Assistive Debugging to Support Accessible Latex Based Document Authoring
Abstract
This software usability study aims towards evaluating our LaTeX based extension, created to assist blind researchers and writers, in terms of authoring both continuous and non-continuous text [2]. Our extension includes features like speech based error prompts and navigation to the error location which are expected to improve the LaTeX code debugging experience and increase writing productivity. Upon testing our extension, it is observed that a majority of both LaTeX novice and expert users preferred using MS Word for writing continuous text, while the LaTeX experts preferred our extension for writing mathematical content.
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?
LaTeX's inaccessibility reshapes entire research trajectories, forcing scholars to abandon certain publication venues or collaborative opportunities.
“Similarly, Manzoor et al. demonstrate how LaTeX's inaccessibility reshapes entire research trajectories, forcing scholars to abandon certain publication venues or collaborative opportunities [50].”
From "I Don't Trust Any Professional Research Tool": A Re-Imagination of Knowledge Production Workflows by, with, and for Blind and Low-Vision Researchers (2026) · cites this paper as [50]
Research on academic workflows has highlighted the importance of accessible tools and inclusive practices, especially as the research community becomes increasingly diverse.
“Separately, research on academic workflows has highlighted the importance of accessible tools and inclusive practices, especially as the research community becomes increasingly diverse [34, 50, 54, 76].”
From "I Don't Trust Any Professional Research Tool": A Re-Imagination of Knowledge Production Workflows by, with, and for Blind and Low-Vision Researchers (2026) · cites this paper as [50]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Khan, O., & Seo, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791242 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Similarly, Manzoor et al. demonstrate how LaTeX’s inaccessibility reshapes entire research trajectories, forcing scholars to abandon certain publication venues or collaborative opportunities [50].”
- Authors
- Manzoor, A., Parvez, M., Shahid, S., & Karim, A.
- Affiliations
- Lahore University of Management Sciences (PK)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2018-10-08
- Pages
- 432-434
- OpenAlex
- W2897849064
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 2.15
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Ignite Pakistan
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Keywords
- assistive technology, LaTeX, document authoring, accessibility, blind users, mathematical typesetting, text editing, user preferences, writing productivity
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
