Designing Accessible Calendar Tools for Blind and Low-Vision Users
Mahmut Erdemli · 2025 · ASSETS 2025: 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663547.3759423
Summary
This extended abstract investigates the accessibility challenges blind and low vision (BLV) users face with calendar applications and explores how voice-activated personal assistants (VAPAs) like Siri and Alexa can enhance calendar usability. The study employed a mixed-methods approach across three phases: a web-based survey (N=18), semi-structured interviews with 4 BLV participants, and a collaborative design workshop with 2 BLV participants testing VAPA prototypes built on the Sesame CSM platform. Participants represented diverse backgrounds across Africa, Europe, Oceania, North America, and Central America, with ages ranging from 18 to 74. The majority (14/18) were blind and used screen readers as their primary assistive technology. The research addresses three questions: how conversational AI can make calendar interactions more accessible, how BLV users define efficiency in calendar use, and what hidden steps BLV users take to manage scheduling. Survey findings revealed widespread accessibility challenges: 15/18 participants reported navigation difficulties, with common issues including inability to determine the current calendar view, inaccessible date pickers (8/18), and difficulty navigating between different calendar views (7/18). Screen reader compatibility was a critical barrier, with JAWS frequently failing to read events beyond the fourth item and unexpectedly jumping between dates.
Key findings
Four main themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: (1) Emotional Impact and Systemic Barriers—participants described emotional frustration, anxiety about missed appointments, and reduced professional confidence due to calendar accessibility issues, extending accessibility concerns beyond technical barriers to psychological well-being. (2) Adaptive Strategies and Technology Assistance—participants developed extensive workarounds including multi-device verification strategies, asking colleagues to send reminders through more accessible platforms, and investing significant effort learning workflows that may change with updates. (3) Interface Challenges and Change Resistance—interface inconsistencies across applications and frequent updates forced participants to repeatedly relearn strategies, creating skepticism about adopting new technologies. (4) Vision for AI-Enhanced Accessibility—participants expressed cautious optimism about VAPAs, valuing voice for quick tasks but requiring visual verification for complex operations. Workshop testing showed VAPAs could handle natural language commands for simple scheduling but struggled with recurring events and context retention across multi-turn conversations. Key design findings include: participants preferred list-based event displays over grid layouts, wanted event titles prioritized before times (contrary to standard chronological ordering), valued the principle of "voice for speed, screen for verification," and defined efficiency not as speed but as reducing mental effort, maintaining verification capabilities, and minimizing scheduling anxiety.
Relevance
This research contributes practical design recommendations for an everyday productivity tool that significantly impacts BLV users' professional and personal lives. The finding that calendar accessibility barriers create employment difficulties—not from interaction complexity but from the inability to manage recurring meetings and coordinate with multiple attendees—highlights how seemingly minor accessibility gaps can have outsized professional consequences. The emotional dimension of calendar accessibility (anxiety, frustration, reduced confidence) is an underexplored area that suggests accessibility research should address psychological impacts alongside technical barriers. The "voice for speed, screen for verification" principle provides a useful framework for hybrid multimodal accessibility design where AI augments rather than replaces established assistive technology workflows. The cross-platform consistency finding reinforces that accessible calendar design must work reliably across devices and platforms, as BLV users frequently use multiple devices for verification.
Tags: blindness · low vision · calendar accessibility · voice assistants · co-design · screen readers · multimodal interaction · workplace accessibility