skip to main content
10.1145/3603555.3603569acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmucConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Accessible Text Tools for People with Cognitive Impairments and Non-Native Readers: Challenges and Opportunities

Published:03 September 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Many people have problems with reading, which limits their ability to participate in society. This paper explores tools that make text more accessible. For this, we interviewed experts, who proposed tools for different stakeholders and scenarios. Important stakeholders of such tools are people with cognitive impairments and non-native readers. Frequently mentioned scenarios are public administration, the medical domain, and everyday life. The tools proposed by experts support stakeholders by improving how text is compressed, expanded, reviewed, and experienced. In a survey of stakeholders, we confirm that the scenarios are relevant and that the proposed tools appear helpful to them. We provide the Accessible Text Framework to help researchers understand how the different tools can be combined and discuss how individual tools can be implemented. The investigation shows that accessible text tools are an important HCI+AI challenge that a large number of people can benefit from.

References

  1. Basant Agarwal, Heri Ramampiaro, Helge Langseth, and Massimiliano Ruocco. 2018. A deep network model for paraphrase detection in short text messages. Information Processing & Management 54, 6 (2018), 922–937.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Suha S. Al-Thanyyan and Aqil M. Azmi. 2021. Automated Text Simplification: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 2, Article 43 (March 2021), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442695Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Oliver Alonzo, Matthew Seita, Abraham Glasser, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2020. Automatic Text Simplification Tools for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Adults: Benefits of Lexical Simplification and Providing Users with Autonomy. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376563Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Fernando Alva-Manchego, Carolina Scarton, and Lucia Specia. 2020. Data-driven sentence simplification: Survey and benchmark. Computational Linguistics 46, 1 (2020), 135–187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Oscar Alvarado, Hendrik Heuer, Vero Vanden Abeele, Andreas Breiter, and Katrien Verbert. 2020. Middle-Aged Video Consumers’ Beliefs About Algorithmic Recommendations on YouTube. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 4, CSCW2, Article 121 (oct 2020), 24 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415192Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Karin Bendixen and Maria Benktzon. 2015. Design for All in Scandinavia – A strong concept. Applied Ergonomics 46 (2015), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.004 Special Issue: Inclusive Design.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Larwan Berke, Sushant Kafle, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2018. Methods for Evaluation of Imperfect Captioning Tools by Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing Users at Different Reading Literacy Levels. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173665Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jeffrey P Bigham and Patrick Carrington. 2018. Learning from the front: People with disabilities as early adopters of AI. In Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Conference of the Human Computer Interaction Consortium (HCIC).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. BIK für Alle. 2021. German Agencies for Easy Language. https://bik-fuer-alle.de/agenturen-fuer-leichte-sprache.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Stefan Bott, Horacio Saggion, and David Figueroa. 2012. A hybrid system for spanish text simplification. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Speech and Language Processing for Assistive Technologies. 75–84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. LouAnne E. Boyd, Alejandro Rangel, Helen Tomimbang, Andrea Conejo-Toledo, Kanika Patel, Monica Tentori, and Gillian R. Hayes. 2016. SayWAT: Augmenting Face-to-Face Conversations for Adults with Autism. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 4872–4883. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858215Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Erin L Brady, Yu Zhong, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2013. Investigating the appropriateness of social network question asking as a resource for blind users. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 1225–1236.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Danielle Bragg, Oscar Koller, Mary Bellard, Larwan Berke, Patrick Boudreault, Annelies Braffort, Naomi Caselli, Matt Huenerfauth, Hernisa Kacorri, Tessa Verhoef, 2019. Sign language recognition, generation, and translation: An interdisciplinary perspective. In The 21st international ACM SIGACCESS conference on computers and accessibility. 16–31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Danielle Bragg, Oscar Koller, Naomi Caselli, and William Thies. 2020. Exploring collection of sign language datasets: Privacy, participation, and model performance. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (jan 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Ursula Bredel and Christiane Maaß. 2016. Leichte Sprache: Theoretische Grundlagen? Orientierung für die Praxis. Bibliographisches Institut GmbH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Deutscher Bundestag. 2018. Gesetz zur Gleichstellung von Menschen mit Behinderungen (Behindertengleichstellungsgesetz–BGG).