Arun Krishna Vajjala

Arun Krishnavajjala, SM Hasan Mansur, Justin Jose et al.

Recent research has begun to examine the potential of automatically finding and fixing accessibility issues that manifest in software. However, while recent work makes important progress, it has generally been skewed toward identifying issues that affect users with certain disabilities, such as those with visual or hearing impairments. However, there are other groups of users with different types of disabilities that also need software tooling support to improve their experience. As such, this paper aims to automatically identify accessibility issues that affect users with motor-impairments. To move toward this goal, this paper introduces a novel approach, called MotorEase, capable of identifying accessibility issues in mobile app UIs that impact motor-impaired users. Motor-impaired users often have limited ability to interact with touch-based devices, and instead may make use of a switch or other assistive mechanism -- hence UIs must be designed to support both limited touch gestures and the use of assistive devices. MotorEase adapts computer vision and text processing techniques to enable a semantic understanding of app UI screens, enabling the detection of violations related to four popular, previously unexplored UI design guidelines that support motor-impaired users, including: (i) visual touch target size, (ii) expanding sections, (iii) persisting elements, and (iv) adjacent icon visual distance. We evaluate MotorEase on a newly derived benchmark, called MotorCheck, that contains 555 manually annotated examples of violations to the above accessibility guidelines, across 1599 screens collected from 70 applications via a mobile app testing tool. Our experiments illustrate that MotorEase is able to identify violations with an average accuracy of ~90%, and a false positive rate of less than 9%, outperforming baseline techniques.

Jason Wu, Amanda Swearngin, Arun Krishna Vajjala et al.

Despite being trained on vast amounts of data, most LLMs are unable to reliably generate well-designed UIs. Designer feedback is essential to improving performance on UI generation; however, we find that existing RLHF methods based on ratings or rankings are not well-aligned with designers' workflows and ignore the rich rationale used to critique and improve UI designs. In this paper, we investigate several approaches for designers to give feedback to UI generation models, using familiar interactions such as commenting, sketching and direct manipulation. We first perform a study with 21 designers where they gave feedback using these interactions, which resulted in ~1500 design annotations. We then use this data to finetune a series of LLMs to generate higher quality UIs. Finally, we evaluate these models with human judges, and we find that our designer-aligned approaches outperform models trained with traditional ranking feedback and all tested baselines, including GPT-5.