Paper to HTML: A Publicly Available Web Tool for Converting Scientific Pdfs into Accessible HTML
Abstract
Most scientific papers are distributed in PDF format, which is by default inaccessible to blind and low vision audiences and people who use assistive reading technology. These access barriers hinder and may even deter members of these groups from pursuing careers or opportunities that necessitate the reading of technical documents. In cases where no accessible versions of papers are made available by publishers or authors, the gold standard for PDF document accessibility is PDF remediation. Remediation is the process by which a PDF is made accessible by fixing accessibility errors, for example, tagging headings, specifying reading order, adding alt text to images, and so on, such that a reader can navigate and engage with the resulting content using assistive reading technology such as screen readers.
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?
Tools such as SciA11y and Paper to HTML have been developed to convert PDFs into more accessible and interactive HTML formats.
“Consequently, tools such as SciA11y [39] and Paper to HTML [38] have been developed to convert PDFs into more accessible and interactive HTML formats.”
From iTagPDF: Towards Finally Automating PDF Accessibility (2026) · cites this paper as [38]
Cites
Designing Tools for High-Quality Alt Text Authoring
Mack, K., Cutrell, E., Lee, B., & Morris, M. R. (2021) · Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3441852.3471207 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Chintalapati, S. S., Bragg, J., & Wang, L. L. (2022) · Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3517428.3544796 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Self-citationWang, L. L., Cachola, I., Bragg, J., Cheng, E. Y.-Y., Haupt, C., Latzke, M., Kuehl, B., van Zuylen, M., Wagner, L., & Weld, D. S. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2105.00076 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kumar, A., & Wang, L. L. (2024) · The 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663548.3675634 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citationiTagPDF: Towards Finally Automating PDF Accessibility
Mowar, P., Steinfeld, A., & Bigham, J. P. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790289 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wang, L. L., Bragg, J., & Weld, D. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
- Venue
- ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing
- Published
- 2022-10
- Issue
- 134
- Pages
- 1-1
- ISSN
- 1558-1187 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2337
- OpenAlex
- W4317924360
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 2.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text Readability and Simplification
- Keywords
- document accessibility, scientific publications, HTML conversion, assistive technology, screen readers, low vision users, blind users, alt text, reading order
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