Cited by 34Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesMathematics, Computing, and Information ProcessingPublishing and Scholarly Communication

An Uninteresting Tour Through Why Our Research Papers Aren't Accessible

Bigham, Jeffrey P., Brady, Erin L., Gleason, Cole, Guo, Anhong, Shamma, David A.·2016·Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Our research is delivered as Portable Document Format (PDF) documents, and very few include basic metadata to make them accessible to people with disabilities. As a result, many people are either unable to read them efficiently or at all. Over the past few years, we have tried everything from writing guidelines and giving accessibility feedback, to enforcing accessibility standards and volunteering to make PDFs accessible ourselves. The problem with making PDFs accessible is in part due to the lack of good tools, but the complexity of the PDF format makes improving tools difficult. Making accessible research papers is as much about our choices as a community: our choice of publication format, and our choice to make accessibility a voluntary task for authors. In this paper, we overview the context in which PDFs became our publication format, the difficulty in making PDF documents accessible given current tools, what we have tried to make our PDFs more accessible, and potential options for doing better in the future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2851581.2892588

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In HCI, only about 5% of publications have valid alt text, which is even worse in other fields like science, medicine, and engineering.

    “Recent work [5, 14, 41] shows that in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), where accessibility research is advocated, only about 5% of publications have valid alt text, which is even worse in other fields like science, medicine, and engineering [51, 54].”
  • Persistent challenges remain in ensuring that documents prepared in PDF consistently include the metadata necessary to make them accessible to people with disabilities.

    “Despite this, persistent challenges remain in ensuring that documents prepared in this format consistently include the metadata necessary to make them accessible to people with disabilities [2, 3].”

    From iTagPDF: Towards Finally Automating PDF Accessibility (2026) · cites this paper as [2]

  • Bigham et al. argued authors lacked sufficient incentives to engage with a complex remediation process, largely due to inadequate tooling.

    “They argued authors lacked sufficient incentives to engage with a complex remediation process, largely due to inadequate tooling.”

    From iTagPDF: Towards Finally Automating PDF Accessibility (2026) · cites this paper as [2]

  • Making PDFs automatically accessible is a messy problem requiring substantial engineering effort.

    “Though making PDFs automatically accessible seems like a solvable problem, those who have worked on it have noted that it is a messy problem requiring substantial engineering effort [2].”

    From iTagPDF: Towards Finally Automating PDF Accessibility (2026) · cites this paper as [2]

  • Prior works have extensively documented the challenges of using Acrobat, including the high cost of software license, an unintuitive user interface, and the low-quality of automated tags requiring authors to manually review and correct them.

    “However, as discussed in the previous subsection, prior works [2, 17] have extensively documented the challenges of using Acrobat, including the high cost of software license, an unintuitive user interface, and the low-quality of automated tags requiring authors to manually review and correct them.”

    From iTagPDF: Towards Finally Automating PDF Accessibility (2026) · cites this paper as [2]

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 18 · Cited by 34

Authors
Bigham, J. P., Brady, E. L., Gleason, C., Guo, A., & Shamma, D. A.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
  • Yahoo (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-05-07
Pages
621-631
OpenAlex
W2346371394
Cited by
34
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.09
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
  • National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
PDF accessibility, disability, publication formats, metadata, accessibility tools, scholarly publishing

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