Cited by 32Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesData Visualization and AnalyticsMathematics, Computing, and Information Processing

A Dataset of Alt Texts from HCI Publications: Analyses and Uses Towards Producing More Descriptive Alt Texts of Data Visualizations in Scientific Papers

Open access
Chintalapati, Sanjana Shivani, Bragg, Jonathan, Wang, Lucy Lu·2022·Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

Abstract

Figures in scientific publications contain important information and results, and alt text is needed for blind and low vision readers to engage with their content. We conduct a study to characterize the semantic content of alt text in HCI publications based on a framework introduced by Lundgard and Satyanarayan [30]. Our study focuses on alt text for graphs, charts, and plots extracted from HCI and accessibility publications; we focus on these communities due to the lack of alt text in papers published outside of these disciplines. We find that the capacity of author-written alt text to fulfill blind and low vision user needs is mixed; for example, only 50% of alt texts in our sample contain information about extrema or outliers, and only 31% contain information about major trends or comparisons conveyed by the graph. We release our collected dataset of author-written alt text, and outline possible ways that it can be used to develop tools and models to assist future authors in writing better alt text. Based on our findings, we also discuss recommendations that can be acted upon by publishers and authors to encourage inclusion of more types of semantic content in alt text.

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 · 10.1145/3517428.3544796

Cites

51 of 51 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?

  • A recent audit of HCI and accessibility publications found that around 50% of figures with alt text, especially those involving complex visualizations, contain uninformative descriptions.

    “A recent audit [14] of HCI and accessibility publications found that around 50% of figures with alt text, especially those involving complex visualizations, contain uninformative descriptions.”

    From How University Disability Services Professionals Write Image Descriptions for HCI Figures Using Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction reports that only 50% of sampled alt texts for graphs, charts, and plots discuss extrema or outliers, and only 31% discuss trends or comparisons. The Discussion says many descriptions lack useful detail, but the paper does not classify around 50% of all figures with alt text as having uninformative descriptions, nor does it show that complex visualizations are especially affected. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • They often fall short of meeting alt text accommodation needs for students.

    “Therefore, they often fall short of meeting (alt text) accommodation needs for students [14, 67].”

    From How University Disability Services Professionals Write Image Descriptions for HCI Figures Using Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Discussion & Conclusion (Section 6; page unavailable) says many author-written alt texts for graphs and charts in the sampled HCI publications do not yet provide the basic information proposed for blind and low-vision readers. The paper does not assess students or their accommodation needs, so that population-specific part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • LLMs generate hallucinated content or omit essential visual details, sometimes producing ineffective alt text for science figures.

    “While LLMs offer promise, they also generate hallucinated content or omit essential visual details; thus, sometimes producing ineffective alt text for science figures [14, 70].”

    From How University Disability Services Professionals Write Image Descriptions for HCI Figures Using Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

    Section 2.4 reports that Office 365’s automatically generated alt text for scientific figures often gives only the chart type and omits other content, making it of limited use. That supports the concern about missing visual details, but the paper does not establish that LLMs produce these omissions or hallucinated content. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Checking for semantic information can help assess coverage in alt text, such as by assessing length, structure, or specifics (e.g., outliers) of alt text.

    “Checking for semantic information can help assess coverage in alt text, such as by assessing length, structure, or specifics (e.g., outliers) of alt text [14].”

    From How University Disability Services Professionals Write Image Descriptions for HCI Figures Using Generative AI (2026) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Introduction and §4.2 assess which semantic details figure alt text covers, including outliers. The RQ3 analysis examines length but cautions that alt texts of comparable length can contain different amounts of information; the cited passages do not establish alt-text structure as a way to assess coverage. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most published work lacks accurate alt text for visual content (e.g., scientific figures) and requires alt text remediation.

    “Despite the widespread acknowledgment of these accessibility needs, most published work lacks accurate alt text for visual content (e.g., scientific figures) [14, 41] and requires alt text remediation [33].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Ting-Yao Hsu, C. Lee Giles, and Ting-Hao Kenneth Huang. 2021. SciCap: Gener- ating Captions for Scientifc Figures. In EMNLP.
  2. K. V. Jobin, Ajoy Mondal, and C. V. Jawahar. 2019. DocFigure: A Dataset for Scien- tifc Document Figure Classifcation. 2019 International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition Workshops (ICDARW) 1 (2019), 74-79.
  3. Daekyoung Jung, Wonjae Kim, Hyunjoo Song, Jeongin Hwang, Bongshin Lee, Bo Hyoung Kim, and Jinwook Seo. 2017. ChartSense: Interactive Data Extraction from Chart Images. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2017).
  4. Alina Kuznetsova, Hassan Rom, Neil Gordon Alldrin, Jasper R. R. Uijlings, Ivan Krasin, Jordi Pont-Tuset, Shahab Kamali, Stefan Popov, Matteo Malloci, Alexander Kolesnikov, Tom Duerig, and Vittorio Ferrari. 2020. The Open Images Dataset V4. International Journal of Computer Vision 128 (2020), 1956-1981.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chintalapati, S. S., Bragg, J., & Wang, L. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-10-22
Pages
1-12
OpenAlex
W4298051348
Cited by
31
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
9.11
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
Keywords
alt text, accessibility, blind and visually impaired users, charts and graphs, semantic content

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