skip to main content
10.1145/1296843.1296857acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesassetsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Improving accessibility to statistical graphs: the iGraph-Lite system

Published:15 October 2007Publication History

ABSTRACT

Information is often presented in graphical form. Unfortunately, current assistive technologies such as screen readers are not well-equipped to handle these representations. To provide accessibility to graphs published in ``The Daily" (Statistics Canada's main dissemination venue), we have developed iGraph-Lite, a system that provides short verbal descriptions of the information depicted in graphs and a way to also interact with this information.

References

  1. L. Brown and S. Brewster. Drawing by ear: Interpreting sonified line graphs. In Proceedings of ICAD 2003, pages 152--156. ICAD, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. L. Brown, S. Brewster, R. Ramloll, M. Burton, and B. Riedel. Design guide-lines for audio presentation of graphs and tables. In Proceedings of ICAD 2003 Workshop on Auditory Displays In Assistive Technologies. University of Boston, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. D. Chester and S. Elzer. Getting computers to see information graphics so users do not have to. In ISMIS, pages 660--668, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. R. F. Cohen, R. Yu, A. Meacham, and J. Skaff. Plumb: displaying graphs to the blind using an active auditory interface. In Assets '05: Proceedings of the 7th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility, pages 182--183, New York, NY, USA, 2005. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. M. Corio and G. Lapalme. Generation of texts for information graphics. In P. Saint-Dizier, editor, Proceedings of the 7th. European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (EWNLG'99), pages 49--58, Toulouse, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. K. V. Deemter, E. Krahmer, and M. Theune. Real versus template-based natural language generation: A false opposition? Comput. Linguist., 31(1):15--24, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. S. Elzer, E. Schwartz, S. Carberry, D. Chester, S. Demir, and P. Wu. A browser extension for providing visually impaired users access to the content of bar charts on the web. In Proceedings of International Conference on Web Information Systems (WEBIST), 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Fasciano and G. Lapalme. Postgraphe: a system for the generation of statistical graphics and text. In Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Natural Language Generation (INLG-96), 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. L. Ferres, A. Parush, Z. Li, Y. Oppacher, and G. Lindgaard. Representing and querying line graphs in natural language: The iGraph system. In SmartGraphics 2006, number 4073 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 248--253, Berlin Heidelberg, 2006. Springer-Verlag.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. L. Ferres, A. Parush, S. Roberts, and G. Lindgaard. Helping people with visual impairments gain access to graphical information through natural language: The igraph system. In Proceedings of the 10thICCHP, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. L. Ferres, L. Sumegi, G. Lindgaard, and A. Parush. Design and testing of a graph accessibility system: The iGraph navigation tool. Submitted.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. L. Ferres, L. Sumegi, A. Parush, P. Verkhogliad, and G. Lindgaard. Natural language interaction with graphical information: the iGraph-Lite navigation tool. Submitted.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. L. Ferres and P. Verkhogliad. Algorithms to describe graphs qualitatively. In Preparation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J. Flowers. Thirteen years of reflection on auditory graphing: Promises, pitfalls, and potential new directions. In Proceedings of ICAD 05-Eleventh Meeting of the International Conference on Auditory Display, pages 1--5, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. M. E. Foster. Automatically generating text to accompany information graphics. Master's thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, September 1999. Also published as technical report CSRI-397.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. M. E. Foster and M. White. Techniques for text planning with XSLT. In Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on NLP and XML (NLPXML 2004), Barcelona, July 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. A. R. Kennel. Audiograf: a diagram--reader for the blind. In Assets '96: Proceedings of the second annual ACM conference on Assistive technologies, pages 51--56, New York, NY, USA, 1996. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. K. Kukich. Design and implementation of a knowledge-based report generator. In Proceedings of ACL--1983, pages 145--150, 1983. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. M. Kurze. Giving blind people access to graphics (example: Business graphics). In Proc. Software-Ergonomie 95 Workshop Nicht-visuelle graphische Benutzungsoberüchen, Darmstadt, Germany, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. D. K. McGookin and S. A. Brewster. Soundbar: exploiting multiple views in multimodal graph browsing. In NordiCHI '06: Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction, pages 145--154, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. V. O. Mittal, G. Carenini, J. D. Moore, and S. Roth. Describing complex charts in natural language: a caption generation system. Computational Linguistics, 24(3):431--467, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. A. Paivio and H. W. Okovita. Word imagery modalities and associative learning in blind and sighted subjects. Journal of Verbal Learning And Verbal Behavior, 10:506--510, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. A. Parush, L. Ferres, M. Rasouli, and G. Lindgaard. Impact of external representation and task on graph comprehension. In R. Sun, editor, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Society, pages 1932--1938, Mahwah, New Jersey, 2006. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. S. R. Patil. Accessible image file formats: the need and the way (position paper). In W4A '07: Proceedings of the 2007 international cross-disciplinary workshop on Web accessibility (W4A), pages 40--43, New York, NY, USA, 2007. ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. S. Pinker. A theory of graph comprehension. In R. Freedle, editor, Artificial intelligence and the future of testing, pages 73--126. L. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1990.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. E. Reiter. NLG vs. templates. In Proceedings of the 5th European Workshop in Natural Language Generation, pages 95--105, Leiden, NL, May 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. E. Reiter. An architecture for data-to-text systems. In Proceedings of ENLG-2007, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. E. Reiter and R. Dale. Building Natural Language Generation Systems. Cambridge University Press, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. S. Sripada and F. Gao. Summarizing dive computer data: A case study in integrating textual and graphical presentations of numerical data. In Proceedings of Workshop on Multimodal Output Generation, volume CTIT Proceedings of the Workshop on Multimodal Output Generation, pages 149--157, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. S. Sripada, E. Reiter, and I. Davy. Sumtime-mousam: Configurable marine weather forecast generator. Expert Update, 6:4--10, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. G. Wilcock. Pipelines, templates and transformations: XML for natural language generation. In Proceedings of the 1st NLP and XML Workshop, pages 1--8, Tokyo, Japan, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. J. Yu, E. Reiter, J. Hunter, and C. Mellish. Choosing the content of textual summaries of large time-series data sets. Natural Language Engineering, 13(1):25--49, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. J. Yu, E. Reiter, J. Hunter, and S. Sripada. Sumtime-turbine: A knowledge-based system to communicate time series data in the gas turbine domain. In Proceedings of IEA/AIE-2003, pages 379--384, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. W. Yu and S. A. Brewster. Evaluation of multimodal graphs for blind people. Universal Access in the Information Society, 2(2):105--124, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Improving accessibility to statistical graphs: the iGraph-Lite system

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        Assets '07: Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility
        October 2007
        282 pages
        ISBN:9781595935731
        DOI:10.1145/1296843

        Copyright © 2007 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 15 October 2007

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate436of1,556submissions,28%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader