COMMUNICATIVE ACCESSIBILITY IN THE AGE OF GENERATIVE AI: TOWARD A MULTIMODAL INCLUSIVE COMMUNICATION FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL MEDIA

Article Sidebar

PDF HTML EPUB XML
Published: Aug 7, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2027.60.e985
Keywords:
communicative accessibility, generative artificial intelligence, disability, digital inclusion, multimodal communication, MAIC-Framework

Main Article Content

BRUNO GALASSO
Universidade Federal de São Paulo
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3677-7650

Abstract

This article addresses a critical gap in the digital accessibility literature: the inadequacy of technical standards, most notably the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), for ensuring the communicative participation of persons with disabilities in environments increasingly mediated by generative artificial intelligence (AI). Drawing on an integrative review of 63 sources spanning disability studies, communication sciences, AI ethics, and human-computer interaction, we propose the Multimodal Accessible Inclusive Communication (MAIC) Framework — an original tripartite theoretical architecture organized around three interdependent dimensions. The Technolinguistic Dimension addresses AI system capabilities required for genuine communicative accessibility, including modality coverage, semiotic equivalence, adaptive register generation, and real-time responsiveness. The Sociocommunicational Dimension specifies the institutional, interactional, and structural conditions that transform technical capability into authentic communicative participation. The Ethical-Governance Dimension grounds AI communication governance in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and proposes accountability mechanisms including accessibility impact assessments, participatory design mandates, and algorithmic audits. The Framework’s implications are examined with particular attention to the Ibero-American context, addressing specificities related to Brazilian Sign Language (Libras), regional linguistic diversity, and structural equity in digital access. The MAIC-Framework represents a rights-based, participation-oriented theoretical contribution that advances the field beyond compliance-driven approaches.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
GALASSO, B. (2026). COMMUNICATIVE ACCESSIBILITY IN THE AGE OF GENERATIVE AI: TOWARD A MULTIMODAL INCLUSIVE COMMUNICATION FRAMEWORK FOR DIGITAL MEDIA. Revista de Comunicación de la SEECI, 60, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.15198/seeci.2027.60.e985
Issue
Vol. 60 (2027)
Section
Reviews
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The Journal of Communication of SEECI recognizes and promotes copyright rights, as well as the need to disseminate knowledge in an accessible and equitable manner. Our journal operates under a Creative Commons License CC BY-NC 4.0, which allows authors and users to:

  • Share and Adapt: Copy, redistribute, and adapt the material published in the journal in any medium or format.
  • Attribution: Properly acknowledge authorship and provide a link to the license, indicating if any changes have been made.
  • Non-Commercial: Do not use the material for commercial purposes without the express permission of the authors and the journal.
  • Authors retain copyright and may enter into non-exclusive agreements for self-archiving, deposit, or distribution of the publisher's version published in this journal, including institutional, national, or international repositories, and personal websites.

 

Author Biography

BRUNO GALASSO, Universidade Federal de São Paulo

Associate Professor at the Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP). PhD in Education from the University of São Paulo with a sandwich scholarship at the University of Minho (Portugal), granted by the Erasmus Mundus External Cooperation program (Emundus15). Master's degree in Latin American Integration from the University of São Paulo, with an internship at Harvard University (USA). Specialist in Planning, Implementation and Management of Distance Education from the Federal Fluminense University (UFF). Master of Business Administration in Strategic and Economic Project Management from FGV. Specialist in the Development of Innovative Solutions for Distance Education from UNIVESP. Master of Business Administration in Public Institution Management from the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Rondônia. Specialist in Curriculum and Teaching Practice in the early years of Elementary Education from the Federal University of Piauí. Graduated in Pedagogy, Social Communication and Letters. Academic consultant and project manager in the area of ​​Digital Education. Responsible for the implementation of the UAB model at the National Institute of Education for the Deaf (INES), being the first general coordinator at the institution. Founder of the Online Education Center (NEO) at the National Institute for Deaf Education. Responsible for the didactic-pedagogical design, implementation, and management of the Bilingual Pedagogy Course in the five macro-regions of Brazil. Consultant for INEP (National Institute for Educational Studies and Research) for the construction of the 2025 Institutional Evaluation Instrument. External Institutional Evaluator for SINAES (INEP). Leader of the project that won the Reimagine Education 2018 award (USA). Served as a public policy manager at the Ministry of Culture (MinC) in 2023 and 2024 at the invitation of the Minister of State. Has been a visiting professor at the Polytechnic Institute of Porto - Portugal (IPP) since 2019.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

Alm, N. (2023). Augmentative and alternative communication and artificial intelligence: New opportunities. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing, 135, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3609421.3609424

Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2010). Exploring disability: A sociological introduction (2nd ed.). Polity.

