发表机构
University of Victoria; Singapore Management University（维多利亚大学; 新加坡管理大学）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
该研究对比问答界面（QAI）与文档界面（DI）对16名屏幕阅读器盲/低视力用户探索虚构世界的影响，发现DI更利于知识构建，但多数用户仍偏好QAI且存在认知偏差，凸显QAI访问信息空间的风险。
AI 中文摘要
盲人和低视力（BLV）用户越来越多地使用大语言模型（LLM）界面访问文档，但目前尚不清楚这类系统如何支持或阻碍他们构建互联知识的能力。为研究这一差距，我们将支持开放式对话查询的问答界面（QAI）与主要基于传统结构化文本文档导航的文档界面（DI）进行了比较。我们招募了16名使用屏幕阅读器的BLV用户，让他们使用两种界面探索两个虚构世界。来自交互日志、概念图、决策任务和半结构化访谈的数据，为界面设计如何支持知识构建提供了比较见解。研究结果显示，与QAI相比，DI条件下的参与者访问了更多不同的文档，形成了更大、更准确的心智模型，且更能应用所获得的知识。与此同时，许多参与者仍偏好QAI，且经常估计自己通过QAI获取信息时探索得更多、形成的心智模型更好、应用心智模型的能力更强，尽管实际情况并非如此。我们的分析揭示了造成这些差异的可能界面设计原因，并强调了使用问答界面访问信息空间所带来的一些风险。
英文摘要
Blind and low-vision (BLV) users are increasingly engaging with large language model (LLM) interfaces to access documents, but it is unclear how such systems support or hinder their ability to build interconnected knowledge. To examine this gap, we compared a Question-Answer Interface (QAI) that supports open-ended conversational inquiry, with a Document Interface (DI) based mostly on traditional structured text document navigation. We recruited 16 BLV screen reader users where they used both interfaces to explore two fictional worlds. Data from interaction logs, concept maps, decision-based tasks, and semi-structured interviews provide comparative insights into how interface design supports knowledge construction. Findings show that participants visited more distinct documents with the DI and formed larger and more correct mental models with the DI than with the QAI. They were also more able to apply knowledge they had gained. Simultaneously, many still preferred the QAI and often estimated that they had explored more, formed better mental models and applied their models better when acquiring the information with the QAI, despite this not being the case. Our analysis suggests possible interface design reasons for these differences and highlights some of the risks introduced by using question-answer interfaces to access information spaces.
Comments17 pages, 12 figures, accepted at ASSETS 2026
