The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
Toward unified guidelines for kiosk accessibility
Open accessAbstract
We have had the honor of serving the SIGCHI community as columnists and editors since the fifth issue of Interactions back in 1995. It has truly been a privilege to find and work with authors to help them find their voices. We hope that the Business column (1995--2011) and the Evaluation and Usability/UX in Practice forum (2011--present) have been useful to you, the readers. We wish the leadership of Interactions and of ACM SIGCHI all the best. --- Susan Dray and David Siegel, Editors
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
There has been commendable effort to unify self-service kiosk accessibility standards that offer promising guidelines on audio, visual output, and system operation, but they do not fully address SCO accessibility, and no user testing has validated their effectiveness.
“There has been commendable effort to unify self-service kiosk accessibility standards [48] that offer promising guidelines on audio, visual output, and system operation. While these are useful, they likewise do not fully address SCO accessibility, and, as far as we can tell, no user testing has validated their effectiveness.”
From Experiences and Perceptions of Blind and Low-Vision (BLV) People with Retail Self-Checkout Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [48]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
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.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Meehan , S. Blind Marylanders sue Walmart, saying self-serve checkouts violate ADA. The Baltimore Sun . Oct. 29, 2018 ; https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/bs-md-walmart-blind-lawsuit-20181026-story.html Meehan, S. Blind Marylanders sue Walmart, saying self-serve checkouts violate ADA. The Baltimore Sun. Oct. 29, 2018; https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-county/bs-md-walmart-blind-lawsuit-20181026-story.html
- Feingold , L. Kiosk accessibility: The law is paying attention . Jan. 30, 2018 ; https://www.lflegal.com/2018/01/kiosks18/ Feingold, L. Kiosk accessibility: The law is paying attention. Jan. 30, 2018; https://www.lflegal.com/2018/01/kiosks18/
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Experiences and Perceptions of Blind and Low-Vision (BLV) People with Retail Self-Checkout Systems
Heisey, A., Shinohara, K., & Tigwell, G. W. (2026) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3816243
“There has been commendable effort to unify self-service kiosk accessibility standards [48] that offer promising guidelines on audio, visual output, and system operation.”
Metadata
- Authors
- Lazar, J., Jordan, J. B., & Vanderheiden, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Maryland, College Park (US)
- Venue
- Interactions
- Published
- 2019-06-26
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 74-77
- ISSN
- 1072-5520 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-3449
- PMC
- PMC8855367
- OpenAlex
- W2956022351
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 2.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- interactions (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- 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
- accessibility guidelines, accessible design, usability
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