Beukelman, D. R., & Light, J. C. (2020). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (5th ed.). Paul H. Brookes.

Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Aditi, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., Bernstein, S., ... & Liang, P. (2022). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. Stanford CRFM. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Brasil. (2002). Lei nº 10.436, de 24 de abril de 2002. Dispõe sobre a Língua Brasileira de Sinais — Libras. Presidência da República. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/2002/l10436.htm

Brasil. (2015). Lei nº 13.146, de 6 de julho de 2015. Lei Brasileira de Inclusão da Pessoa com Deficiência. Presidência da República. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13146.htm

Capp, M. J. (2017). The effectiveness of universal design for learning: A meta-analysis of literature between 2013 and 2016. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(8), 791–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074

CEPAL. (2022). Hacia la transformación digital de América Latina y el Caribe. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe. https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/47611

Chemnad, K., & Othman, A. (2024). Integrating large language models into augmentative and alternative communication systems: A systematic review. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 19(3), 812–826. https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2023.2265409

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2014). General comment No. 2 (2014): Article 9: Accessibility (CRPD/C/GC/2). United Nations. https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/general-comment-no-2-article-9-accessibility

Devaraj, A., Murty, R., & Naous, T. (2021). Paragraph-level simplification of medical texts. Proceedings of NAACL 2021, 1944–1954. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.153 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.naacl-main.395

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., & Sutton, A. (2005). Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: A review of possible methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 10(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/135581960501000110 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/135581960501000110

European Parliament and Council. (2016). Directive (EU) 2016/2102 on the accessibility of the websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies. Official Journal of the European Union, L 327, 1–15.

European Parliament and Council. (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/882 on the accessibility requirements for products and services (European Accessibility Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 151, 70–115.

European Parliament and Council. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, L 1689.

Feenberg, A. (2010). Between reason and experience: Essays in technology and modernity. MIT Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8221.001.0001

Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., & Srikumar, M. (2020). Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI. Berkman Klein Center Research Publication 2020-1. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3518482 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3518482

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., ... & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People — An ethical framework for a good AI society. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001

Goggin, G., & Soldatıć, K. (Eds.). (2022). Digital disability: Innovation, justice, and the challenge of technology. Routledge.

Goodley, D. (2017). Disability studies: An interdisciplinary introduction (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1 (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.

Higginbotham, D. J., & Jacobs, S. (2011). The future of the conversation: Executive functioning, interactivity, and AAC. Topics in Language Disorders, 31(3), 264–278. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e318228605e

IBGE. (2023). Pessoas com deficiência no Brasil: Revisão dos resultados do Censo 2010. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas/sociais/saude/26434-pessoas-com-deficiencia.html

Jakobson, R. (1959). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R. A. Brower (Ed.), On translation (pp. 232–239). Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18

Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2

Kane, S. K., Avrahami, D., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2023). Exploring how people with disabilities use large language models for communication and information access. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing, 16(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3583143

Kent-Walsh, J., & McNaughton, D. (2005). Communication partner instruction in AAC. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610400006646 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610400006646

Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Iowa State University Press.

Maaß, C. (2020). Easy language: Plain language for everyone (R. Schipper & K. Lange, Trans.). Frank & Timme.

Mankoff, J., Hayes, G. R., & Kasnitz, D. (2010). Disability studies as a source of critical inquiry for the field of assistive technology. Proceedings of ASSETS 2010, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1878803.1878807 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1878803.1878807

Mehta, A., Gupta, P., & Singh, R. (2023). Sign language recognition and generation with deep learning: A systematic review of recent advances. IEEE Access, 11, 23847–23876. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3253018

Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Professional Publishing.

Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-20895-1

Ríos-Hernández, I. N., Fuentes-Lara, M. C., & González-Valles, J. E. (2023). Brecha digital y personas con discapacidad en América Latina: Una revisión sistemática. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 46(2), e359. https://doi.org/10.3989/redc.2023.2.1946

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., ... & Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol. United Nations. https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf

Valencia, S., Cave, R., Kallarackal, K., Seaver, K., Terry, M., & Kane, S. K. (2023). “My AI wants to talk about emotional support”: Examining the experiences of users with disabilities in using AI-powered assistive technologies. Proceedings of CHI 2023, Article 591. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581440

W3C. (2023). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. World Wide Web Consortium. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/

Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

Whittlestone, J., Nyrup, R., Alexandrova, A., & Cave, S. (2019). The role and limits of principles in AI ethics. Proceedings of AIES 2019, 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314289 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3306618.3314289

Young, V., Mücahit, A., & Zweig, G. (2022). Speech recognition for people with dysarthria: Current challenges and future directions. Computer Speech and Language, 72, 101321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2021.101321 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2021.101321