Aaleyah Lewis, Aayushi Dangol, Hyewon Suh, Abbie Olszewski, James Fogarty, Julie A. Kientz. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25),
Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) provide support to children with speech and language difficulties through delivering evaluation, assessment, and interventions. Despite growing research on how Artificial Intelligence (AI) can support SLPs, there is limited research examining how AI can assist SLPs in delivering equitable care to culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) children with disabilities. Through interviews with 15 SLPs and a two-part survey study with 13 SLPs, we report on SLP challenges in delivering responsive care to CLD children with disabilities (i.e., unrepresentative materials, unreliable translation, insufficient support for language variations), areas for AI-based support, evaluations of how available AI performs in addressing these challenges, and bias assessments of AI-generated materials. We discuss implications of contextually unaware AI, the range of care in AI prompting, tensions and tradeoffs of AI-based support, and honoring diverse representations in AI-generated materials. We offer considerations for SLPs using AI-based tools and general-purpose AI in their practice.
Blind or low vision (BLV) students face systemic digital barriers in STEM education. Among these barriers, a significant one is inaccessible lecture slides, particularly when ALT (alternative) text for visuals is missing or inadequate. ALT text can be onerous for experts to create for visual-heavy slide decks, and non-experts may not create informative ALT text. AI-powered generation techniques have promise to speed this process up, however AI text outputs can be inaccurate. To investigate this, we constructed a dataset of 30 lecture slide PDFs across 5 STEM domains.
To generate ALT text for the lecture visuals, we developed a research-backed system prompt and internal AI-powered interface that uses lecture slide PDFs and slide-aligned transcripts. We ran an ablation study comparing image understanding of 795 lecture visuals under two conditions: lecture slide PDF and lecture slide PDF with additional transcript context. We scored the ALT text items across research-informed metrics such as Accuracy, Objectivity, Completeness, and Relevance. The AI-generated ALT text scored highly overall across all metrics in both research conditions, with minimal rates of hallucination. Both conditions performed equally well in most cases. For Illustrations, Completeness was +21.2% higher (𝑝 < .001) with transcript context.
Overall, our findings demonstrate the technical feasibility of AI-powered ALT text generation for STEM lecture visuals using multimodal context. These results motivate and lay the groundwork for future BLV student user evaluations to further analyze how AI systems can support educational accessibility
A. Turkarslan, V. H. Thakkar, R. Tekle, T. Chen, J. J. Martinez, and J. Mankoff. “Context-aware, AI-powered ALT text generation for lecture visuals: a multimodal approach via slide decks and speech transcripts”. Proceedings of the 28th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, ASSETS 2026. ACM, 2026. (pdf).
Full System Prompt Used
You are an accessibility assistant that generates high-quality alternative text (ALT text) for lecture slide visuals.
For each slide, detect meaningful visuals and generate ALT text for each one. If transcript context is provided, use it only to clarify visible content. If transcript context conflicts with the slide, trust the slide.
Return JSON only (no markdown, no extra text).
Schema: {
"slides": [
{
"slideNumber": number,
"visuals": [
{
"id": string
// (in the form of slide#-visual#"),
"type": string
// (such as "diagram", bar chart", line
// graph", "scatter plot", "illustration",
// "photograph", "infographic", "flowchart",
// etc.)
"altText": string
}
]
}
]
}
Rules:
slideNumber starts at 1 and increments by 1.
If a slide has no visuals, return “visuals”: [].
One visual object per distinct visual. A distinct visual is a self-contained diagram, chart, image, or composite graphic that conveys a unified concept or message.
If multiple visual elements on a slide are clearly connected or part of a single diagram, chart, or composite visual, treat them as ONE visual and describe all parts together in a single altText.
altText must be accurate, relevant, complete, specific, and focused on instructional meaning (i.e. key elements, labels, relationships, directional indicators, and trends).
altText should be within a range of 2-8 sentences as needed.
When arrows, lines, or labels are present, explicitly describe what each one points to, where it is positioned relative to elements, and what relationship or flow it indicates (i.e. direction, sequence, or connection).
If the visual is a data visualization or informational graphic (ex. chart, graph), begin altText by stating the chart type and a brief summary of what it shows. Describe the axes and structural components, key data trends and relationships, and reference data labels or categories, highlighting any important comparisons or patterns that support understanding.
You may weave brief relevant semantic context from prior slides and/or transcript into the literal visual description when it improves clarity.
If transcript is present, use it when it improves precision or semantic meaning of visible elements (i.e. disambiguating acronyms, variable meaning, chart intent, or why a visual step matters).
Keep context tightly anchored to visible elements; do not add standalone context that is not grounded in what is on screen.
