Cited by 25Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesData Visualization and AnalyticsTactile and Sensory Interactions

MAIDR Meets AI: Exploring Multimodal LLM-Based Data Visualization Interpretation by and with Blind and Low-Vision Users

Open access
Seo, JooYoung, Kamath, Sanchita S., Zeidieh, Aziz, Venkatesh, Saairam, McCurry, Sean·2024·The 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

Abstract

This paper investigates how blind and low-vision (BLV) users interact with multimodal large language models (LLMs) to interpret data visualizations. Building upon our previous work on the multimodal access and interactive data representation (MAIDR) framework, our mixed-visual-ability team co-designed maidrAI, an LLM extension providing multiple AI responses to users’ visual queries. To explore generative AI-based data representation, we conducted user studies with 8 BLV participants, tasking them with interpreting box plots using our system. We examined how participants personalize LLMs through prompt engineering, their preferences for data visualization descriptions, and strategies for verifying LLM responses. Our findings highlight three dimensions affecting BLV users’ decision-making process: modal preference, LLM customization, and multimodal data representation. This research contributes to designing more accessible data visualization tools for BLV users and advances the understanding of inclusive generative AI applications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3663548.3675660

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In research involving people with disabilities, participants mostly collaborate on the design or evaluation of access-supporting generative AI systems.

    “Similarly, in research involving PwD, participants mostly collaborate on the design or evaluation of accesssupporting generative AI systems [2, 3, 22, 60, 61, 73, 98, 109].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Seo, J., Kamath, S. S., Zeidieh, A., Venkatesh, S., & McCurry, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • TransPerfect, United States
Venue
The 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-10-27
Pages
1-31
OpenAlex
W4403582792
Cited by
25
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 6
FWCI
11.68
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program (#RE-254891-OLS-23)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
blind and visually impaired users, multimodal large language models, accessible data visualization, prompt engineering, box plots, visual query, multimodal representation

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