ACM Digital Library home
ACM home
Advanced Search
10.1145/3491102.3501882acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open Access
Honorable Mention

Anticipate and Adjust: Cultivating Access in Human-Centered Methods

Authors Info & Claims
CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsApril 2022 Article No.: 603Pages 1–18https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501882
Published:29 April 2022Publication History
  • 6citation
  • 636
  • Downloads
Metrics
Total Citations6
Total Downloads636
Last 12 Months636
Last 6 weeks101
  • PDF

CHI '22: Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Anticipate and Adjust: Cultivating Access in Human-Centered Methods
Pages 1–18
PreviousChapterNextChapter

ABSTRACT

Methods are fundamental to doing research and can directly impact who is included in scientific advances. Given accessibility research's increasing popularity and pervasive barriers to conducting and participating in research experienced by people with disabilities, it is critical to ask how methods are made accessible. Yet papers rarely describe their methods in detail. This paper reports on 17 interviews with accessibility experts about how they include both facilitators and participants with disabilities in popular user research methods. Our findings offer strategies for anticipating access needs while remaining flexible and responsive to unexpected access barriers. We emphasize the importance of considering accessibility at all stages of the research process, and contextualize access work in recent disability and accessibility literature. We explore how technology or processes could reflect a norm of accessibility. Finally, we discuss how various needs intersect and conflict and offer a practical structure for planning accessible research.

Supplemental Material

Available for Download
zip
Supplemental Materials (23.2 KB)