If a similar or repeated visual appears across multiple slides (even if slightly modified), treat each instance as independent. The altText must fully describe the visual as it appears on the current slide without assuming prior context or that the user has seen earlier slides. You may briefly note that the visual builds on or repeats a prior slide if helpful, but the description must remain fully understandable on its own.
Avoid filler/openers like “This image shows” or “This slide shows”.
Write altText as direct description only (no bullets, no labels like “ALT text:”, no markdown
Do not generate ALT text for a small video or image of the instructor unless it conveys instructional meaning (i.e. demonstrating an action, pointing to content, or containing relevant visual information). Otherwise, treat it as decorative.
If purely decorative, set altText to “”
If a value or label is not clearly visible, do not guess it.
If uncertain, describe only the clearly visible high-confidence elements.
Disabled people live at the intersection of multiple identities that shape their access needs and technology experiences. Designing equitable systems requires preparing future technologists to critically engage with how technologies interact with systems of oppression. We approached a quarter-long capstone course with one central question: Do the processes and expectations of engineering education (in the context of an accessibility capstone) adequately incorporate multiple intersectional perspectives? By using this as a guiding pedagogical framework, we uncovered gaps in standard processes and requirements and developed practical solutions for addressing them. We outline the theoretical foundations informing the course, its structure and implementation, and reflect on the tensions that emerged throughout the course. We offer considerations for educators seeking to meaningfully integrate intersectional accessibility into computing education.
NOTE: We provide the original abstract below. A plain language summary is here first.
Plain language is important for people who have trouble understanding complex writing. For example, people with disabilities may use plain language. With plain language, people can still get important information, such as about health, or policy. Because of this, many groups that support disabled people share information in plain language.
This is hard work, and we want to make it easier. But first, we need to find out what these groups do. We wanted to know how experts make plain language.
We talked to experts in three groups that support disabled people.
We collected example plain language that people made.
We also tried using AI to make plain language, and asked experts what they thought.
Experts often use scores, such as reading difficulty, to check plain language. We studied how all texts did on many different scores.
To our surprise, no score was high on every plain language example experts shared with us. AI was also not good at plain language, but it could help an expert get started. We think people need better tools for checking plain language, and better ways to support experts and communities in meeting their own needs.
Original abstract:
Plain language materials enable people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) to access critical information about policy, healthcare, and civic participation. Disability advocacy organizations routinely produce these materials, yet we know little about how practitioners approach this work, what standards guide their judgments, or whether current evaluation metrics align with their priorities. Through focus groups and interviews with 11 practitioners across three U.S. disability advocacy organizations, individual walkthroughs where practitioners evaluated AI-simplified documents, and systematic analysis of 33 pairs of original and simplified documents from four organizations using 28 readability metrics, we document plain language production as specialized expertise requiring policy knowledge, community accountability, and multi-stage validation processes. Practitioners who use AI tools report treating outputs as provisional starting points requiring complete human verification rather than autonomous producers of publication-ready content. Organization-produced documents averaged a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 10.2, exceeding all published guideline targets ranging from 3rd to 8th grade, yet practitioners described these materials as successfully meeting community needs. This suggests that published text simplification guidelines may not capture dimensions practitioners and communities consider essential for high-stakes accessibility work. Based on our findings, we propose design principles for text simplification tools that center verification and transparency rather than automation, and call for evaluation frameworks that complement automated metrics with practitioner expertise and community accountability mechanisms.
Jazette Johnson, Aaleyah Lewis, Jennifer Mankoff, and Olivia Banner. 2026.“I Don’t Trust it, but I Use it”: Navigating Trust, Privacy, and Identity inDisabled People’s Use of Generative AI. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHIConference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26), April 13–17
As generative AI (GenAI) is integrated into everyday technologies, it offers new accessibility opportunities and risks for disabled people. However, little is known about how disabled people navigate GenAI in their everyday lives, particularly how trust, privacy, and intersectional identities affect these experiences. We present findings from seven cross-disability focus groups (N=20) that explore how disabled people navigate GenAI. Our findings reveal that while GenAI supports autonomy, efficiency, and communication, it also introduces accessibility taxes and ethical dilemmas. Although participants voiced skepticism, many continued using GenAI out of necessity. Finally, we found identity-based benefits and tensions, in which GenAI preserved and validated intersecting identities, but also misrepresented and erased those identities. We frame these negotiations as a constant balancing act between access and risk, urging research to further examine how “access” is conceptualized. We offer implications for creating GenAI tools that are transparent, trustworthy, and responsive to intersectional identities.
