Cited by 140Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityImage Retrieval and Classification Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

"Person, Shoes, Tree. Is the Person Naked?" What People with Vision Impairments Want in Image Descriptions

Open access
Stangl, Abigale, Morris, Meredith Ringel, Gurari, Danna·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Access to digital images is important to people who are blind or have low vision (BLV). Many contemporary image description efforts do not take into account this population's nuanced image description preferences. In this paper, we present a qualitative study that provides insight into 28 BLV people's experiences with descriptions of digital images from news websites, social networking sites/platforms, eCommerce websites, employment websites, online dating websites/platforms, productivity applications, and e-publications. Our findings reveal how image description preferences vary based on the source where digital images are encountered and the surrounding context. We provide recommendations for the development of next-generation image description technologies inspired by our empirical analysis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3313831.3376404

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77--101.
  2. Cole Gleason, Patrick Carrington, Cameron Cassidy, Meredith Ringel Morris, Kris M. Kitani, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2019. &Ldquo;It's Almost Like They'Re Trying to Hide It&Rdquo;: How User-Provided Image Descriptions Have Failed to Make Twitter Accessible. In The World Wide Web Conference (WWW '19). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 549--559.
  3. Danna Gurari, Qing Li, Abigale J. Stangl, Anhong Guo, Chi Lin, Kristen Grauman, Jiebo Luo, and Jeffrey P. Bigham. 2018. VizWiz Grand Challenge: Answering Visual Questions From Blind People. In The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).
  4. AI Now Institute. 2019. Disability, Bias, and AI. https://ainowinstitute.org/disabilitybiasai-2019.pdf. (November 2019). (Accessed on 01/02/2020).
  5. Os Keyes and Cynthia L. Bennett. 2019. What Is the Point of Fairness? Disability, AI and The Complexity of Justice. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.01024 (2019). · arXiv
  6. Jonathan Lazar, Alfreda Dudley-Sponaugle, and Kisha-Dawn Greenidge. 2004. Improving web accessibility: a study of webmaster perceptions. Computers in human behavior 20, 2 (2004), 269--288.
  7. Meredith Ringel Morris. 2019. AI and Accessibility: A Discussion of Ethical Considerations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08939 (2019). · arXiv
  8. Helen Petrie, Chandra Harrison, and Sundeep Dev. 2005. Describing images on the web: a survey of current practice and prospects for the future. Proceedings of Human Computer Interaction International (HCII) 71 (2005).
  9. Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research techniques. Sage publications Thousand Oaks, CA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 140

Metadata

Authors
Stangl, A., Morris, M. R., & Gurari, D.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2020-04-21
Pages
1-13
OpenAlex
W2998746484
Cited by
139
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 8
FWCI
27.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
Micorsoft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Image Retrieval and Classification Techniques
Keywords
picture description, blind and visually impaired users, accessibility, digital images, web accessibility, digital platforms

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