References

  1. AccessSIGCHI. 2020. Accessible Remote Attendance. AccessSIGCHI. Retrieved December 13, 2021 from https://accesssigchi.com/accessible-remote-attendance/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. H. K. Beecher. 2001. Ethics and clinical research. 1966. Bull World Health Organ 79, 4 (2001), 367–372.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Cynthia L. Bennett, Abigale Stangl, Alexa F. Siu, and Joshua A. Miele. 2019. Making Nonvisually: Lessons from the Field. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’19), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 279–285. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3355619Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Stacy M. Branham and Shaun K. Kane. 2015. The Invisible Work of Accessibility: How Blind Employees Manage Accessibility in Mixed-Ability Workplaces. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (ASSETS ’15), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 163–171. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2700648.2809864Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (January 2006), 77–101. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oaGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11, 4 (August 2019), 589–597. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Emeline Brulé and Katta Spiel. 2019. Negotiating Gender and Disability Identities in Participatory Design. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Communities & Technologies - Transforming Communities (C&T ’19), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 218–227. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3328320.3328369Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Margaret Burnett. 2021. From GenderMag to InclusiveMag: A Journey for University IT. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGUCCS Annual Conference (SIGUCCS ’21), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–2. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3419944.3440725Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Sabrina Burtscher and Katta Spiel. 2020. “But where would I even start?”: developing (gender) sensitivity in HCI research and practice. In Proceedings of the Conference on Mensch und Computer (MuC ’20), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 431–441. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3404983.3405510Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Mel Chua and Robin S. Adams. 2014. Using realtime transcription to do member-checking during interviews. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, 1–3. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044251Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Mel Chua, Brittany Ray, and Lynn Andrea Stein. 2017. A behind-the-scenes look at access setup: A case study of the deaf professional / designated interpreter model in engineering education research. In 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Adjunct Proceedings, 1–9. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190512Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Kara Pernice Coyne and Jakob Nielsen. 2001. How to conduct usability evaluations for accessibility: Methodology guidelines for testing websites and intranets with users who use assistive technology. Retrieved from http://www.NNgroup.com/reports/accessibility/testingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Maitraye Das, Darren Gergle, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. “It doesn't win you friends”: Understanding Accessibility in Collaborative Writing for People with Vision Impairments. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (November 2019), 191:1-191:26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359293Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. A. Dickinson, J. Arnott, and S. Prior. 2007. Methods for human – computer interaction research with older people. Behaviour & Information Technology 26, 4 (July 2007), 343–352. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290601176948Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Catherine D'Ignazio and Lauren Klein. 2020. 4. “What Gets Counted Counts.” Data Feminism (March 2020). Retrieved September 9, 2021 from https://data-feminism.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/h1w0nbqp/release/2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Katja Dindar, Anne Lindblom, and Eija Kärnä. 2017. The construction of communicative (in)competence in autism: a focus on methodological decisions. Disability & Society 32, 6 (July 2017), 868–891. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1329709Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. DO-IT. Making a Makerspace? Guidelines for Accessibility and Universal Design. Retrieved December 13, 2021 from https://www.washington.edu/doit/making-makerspace-guidelines-accessibility-and-universal-designGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jay Timothy Dolmage. Introduction The Approach from Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education on JSTOR. Retrieved September 8, 2021 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvr33d50.3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Claire Edwards and Gill Harold. 2014. DeafSpace and the principles of universal design. Disability and Rehabilitation 36, 16 (August 2014), 1350–1359. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2014.913710Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Ruth R. Faden and Tom L. Beauchamp. 1986. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Christopher Frauenberger, Julia Makhaeva, and Katta Spiel. 2016. Designing Smart Objects with Autistic Children: Four Design Exposès. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’16), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 130–139. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858050Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Christopher Frauenberger, Julia Makhaeva, and Katta Spiel. 2017. Blending Methods: Developing Participatory Design Sessions for Autistic Children. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’17), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 39–49. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3078072.3079727Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Julia Galliers, Stephanie Wilson, Abi Roper, Naomi Cocks, Jane Marshall, Sam Muscroft, and Tim Pring. 2012. Words are not enough: empowering people with aphasia in the design process. In Proceedings of the 12th Participatory Design Conference: Research Papers - Volume 1 (PDC ’12), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 51–60. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2347635.2347643Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Aimi Hamraie. 2016. Mapping Access. Retrieved September 9, 2021 from https://aimihamraie.wordpress.com/socio-spatial-practice-2/mapping-access/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Christina Harrington, Sheena Erete, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. Deconstructing Community-Based Collaborative Design: Towards More Equitable Participatory Design Engagements. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (November 2019), 216:1-216:25. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3359318Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Megan Hofmann, Jeffrey Harris, Scott E. Hudson, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2016. Helping Hands: Requirements for a Prototyping Methodology for Upper-limb Prosthetics Users. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1769–1780. Retrieved September 8, 2021 from http://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858340Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Megan Hofmann, Devva Kasnitz, Jennifer Mankoff, and Cynthia L Bennett. 2020. Living Disability Theory: Reflections on Access, Research, and Design. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’20), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3416996Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. T. Iacono and R. Carling-Jenkins. 2012. The human rights context for ethical requirements for involving people with intellectual disability in medical research. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 56, 11 (2012), 1122–1132. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01617.xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Sins Invalid. Skin, Tooth, and Bone: A Disability Justice Primer. Retrieved September 8, 2021 from https://www.sinsinvalid.org/disability-justice-primerGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Dhruv Jain, Audrey Desjardins, Leah Findlater, and Jon E. Froehlich. 2019. Autoethnography of a Hard of Hearing Traveler. In Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’19), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 236–248. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3353800Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Dhruv Jain, Venkatesh Potluri, and Ather Sharif. 2020. Navigating Graduate School with a Disability. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’20), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3416986Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Ben Jelen, Anne Freeman, Mina Narayanan, Kate M. Sanders, James Clawson, and Katie A. Siek. 2019. Craftec: Engaging Older Adults in Making through a Craft-Based Toolkit System. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’19), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 577–587. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3294109.3295636Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Stefan Johansson, Jan Gulliksen, and Ann Lantz. 2015. User Participation When Users have Mental and Cognitive Disabilities. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility (ASSETS ’15), Association for Computing Machinery, Lisbon, Portugal, 69–76. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2700648.2809849Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Alison Kafer. 2013. Feminist, Queer, Crip. Indiana University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Shaun K. Kane and Caroline Galbraith. Design Guidelines for Creating Voting Technology for Adults with Aphasia. Retrieved from http://elections.itif.org/wp-content/uploads/AVTI-006-Kane-2013.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Shaun K. Kane, Amy Hurst, Erin Buehler, Patrick A. Carrington, and Michele A. Williams. 2014. Collaboratively designing assistive technology. Interactions 21, 2 (March 2014), 78–81. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2566462Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Shaun K. Kane, Barbara Linam-Church, Kyle Althoff, and Denise McCall. 2012. What we talk about: designing a context-aware communication tool for people with aphasia. In Proceedings of the 14th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility (ASSETS ’12), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49–56. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2384916.2384926Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Shenila Khoja-Moolji. 2016. Doing the ‘work of hearing’: girls’ voices in transnational educational development campaigns. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 46, 5 (September 2016), 745–763. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2015.1084582Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Raja S. Kushalnagar and Christian Vogler. 2020. Teleconference Accessibility and Guidelines for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Users. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’20), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3417299Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi, and Hochheiser. 2017. Working with research participants with disabilities. In Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction (Second). Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Junchen Li, Garreth W. Tigwell, and Kristen Shinohara. 2021. Accessibility of High-Fidelity Prototyping Tools. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–17. Retrieved September 8, 2021 from http://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445520Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Kelly Mack, Maitraye Das, Dhruv Jain, Danielle Bragg, John Tang, Andrew Begel, Erin Beneteau, Josh Urban Davis, Abraham Glasser, Joon Sung Park, and Venkatesh Potluri. Mixed Abilities and Varied Experiences: a group autoethnography of a virtual summer internship. In Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’21), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Kelly Mack, Emma McDonnell, Dhruv Jain, Lucy Lu Wang, Jon E. Froehlich, and Leah Findlater. 2021. What Do We Mean by “Accessibility Research”? A Literature Survey of Accessibility Papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–18. Retrieved December 17, 2021 from http://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445412Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Oussama Metatla, Nick Bryan-Kinns, Tony Stockman, and Fiore Martin. 2015. Designing with and for people living with visual impairments: audio-tactile mock-ups, audio diaries and participatory prototyping. CoDesign 11, 1 (January 2015), 35–48. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1007877Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Oussama Metatla and Clare Cullen. 2018. “Bursting the Assistance Bubble”: Designing Inclusive Technology with Children with Mixed Visual Abilities. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’18), Association for Computing Machinery, Montreal QC, Canada, 1–14. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173920Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Mia Mingus. 2017. Access Intimacy, Interdependence and Disability Justice. Leaving Evidence. Retrieved September 8, 2021 from https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/access-intimacy-interdependence-and-disability-justice/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Rebecca Monteleone. 2018. Beyond Participation: Empowering People with Disabilities in Research and Design. Technology & Innovation 20, 1–2 (November 2018), 133–139. DOI:https://doi.org/10.21300/20.1-2.2018.133Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Kai A Olsen and Alessio Malizia. 2012. Invisible Stable Interfaces. interfaces.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Judith S. Olson and Wendy A. Kellogg (Eds.). 2014. Ways of Knowing in HCI. Springer-Verlag, New York. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Venkatesh Potluri, Tadashi E Grindeland, Jon E. Froehlich, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2021. Examining Visual Semantic Understanding in Blind and Low-Vision Technology Users. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. Retrieved September 8, 2021 from http://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445040Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Abi Roper, Ian Davey, Stephanie Wilson, Timothy Neate, Jane Marshall, and Brian Grellmann. 2018. Usability Testing - An Aphasia Perspective. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’18), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 102–106. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3241481Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Manaswi Saha, Michael Saugstad, Hanuma Teja Maddali, Aileen Zeng, Ryan Holland, Steven Bower, Aditya Dash, Sage Chen, Anthony Li, Kotaro Hara, and Jon Froehlich. 2019. Project Sidewalk: A Web-based Crowdsourcing Tool for Collecting Sidewalk Accessibility Data At Scale. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. Retrieved September 9, 2021 from http://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300292Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Juliet Scott-Barrett, Katie Cebula, and Lani Florian. 2019. Listening to young people with autism: learning from researcher experiences. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 42, 2 (March 2019), 163–184. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2018.1462791Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Ather Sharif, Sanjana S Chintalapati, Jacob O. Wobbrock, and Katharina Reinecke. Understanding Screen-Reader Users’ Experiences with Online Data Visualizations. In Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’21), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Kristen Shinohara, Michael McQuaid, and Nayeri Jacobo. 2020. Access Differential and Inequitable Access: Inaccessibility for Doctoral Students in Computing. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’20), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3416989Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Kristen Shinohara, Mick McQuaid, and Nayeri Jacobo. 2021. The Burden of Survival: How Doctoral Students in Computing Bridge the Chasm of Inaccessibility. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–13. Retrieved September 8, 2021 from http://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445277Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  57. SIGACCESS. Accessible Writing Guide. Retrieved December 13, 2021 from http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/accessible-writing-guide/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. SIGACCESS. Accessible Conference Guide. Retrieved December 13, 2021 from http://www.sigaccess.org/welcome-to-sigaccess/resources/accessible-conference-guide/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Alexa F. Siu, Son Kim, Joshua A. Miele, and Sean Follmer. 2019. shapeCAD: An Accessible 3D Modelling Workflow for the Blind and Visually-Impaired Via 2.5D Shape Displays. In Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’19), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 342–354. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3353782Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Katta Spiel, Emeline Brulé, Christopher Frauenberger, Gilles Bailly, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2018. Micro-ethics for participatory design with marginalised children. In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers - Volume 1 (PDC ’18), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3210586.3210603Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Katta Spiel, Christopher Frauenberger, Os Keyes, and Geraldine Fitzpatrick. 2019. Agency of Autistic Children in Technology Research—A Critical Literature Review. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 26, 6 (November 2019), 38:1-38:40. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3344919Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Katta Spiel, Oliver L. Haimson, and Danielle Lottridge. 2019. How to do better with gender on surveys: a guide for HCI researchers. Interactions 26, 4 (June 2019), 62–65. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3338283Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Kate Stephens, Matthew Butler, Leona M Holloway, Cagatay Goncu, and Kim Marriott. 2020. Smooth Sailing? Autoethnography of Recreational Travel by a Blind Person. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’20), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3417011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Amelie Unger, Dieter P. Wallach, and Nicole Jochems. 2021. Lost in Translation: Challenges and Barriers to Sign Language-Accessible User Research. In The 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–5. Retrieved December 13, 2021 from http://doi.org/10.1145/3441852.3476473Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Stephanie Valencia, Mark Steidl, Michael Rivera, Cynthia Bennett, Jeffrey Bigham, and Henny Admoni. 2021. Aided Nonverbal Communication through Physical Expressive Objects. In Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’21), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3441852.3471228Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  66. Isaac West. 2010. PISSAR's Critically Queer and Disabled Politics. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 7, 2 (June 2010), 156–175. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/14791421003759174Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. Rua Williams and Juan Gilbert. 2019. “Nothing About Us Without Us” Transforming Participatory Research and Ethics in Human Systems Engineering. . 113–134. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429425905-9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Rua M. Williams and Juan E. Gilbert. 2019. Cyborg Perspectives on Computing Research Reform. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’19), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–11. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3310421Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  69. Zeynep Yıldız and Ozge Subasi. 2020. Disabled and Design Researcher: An Unexpected Relationship? In Companion Publication of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’20 Companion), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 61–66. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3393914.3395861Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Anon Ymous, Katta Spiel, Os Keyes, Rua M. Williams, Judith Good, Eva Hornecker, and Cynthia L. Bennett. 2020. “I am just terrified of my future” – Epistemic Violence in Disability Related Technology Research. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’20), Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–16. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381828Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  71. AccessSIGCHI. AccessSIGCHI. Retrieved September 9, 2021 from https://accesssigchi.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  72. Methods. usability.gov: Improving the User Experience. Retrieved September 8, 2021 from https://www.usability.gov/how-to-and-tools/methods/index.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. HCI/UX research: what methods do we use? – Lisa Koeman – blog. Retrieved June 27, 2020 from https://lisakoeman.nl/blog/hci-ux-research-what-methods-do-we-use/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. Deafspace. Gallaudet University. Retrieved August 31, 2021 from https://www.gallaudet.edu/campus-design-and-planning/deafspace/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. GenderMag. Retrieved September 8, 2021 from https://gendermag.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. Project Sidewalk. Retrieved September 9, 2021 from https://sidewalk-sea.cs.washington.edu/http:/sidewalk.umiacs.umd.eduGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

(auto-classified)
  1. Anticipate and Adjust: Cultivating Access in Human-Centered Methods

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        Get this Publication

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format
        View Table of Contents
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!