Disability culture, disability innovation, and DIY efforts have long been an important part of the work that disabled leaders and resesearch values, studies, and contributes to. Over the last year, we’ve been exploring this through a couple of perspectives:
First, we’ve been developing A11yhood.org, a website that automates the collection of open source accessibility solutions across a wide variety of media from 3D printing to knitting to software, and supports search and exploration. We searched for words like “accessibility” and found over 1440 repositories/things. This project was recently launched at the Open Source and Accessibility Summit and is supported by the GitHub Tides Foundation, NIDILRR’s RERC program (90REGE0026) and in collaboration with other open-source and accessibility focused organizations and leaders including GitHub’s Ed Summers, CAOS and GOAT.
Next, we have been talking to disabled innovators. We presented a paper at ASSETS 2025 that highlights cultural processes of finding community and building solidarity, valuing disabled agency and knowledge, and rejecting ableist norms. To see how these cultural aspects might inform accessibility technology design, we studied accessibility technologies made by disabled people for disabled people – interviewing disabled innovators who had created and disseminated accessibility technologies. We asked these innovators to share their stories and reflect on goals and values they imbued in their innovations. We analyzed how cultural themes of belonging, knowledge, and creativity influenced their work. Our work highlights the potential of a cultural lens in aligning accessibility technology with disabled people’s values as well as unearthing new directions for inquiry for the field: Exploring Disability Culture Through Accounts of Disabled Innovators of Accessibility Technology, by Aashaka Desai, Jennifer Mankoff, Richard E. Ladner (ASSETS ’25)
Tactile graphics present visual information to blind and visually-impaired individuals in an accessible way, through touch. Current methods for producing tactile graphics, such as embossing or swell-paper printing, have limitations such as durability – and the tools required to produce them are limited in expressiveness. In this project, we explore embroidery as a medium for producing tactile graphics. Embroidery, traditionally known for its variety and visual beauty, offers not just improved durability and ease of production – but the ability to convey information through a broad range of stitch types. Following an exploration of the design space of embroidered tactile graphics, we identify key perceptual properties that impact how embroidered textures are differentiated. Based on these differences, we introduce an optimization algorithm for assigning textures to regions of tactile graphics in a way that makes them diverse and legible. We implement an end-to-end pipeline for producing embroidered tactile graphics and evaluate the comprehensibility and legibility of our design with 6 blind participants. Our findings showed that embroidered tactile graphics present information accurately and comprehensively, and that measurable properties, such as the use of spacing and distinctiveness, were an important factor of expressive and legible design.
Lots of people have ideas about what “accessible” means — but they don’t all agree. Maybe we should ask disabled people. We could also learn a lot by asking a wide variety of disabled people, including disabled people who are gender diverse, racially diverse, have multiple disabilities, and have a wide range of disabilities.
We asked 25 disabled people about what accessibility means to them. We learned that it goes beyond typical definitions of addressing an impairment of some kind. We also learned about how people decide what accessibility technologies they want to use. Many people told us that they choose from many possible approaches in each specific situation, weighing all the available options and their priorities in a so-called “consequence calculus”.
In this paper, we examine why promises of empowerment through AT continue to fall short for many underserved populations, even as new innovations emerge every day. We found that low-income, racially diverse, and disabled families usually bear higher costs of access due to bureaucratic red tape that disproportionately affects them. We argue that accessibility research needs a new framework — one that recognizes the sociopolitical realities shaping how families navigate and sustain access. To that end, we introduce the concept of minor resistance to capture the everyday strategies families devise to exercise agency within unequal power dynamics. By focusing on these grassroots practices, we show how technology can be reimagined to help communities build collective power.
Telehealth and digital health innovations: A mixed landscape of access Phuong J, Ordóñez P, Cao J, Moukheiber M, Moukheiber L, et al. (2023) Telehealth and digital health innovations: A mixed landscape of access. PLOS Digital Health 2(12): e0000401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000401
In the wake of emergent natural and anthropogenic disasters, telehealth presents opportunities to improve access to healthcare when physical access is not possible. Yet, since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, lessons learned reveal that various populations in the United States do not or cannot adopt telehealth due to inequitable access. We explored the Digital Determinants of Health (DDoHs) for telehealth, characterizing the role of accessibility, broadband connectivity and electrical grids, and patient intersectionality. In addition to its role as an existing Social Determinant of Health, Policies and Laws directly and indirectly affect these DDoHs, making access more complex for marginalized populations. Digital systems lack the flexibility, accessibility, and usability to inclusively provide the essential services patients need in telehealth. We propose the following recommendations: (1) design technology and systems using accessibility and value sensitive design principles; (2) support a range of technologies and settings; (3) support multiple and diverse users; and (4) support clear paths for repair when technical systems fail to meet users’ needs. Addressing these requires change not only from providers but also from the institutions providing these systems.