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Elena Cabrio and Serena Villata. 2018. Five Years of Argument Mining: a Data-driven Analysis.. In IJCAI, Vol. 18. 5427–5433.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. R Chandrasekar and B Srinivas. 1997. Automatic induction of rules for text simplification. Knowledge-Based Systems 10, 3 (1997), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-7051(97)00029-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Esther Chiner, Marcos Gómez-Puerta, and María Cristina Cardona-Moltó. 2017. Internet use, risks and online behaviour: The view of internet users with intellectual disabilities and their caregivers. British Journal of Learning Disabilities 45, 3 (2017), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12192 arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/bld.12192Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Wendy Chisholm and Matt May. 2008. Universal design for web applications: Web applications that reach everyone. O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ryan Colin Gibson, Mark D. Dunlop, and Matt-Mouley Bouamrane. 2020. Lessons from expert focus groups on how to better support adults with mild intellectual disabilities to engage in co-design. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Juliet Corbin and Anselm Strauss. 2014. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Raymundo Cornejo, Robin Brewer, Caroline Edasis, and Anne Marie Piper. 2016. Vulnerability, sharing, and privacy: Analyzing art therapy for older adults with dementia. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 1572–1583.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. William Coster and David Kauchak. 2011. Simple English Wikipedia: a new text simplification task. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 665–669.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Anna Decker. 2003. Towards automatic grammatical simplification of swedish text. Stockholm University Department of Linguistics Computational Linguistics (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Siobhan Devlin and Gary Unthank. 2006. Helping Aphasic People Process Online Information. In Proceedings of the 8th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Portland, Oregon, USA) (Assets ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 225–226. https://doi.org/10.1145/1168987.1169027Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. William B Dolan and Chris Brockett. 2005. Automatically constructing a corpus of sentential paraphrases. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Paraphrasing (IWP2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Elizabeth Ellcessor. 2010. Bridging disability divides: A critical history of web content accessibility through 2001. Information, Communication & Society 13, 3 (2010), 289–308.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Günes Erkan and Dragomir R Radev. 2004. Lexrank: Graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization. Journal of artificial intelligence research 22 (2004), 457–479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Jinjuan Feng, Jonathan Lazar, Libby Kumin, and Ant Ozok. 2010. Computer Usage by Children with Down Syndrome: Challenges and Future Research. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 2, 3, Article 13 (mar 2010), 44 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1714458.1714460Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Christopher Frauenberger. 2015. Disability and technology: A critical realist perspective. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. 89–96.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Regine M Gilbert. 2019. Inclusive Design for a Digital World: Designing with accessibility in mind. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Itziar Gonzalez-Dios, María Jesús Aranzabe, Arantza Díaz de Ilarraza, and Haritz Salaberri. 2014. Simple or complex? assessing the readability of basque texts. In Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th international conference on computational linguistics: Technical papers. 334–344.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Anke Grotlüschen and Klaus Buddeberg. 2020. LEO 2018: Leben mit geringer Literalität. wbv.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Anke Grotlüschen, Klaus Buddeberg, Gregor Dutz, Lisanne Heilmann, and Christopher Stammer. 2020. Low literacy in Germany. Results from the second German literacy survey. European journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults 11, 1 (2020), 127–143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Leonor GuimarãEs, Nuno Martins, Leonardo Pereira, Eliana Penedos-Santiago, and Daniel BrandãO. 2023. Interface Design Guidelines for Low Literature Users: A Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 2022 6th International Conference on Education and E-Learning (Yamanashi, Japan) (ICEEL ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3578837.3578842Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Birgit Hamp and Helmut Feldweg. 1997. Germanet-a lexical-semantic net for german. In Automatic information extraction and building of lexical semantic resources for NLP applications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Kotaro Hara and Shamsi T. Iqbal. 2015. Effect of Machine Translation in Interlingual Conversation: Lessons from a Formative Study. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3473–3482. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702407Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Naeemul Hassan, Mohammad Yousuf, Md Mahfuzul Haque, Javier A. Suarez Rivas, and Md Khadimul Islam. 