajnik, G. (2008) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85200-1_9 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Othman, A., Dhouib, A., & Nasser Al Jabor, A. (2023) · Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments · doi:10.1145/3594806.3596542 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Turning manual web accessibility success criteria into automatic: an LLM-based approach
López-Gil, J.-M., & Pereira, J. (2025) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-024-01108-z · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Website accessibility: a survey of local e-government websites and legislation in Northern Ireland
Paris, M. (2006) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-003-0081-7 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ni, W., & Li, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1856854 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Patvardhan, N., Ranade, M., Vandana, & Khatwani, R.
- Affiliations
- Symbiosis International University (IN)
- Venue
- The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2024-09-24
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 539-555
- ISSN
- 2056-4880 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4402693700
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4
- FWCI
- 16.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Information and Learning Technology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, web accessibility, disabled users, visually impaired users, chatbots, digital inclusion, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, accessibility testing, assistive technology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review