Cited by 69Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesImage Retrieval and Classification TechniquesSubtitles and Audiovisual Media

Guiding Novice Web Workers in Making Image Descriptions Using Templates

Open access
Morash, Valerie S., Siu, Yue-Ting, Miele, Joshua A., Hasty, Lucia, Landau, Steven·2015·ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing

Abstract

This article compares two methods of employing novice Web workers to author descriptions of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics images to make them accessible to individuals with visual and print-reading disabilities. The goal is to identify methods of creating image descriptions that are inexpensive, effective, and follow established accessibility guidelines. The first method explicitly presented the guidelines to the worker, then the worker constructed the image description in an empty text box and table. The second method queried the worker for image information and then used responses to construct a template-based description according to established guidelines. The descriptions generated through queried image description (QID) were more likely to include information on the image category, title, caption, and units. They were also more similar to one another, based on Jaccard distances of q-grams, indicating that their word usage and structure were more standardized. Last, the workers preferred describing images using QID and found the task easier. Therefore, explicit instruction on image-description guidelines is not sufficient to produce quality image descriptions when using novice Web workers. Instead, it is better to provide information about images, then generate descriptions from responses using templates.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2764916

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Haptic perception shares similar advantages to visual perception and is naturally suited for exploring spatial relationships.

    “Haptic perception shares similar advantages [83] and is also naturally suited for exploring spatial relationships [91].”

    From The Accessibility of Data Visualizations on the Web for Screen Reader Users: Practices and Experiences During COVID-19 (2023) · cites this paper as [83]

    The Introduction discusses tactile graphics as an option for making images accessible, but does not discuss whether haptic perception is naturally suited to exploring spatial relationships. Searches for that phrase and for tactile or haptic exploration of spatial relationships found no passage addressing the claim attributed to this source by [91]. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]22. Geoffrey Keppel and Thomas D. Wickens. 2004. Design and Analysis: A Researcher's Handbook (4 ed.). Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morash, V. S., Siu, Y.-T., Miele, J. A., Hasty, L., & Landau, S.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • San Francisco State University (US)
  • Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute (US)
  • Rocky Mountain Braille Associates, La Paloma Way Colorado Springs, CO
  • Touch Graphics (United States) (US)
Venue
ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
Published
2015-11-19
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
1-21
ISSN
  • 1936-7228 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-7236
OpenAlex
W2295423240
Cited by
69
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
18.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Office of Special Education Programs
  • Department of Education
  • Cooperative Agreement (H327B100001)
  • Benetechs DIAGRAM Center initiative
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
Keywords
picture description, web accessibility, visual impairment, accessibility guidelines, image captioning

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