2019. Examining the Roles of Automation, Crowds and Professionals Towards Sustainable Fact-Checking. In Companion Proceedings of The 2019 World Wide Web Conference (San Francisco, USA) (WWW ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1145/3308560.3316734Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Jonathan L Herlocker, Joseph A Konstan, and John Riedl. 2000. Explaining collaborative filtering recommendations. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work. 241–250.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Hendrik Heuer. 2020. Users & Machine Learning-based Curation Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Hendrik Heuer and Elena Leah Glassman. 2023. Accessible Text Tools: Where They Are Needed & What They Should Look Like. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany) (CHI EA ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 20, 7 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544549.3585749Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Hendrik Heuer, Juliane Jarke, and Andreas Breiter. 2021. Machine learning in tutorials – Universal applicability, underinformed application, and other misconceptions. Big Data & Society 8, 1 (2021), 20539517211017593. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211017593 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211017593Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Harald Holone and Jo Herstad. 2013. Three Tensions in Participatory Design for Inclusion. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2903–2906. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2481401Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Hurraki contributors. 2021. Hurraki, Wörterbuch für Leichte Sprache. https://hurraki.de/wiki/Hauptseite. [Online; accessed 25-June-2021].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Dietmar Jannach, Markus Zanker, Alexander Felfernig, and Gerhard Friedrich. 2010. Recommender systems: an introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Juliane Jarke. 2021. Co-creating Digital Public Services for an Ageing Society : Evidence for User-centric Design. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52873-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Stefan Johansson. 2019. Design for participation and inclusion will follow: Disabled people and the digital society. Ph. D. Dissertation. KTH Royal Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Sushant Kafle and Matt Huenerfauth. 2019. Predicting the Understandability of Imperfect English Captions for People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 12, 2, Article 7 (jun 2019), 32 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3325862Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Katherine M. King. 2019. Can Google Translate Be Taught To Translate Literature? A Case for Humanists To Collaborate in the Future of Machine Translation. Translation Review 105, 1 (2019), 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2019.1673268 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/07374836.2019.1673268Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. David Klaper, Sarah Ebling, and Martin Volk. 2013. Building a German/simple German parallel corpus for automatic text simplification. (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Jumpei Kobayashi and Toshio Kawashima. 2019. Paragraph-Based Faded Text Facilitates Reading Comprehension. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300392Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Joseph A Konstan, Bradley N Miller, David Maltz, Jonathan L Herlocker, Lee R Gordon, and John Riedl. 1997. Grouplens: Applying collaborative filtering to usenet news. Commun. ACM 40, 3 (1997), 77–87.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Wojciech Kryściński, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2019. Neural text summarization: A critical evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.08960 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Inghard Langer, Friedemann Schulz von Thun, and Reinhard Tausch. 2015. Sich verständlich ausdrücken. Aufl. München: reinhardt (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Daniel J. Liebling, Michal Lahav, Abigail Evans, Aaron Donsbach, Jess Holbrook, Boris Smus, and Lindsey Boran. 2020. Unmet Needs and Opportunities for Mobile Translation AI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376261Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  58. Peng Liu, Xianghua Ding, and Ning Gu. 2016. “Helping Others Makes Me Happy” Social Interaction and Integration of People with Disabilities. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. 1596–1608.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. H. P. Luhn. 1958. The Automatic Creation of Literature Abstracts. IBM Journal of Research and Development 2, 2 (1958), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1147/rd.22.0159Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Christiane Maaß. 2019. Leichte Sprache. Das Regelbuch. Lit-Verlag, Münster. 184 pages. https://doi.org/10.25528/018Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  61. Christiane Maaß. 2020. Easy Language–Plain Language–Easy Language Plus: Balancing comprehensibility and acceptability. Frank & Timme.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Kelly Mack, Emma McDonnell, Dhruv Jain, Lucy Lu Wang, Jon E. Froehlich, and Leah Findlater. 2021. What Do We Mean by “Accessibility Research”? A Literature Survey of Accessibility Papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 371, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445412Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Wendy E Mackay. 1990. Users and customizable software: A co-adaptive phenomenon. Ph. D. Dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Abdullah Al Mahmud and Jean-Bernard Martens. 