Cited by 21Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesDisability Rights and RepresentationDisability Education and Employment

Making the field of computing more inclusive

Open access
Lazar, Jonathan, Churchill, Elizabeth F., Grossman, Tovi, van der Veer, Gerrit, Palanque, Philippe, Morris, John "Scooter, Mankoff, Jennifer·2017·Communications of the ACM

Abstract

More accessible conferences, digital resources, and ACM SIGs will lead to greater participation by more people with disabilities.

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 · 10.1145/2993420

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Lazar et al. reported that even in the year when authors received considerable feedback about accessibility issues, the proportion of tagged PDFs only increased marginally (from 20.6% to 26.8%) and failed to sustain in subsequent years.

    “They reported that even in the year when authors received considerable feedback about the accessibility issues in their submissions, the proportion of tagged PDFs only increased marginally (from 20.6% to 26.8%) and failed to sustain in the subsequent years.”

    From iTagPDF: Towards Finally Automating PDF Accessibility (2026) · cites this paper as [11]

    The available indexed passages (labeled Abstract; no page given) contain bibliographic metadata, not findings about tagged PDFs. Searches for 20.6%, 26.8%, accessibility feedback, and subsequent years found no passage addressing the claim, so it cannot be verified from our copy. (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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lazar, J., Churchill, E. F., Grossman, T., van der Veer, G., Palanque, P., Morris, J. "., & Mankoff, J.
Affiliations
  • Towson University (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • Autodesk (Canada) (CA)
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands and Twente University, Twente, the Netherlands and Dutch Open University, Heerlen, Netherlands and Dalian Maritime University, Dalian, China and Lushun Academy of Fine Arts, Shenyang, China
  • Université Toulouse III - Paul Sabatier (FR)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
Communications of the ACM
Published
2017-02-21
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
50-59
ISSN
  • 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7317
OpenAlex
W2594338580
Cited by
21
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
7.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Open Archive Toulouse Archive Ouverte (University of Toulouse) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Education and Employment
Keywords
accessibility, inclusion, people with disabilities, electronic resources

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