"It's like Goldilocks:" Bespoke Slides for Fluctuating Audience Access Needs
Open accessAbstract
Slide deck accessibility is often studied for people who are blind or visually impaired, but rarely for other people with access needs. We first conducted focus groups with 17 people with slide deck access needs and found that their access needs differed greatly and often conflicted. Moreover, some people’s access needs changed throughout the day (e.g., needing lower contrast colors at night). Therefore, we conducted a design probe with 14 of the existing participants to understand the experience of using a plug-in that lets audience members at a presentation modify a local copy of the slides to meet their accessibility needs. We then interviewed four slide deck authors and presenters to offer a preview of the perspectives that other stakeholders of this tool might have. Finally, we created a functional prototype as a Google Slides plug-in with a subset of the features requested by the participants.
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?
Prior work in HCI has highlighted the access frictions people experience when their accommodations conflict and when access needs fluctuate over time.
“Prior work in HCI has highlighted the access frictions people experience when their accommodations conflict [5, 21] and when access needs fluctuate over time [55].”
From Experiences and Perceptions of Blind and Low-Vision (BLV) People with Retail Self-Checkout Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [55]
Cites
Anticipate and Adjust: Cultivating Access in Human-Centered Methods
Mack, K., McDonnell, E., Potluri, V., Xu, M., Zabala, J., Bigham, J., Mankoff, J., & Bennett, C. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501882 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
Self-citationMixed Abilities and Varied Experiences: a group autoethnography of a virtual summer internship
Mack, K., Das, M., Jain, D., Bragg, D., Tang, J., Begel, A., Beneteau, E., Davis, J. U., Glasser, A., Park, J. S., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3441852.3471199 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Self-citationDesigning 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 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Prior research has investigated how people who are blind and visually impaired (BVI) can consume and present slides [20, 32, 34] and how to improve caption-users’ experience consuming presentations [41].”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
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
- Authors
- Mack, K. A., Glazko, K. S., Islam, J., Hofmann, M., & Mankoff, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Northeastern University (US)
- Venue
- The 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-10-27
- Pages
- 1-15
- OpenAlex
- W4403576753
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 3.82
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (EDA 2009977)
- 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, user-centered design, stakeholder perspectives, functional prototype
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