2015. Iterative Design and Field Trial of an Aphasia-Friendly Email Tool. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 7, 4, Article 13 (nov 2015), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2790305Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Jennifer Mankoff, Gillian R Hayes, and Devva Kasnitz. 2010. Disability studies as a source of critical inquiry for the field of assistive technology. In Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility. 3–10.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Paulo R. A. Margarido, Thiago A. S. Pardo, Gabriel M. Antonio, Vinícius B. Fuentes, Rachel Aires, Sandra M. Aluísio, and Renata P. M. Fortes. 2008. Automatic Summarization for Text Simplification: Evaluating Text Understanding by Poor Readers. In Companion Proceedings of the XIV Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web (Vila Velha, Espírito Santo, Brazil) (WebMedia ’08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1145/1809980.1810057Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  67. Kerstin Matausch and Birgit Peböck. 2010. Easyweb–a study how people with specific learning difficulties can be supported on using the internet. In International Conference on Computers for Handicapped Persons. Springer, 641–648.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Indrani Medhi, Somani Patnaik, Emma Brunskill, S.N. Nagasena Gautama, William Thies, and Kentaro Toyama. 2011. Designing Mobile Interfaces for Novice and Low-Literacy Users. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 18, 1, Article 2 (may 2011), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1959022.1959024Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Rada Mihalcea and Paul Tarau. 2004. Textrank: Bringing order into text. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing. 404–411.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. George A Miller. 1995. WordNet: a lexical database for English. Commun. ACM 38, 11 (1995), 39–41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Cosmin Munteanu, Heather Molyneaux, Julie Maitland, Daniel McDonald, Rock Leung, Joanna Lumsden, and Hélène Fournier. 2012. Tale of Two Studies: Challenges in Field Research with Low-Literacy Adult Learners in a Developed Country. In CHI ’12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI EA ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1145/2212776.2212825Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  73. Mansour Neubauer. 2019. Einfache Sprache: Grundregeln, Beispiele, Übungen: Schreiben und Sprechen in Einfacher Sprache. Author’s edition (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Sergiu Nisioi, Sanja Štajner, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Liviu P Dinu. 2017. Exploring neural text simplification models. In Proceedings of the 55th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 2: Short papers). 85–91.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2018. PISA 2018 results. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/pisa-2018-results.htm# [Online; accessed 28-July-2021].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. OpenAI. 2021. Examples. https://beta.openai.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  77. Oxford English Dictionary. 2021. accessible, adj.https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/1034?redirectedFrom=accessibleGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  78. Gustavo H Paetzold and Lucia Specia. 2017. A survey on lexical simplification. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 60 (2017), 549–593.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  79. Alexander M Rush, Sumit Chopra, and Jason Weston. 2015. A neural attention model for abstractive sentence summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.00685 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. Horacio Saggion. 2017. Automatic text simplification. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies 10, 1 (2017), 1–137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  81. Horacio Saggion, Sanja Štajner, Stefan Bott, Simon Mille, Luz Rello, and Biljana Drndarevic. 2015. Making It Simplext: Implementation and Evaluation of a Text Simplification System for Spanish. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 6, 4, Article 14 (may 2015), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2738046Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  82. Magnus Sahlgren. 2008. The distributional hypothesis. Italian Journal of Linguistics 20 (Jan. 2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  83. Matthew Shardlow. 2014. A survey of automated text simplification. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications 4, 1 (2014), 58–70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  84. Sumita Sharma, Saurabh Srivastava, Krishnaveni Achary, Blessin Varkey, Tomi Heimonen, Jaakko Samuli Hakulinen, Markku Turunen, and Nitendra Rajput. 2016. Promoting joint attention with computer supported collaboration in children with autism. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing. 1560–1571.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  85. Advaith Siddharthan. 2014. A survey of research on text simplification. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics 165, 2 (2014), 259–298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  86. Gabriella Skitalinskaya, Jonas Klaff, and Henning Wachsmuth. 2021. Learning From Revisions: Quality Assessment of Claims in Argumentation at Scale. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume. Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 1718–1729. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.eacl-main.147Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  87. Lucia Specia. 