Search for: All records

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. 

Automated sound recognition tools can be a useful complement to d/Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) people's typical communication and environmental awareness strategies. Pre-trained sound recognition models, however, may not meet the diverse needs of individual DHH users. While approaches from human-centered machine learning can enable non-expert users to build their own automated systems, end-user ML solutions that augment human sensory abilities present a unique challenge for users who have sensory disabilities: how can a DHH user, who has difficulty hearing a sound themselves, effectively record samples to train an ML system to recognize that sound? To better understand how DHH users can drive personalization of their own assistive sound recognition tools, we conducted a three-part study with 14 DHH participants: (1) an initial interview and demo of a personalizable sound recognizer, (2) a week-long field study of in situ recording, and (3) a follow-up interview and ideation session. Our results highlight a positive subjective experience when recording and interpreting training data in situ, but we uncover several key pitfalls unique to DHH users---such as inhibited judgement of representative samples due to limited audiological experience. We share implications of these results for the design of recording interfaces and human-the-the-loop systems that can support DHH users to build sound recognizers for their personal needs. 

Accessibility research has grown substantially in the past few decades, yet there has been no literature review of the field. To understand current and historical trends, we created and analyzed a dataset of accessibility papers appearing at CHI and ASSETS since ASSETS’ founding in 1994. We qualitatively coded areas of focus and methodological decisions for the past 10 years (2010-2019, N=506 papers), and analyzed paper counts and keywords over the full 26 years (N=836 papers). Our findings highlight areas that have received disproportionate attention and those that are underserved—for example, over 43% of papers in the past 10 years are on accessibility for blind and low vision people. We also capture common study characteristics, such as the roles of disabled and nondisabled participants as well as sample sizes (e.g., a median of 13 for participant groups with disabilities and older adults). We close by critically reflecting on gaps in the literature and offering guidance for future work in the field. 

Accessibility research sits at the junction of several disciplines, drawing influence from HCI, disability studies, psychology, education, and more. To characterize the influences and extensions of accessibility research, we undertake a study of citation trends for accessibility and related HCI communities. We assess the diversity of venues and fields of study represented among the referenced and citing papers of 836 accessibility research papers from ASSETS and CHI, finding that though publications in computer science dominate these citation relationships, the relative proportion of citations from papers on psychology and medicine has grown over time. Though ASSETS is a more niche venue than CHI in terms of citational diversity, both conferences display standard levels of diversity among their incoming and outgoing citations when analyzed in the context of 53K papers from 13 accessibility and HCI conference venues.