Search for: All records

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices enable speech-based communication, but generating speech is not the only resource needed to have a successful conversation. Being able to signal one wishes to take a turn by raising a hand or providing some other cue is critical in securing a turn to speak. Experienced conversation partners know how to recognize the nonverbal communication an augmented communicator (AC) displays, but these same nonverbal gestures can be hard to interpret by people who meet an AC for the first time. Prior work has identified motion through robots and expressive objects as a modality that can support communication. In this work, we work closely with an AAC user to understand how motion through a physical expressive object can support their communication. We present our process and resulting lessons on the designed object and the co-design process. 

While the NLP community has produced numerous summarization benchmarks, none provide the rich annotations required to simultaneously address many important problems related to control and reliability. We introduce a Wikipedia-derived benchmark, complemented by a rich set of crowd-sourced annotations, that supports 8 interrelated tasks: (i) extractive summarization; (ii) abstractive summarization; (iii) topic-based summarization; (iv) compressing selected sentences into a one-line summary; (v) surfacing evidence for a summary sentence; (vi) predicting the factual accuracy of a summary sentence; (vii) identifying unsubstantiated spans in a summary sentence; (viii) correcting factual errors in summaries. We compare various methods on this benchmark and discover that on multiple tasks, moderately-sized fine-tuned models consistently outperform much larger few-shot prompted language models. For factuality-related tasks, we also evaluate existing heuristics to create training data and find that training on them results in worse performance than training on 20× less human-labeled data. Our articles draw from 6 domains, facilitating cross-domain analysis. On some tasks, the amount of training data matters more than the domain where it comes from, while for other tasks training specifically on data from the target domain, even if limited, is more beneficial. 

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.