2010. Translating from complex to simplified sentences. In International Conference on Computational Processing of the Portuguese Language. Springer, 30–39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  88. Katta Spiel, Christopher Frauenberger, Os Keyes, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2019. Agency of autistic children in technology research—A critical literature review. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 26, 6 (2019), 1–40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  89. Katta Spiel, Kathrin Gerling, Cynthia L Bennett, Emeline Brulé, Rua M Williams, Jennifer Rode, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2020. Nothing about us without us: Investigating the role of critical disability studies in hci. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  90. Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul Christiano. 2020. Learning to summarize from human feedback. arxiv:2009.01325 [cs.CL]Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  91. Julia Suter, Sarah Ebling, and Martin Volk. 2016. Rule-based automatic text simplification for German. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  92. Juan-Manuel Torres-Moreno. 2014. Automatic text summarization. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  93. United Nations. 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Treaty Series 2515 (Dec. 2006), 3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  94. Sukrit Venkatagiri, Jacob Thebault-Spieker, Rachel Kohler, John Purviance, Rifat Sabbir Mansur, and Kurt Luther. 2019. GroundTruth: Augmenting Expert Image Geolocation with Crowdsourcing and Shared Representations. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 3, CSCW, Article 107 (Nov. 2019), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359209Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  95. Henning Wachsmuth, Nona Naderi, Yufang Hou, Yonatan Bilu, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Tim Alberdingk Thijm, Graeme Hirst, and Benno Stein. 2017. Computational argumentation quality assessment in natural language. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers. 176–187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  96. Willian M. Watanabe, Arnaldo Candido, Marcelo A. Amâncio, Matheus de Oliveira, Thiago A. S. Pardo, Renata P. M. Fortes, and Sandra M. Aluísio. 2010. Adapting Web Content for Low-Literacy Readers by Using Lexical Elaboration and Named Entities Labeling. In Proceedings of the 2010 International Cross Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A) (Raleigh, North Carolina) (W4A ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 8, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1805986.1805998Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  97. Willian Massami Watanabe, Arnaldo Candido Junior, Vinícius Rodriguez Uzêda, Renata Pontin de Mattos Fortes, Thiago Alexandre Salgueiro Pardo, and Sandra Maria Aluísio. 2009. Facilita: Reading Assistance for Low-Literacy Readers. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (Bloomington, Indiana, USA) (SIGDOC ’09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1621995.1622002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  98. Wikipedia contributors. 2021. Functional illiteracy — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Functional_illiteracy&oldid=1021404558 [Online; accessed 28-May-2021].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  99. Wikipedia contributors. 2021. List of countries by literacy rate — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_literacy_rate&oldid=1021549466 [Online; accessed 27-May-2021].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  100. Wikipedia contributors. 2021. List of languages by total number of speakers — Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers&oldid=1033562179. [Online; accessed 21-July-2021].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  101. Kristian Woodsend and Mirella Lapata. 2011. WikiSimple: Automatic simplification of Wikipedia articles. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  102. Sander Wubben, EJ Krahmer, and APJ van den Bosch. 2012. Sentence simplification by monolingual machine translation. (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  103. Naomi Yamashita and Toru Ishida. 2006. Effects of Machine Translation on Collaborative Work. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (Banff, Alberta, Canada) (CSCW ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1145/1180875.1180955Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  104. Jingqing Zhang, Yao Zhao, Mohammad Saleh, and Peter Liu. 2020. Pegasus: Pre-training with extracted gap-sentences for abstractive summarization. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 11328–11339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  105. Xingxing Zhang and Mirella Lapata. 2017. Sentence simplification with deep reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.10931 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  106. Kristin Alfredsson Ågren, Anette Kjellberg, and Helena Hemmingsson. 2020. Digital participation? Internet use among adolescents with and without intellectual disabilities: A comparative study. New Media & Society 22, 12 (2020), 2128–2145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819888398 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819888398Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Accessible Text Tools for People with Cognitive Impairments and Non-Native Readers: Challenges and Opportunities

      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
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)104
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)9

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format