is description sufficient for accessibility?. who we are rob wall emerson, dawn anderson western...

Mathematical Images in Textbooks

Is Description Sufficient for Accessibility?

Who we areRob Wall Emerson, Dawn Anderson

Western Michigan University

Under contract from MeTRC (Mathematics eText Research Center) at University of OregonMark Horney

Getting in Touch With Literacy 2015

What we are looking atHow best to describe the image components

found in typical math textbooks (not the math equations)What types of images require what level of

description? Are there types of images whose content cannot be

adequately conveyed by any description?

We are not looking technological solutions but try to present material in a way as close as possible to a common student educational experience


Identifying image categoriesWe categorized images in representative

math texts from grades 5, 8, and 11.Identified 21 exhaustive and mutually

exclusive image categories Some were more common than others (e.g.,

line graphs and tables more common than pie charts and models)

To control the study we limited use to “math heavy” categories


Category frequencyFirst tier categories appear either on nearly every page of a text or several times on a page within certain areas of a text. Second tier images are more specific and appear occasionally, usually to serve a specific purpose. Third tier images appear infrequently. Note: 4465 pages of text were involved in the counting. The most commonly occurring image categories (from most to least) in the first tier were: 1. Side images (background picture, graphic unrelated to

question, organizational banners, headers, icons, extra features notation)

2. balloon/sidebar 3. shapes/2D or 3D representation 4. question specific image (1926) 5. table (1785) 6. scatterplot/line graph (1305)

7. equation (1109) Getting in Touch With Literacy 2015

The most commonly occurring image categories (from most to least) in the second tier were: 1. models (used to indicate similarity) (755) 2. ray/line diagram (722) 3. calculator stuff (509)

4. organizational aid (397 5. procedural aid (266)

6. number line (252) 7. directions/illustrations of a physical task (197) The most commonly occurring image categories (from most to least) in the third tier were: 1. pattern/series (101)

2. pie chart (92) 3. screen shot (87) 4. bar graph (87) 5. flow chart (72) 6. maps (50) 7. picture in a picture (9)


Meta categories4 “meta categories” represent context for the

imagesintroducing conceptsguided exampleshort questionreal world manipulative


Differences between gradesMinor variations between texts for different

gradesMain differences were that grade 5 used

more models, procedural aids, and number lines

Grade 8 and 11 used more calculator stuff, line graphs, and ray/line diagrams


Playing the filesWord documents were created that mirrored

the physical page in layout and coloring.Each file contains images and ancillary text

to provide context.Math content that was not image related was

translated using MathML and MathType and the entire file spoken using JAWS.


Our basic approachFiles had varying levels of description.

None (“image”)Terse (“image of a graph”)NCAM standard Extended

Files longer than 90 seconds were eliminated after pilot trials

Students were assessed on capture of content, ease of capture of audible material, and preference of presentation.

Students each performed between 9 and 20 trials


Participants44 students, mainly in grades 8 and 11 (3 in

grade 5)

5 in Illinois, 31 in Texas, 8 in TennesseeOnly 16 of the 44 were caucasianBased on their reading format, 25 were braille

users (used as a proxy for blind), 19 used some form of print (used as a proxy for low vision)


Their relationship with math25 were positive about math, 11 were

negative32 felt they were good at math

18 had no issues with their texts. Of the others, most common complaints were braille errors in the text and graphs or images not made correctly or not read out

34 had no issues with assessments. Only 3 mentioned issues with inability to access graphs or images


Good and bad impressionsKeeping it short was good, not enough info

givenGiving detailed information, giving too much

informationVoice changed to illustrate text changes,

voice changed too muchVoice was easy to understand, voice was

confusingThings were described well, things were not

described wellGetting in Touch With Literacy 2015

What needs more description?Pictures 16Graphs 16Maps 4Tables 4Shapes and lines 2Everything 2Page formatting 1Angles 1Histograms 1Pie charts 1


What needs less description?Nothing 13One picture 7I don’t know 4Graphs with extra info 4Words, letters 3Irrelevant stuff 3Equations, formulas 2Some diagrams 1Tables 1Maps 1A couple of pictures 1Line segments 1


Would you like everything described?Yes 22No 13Maybe 7


Results of first content question (I don’t know = wrong)

χ2(3) = 20.91, p < .0001

Wrong Right % correct

Control 124 22 15.06

Terse 125 19 13.19

NCAM 105 43 29.05

Extended 106 46 30.26



χ2(3) = 9.12, p = .028 (with manipulative group)

χ2(2) = 8.05, p = .018 (without manipulative group)


Intro 150 53 26.11

Short example 189 35 15.63

Guided example

112 37 24.83

Manipulative 10 5 33.33



χ2(10) = 31.61, p < .0001 (with manipulative group)χ2(9) = 28.43, p = .001 (without manipulative group)


Question specific image

67 12 15.19

Equation 33 2 5.71

Shapes 41 12 22.64

Table 34 16 32.0

Line graph 45 22 32.84

Bar graph 49 14 22.22

Manipulative 6 5 45.45

Pie chart 37 6 13.95

Number line 23 16 41.03

Ray diagram 59 14 19.18

Map 67 11 14.10


General findingsFor many images standard description is useful

but giving more than that is counter productive (especially tables and line graphs)

It is surprising how much students do not know what they do not know

Students often do not realize they are missing key information (assume errors lie with themselves)

When only the word “image” is presented, they often think that what comes next is a description of the image, causing further confusion


Multi modal presentationA major trend seems to be that many

image categories would benefit from a multi-modal presentation of content

Have an audio version with description and for image related content, also have a braille version of the “description” and a tactile image.


Thank you

Robert Wall EmersonWestern Michigan UniversityDepartment of Blindness and Low Vision [email protected]

Dawn AndersonWestern Michigan UniversityDepartment of Blindness and Low Vision [email protected]


is description sufficient for accessibility?. who we are rob wall emerson, dawn anderson western...

Documents