Search for: All records

Technology should be accessible and inclusive, so designers should learn to consider the needs of different users. Toward this end, we created the theoretically-grounded CIDER assumption elicitation technique, an educational analytical design evaluation method to teach inclusive design skills. CIDER ( Critique , Imagine , Design , Expand , Repeat ) helps designers recognize and respond to bias using the critical lens of assumptions about users . Through an eleven-week mixed-method case study in an interaction design course with 40 undergraduate students and follow-up interviews, we found that activities based on the CIDER technique may have helped students identify increasingly many types of design bias over time and reflect on their unconscious biases about users. The activities also had lasting impacts, encouraging some students to adopt more inclusive approaches in subsequent design work. We discuss the implications of these findings, namely that educational techniques like CIDER can help designers learn to create equitable technology designs. 

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 verification can ensure that a web page satisfies accessibility, usability, and design properties regardless of the end user's device, preferences, and assistive technologies. However, state-of-the-art verification tools for layout properties do not scale to large pages because they rely on whole-page analyses and must reason about the entire page using the complex semantics of the browser layout algorithm. This paper introduces and formalizes modular layout proofs. A modular layout proof splits a monolithic verification problem into smaller verification problems, one for each component of a web page. Each component specification can use rely/guarantee-style preconditions to make it verifiable independently of the rest of the page and enabling reuse across multiple pages. Modular layout proofs scale verification to pages an order of magnitude larger than those supported by previous approaches. We prototyped these techniques in a new proof assistant, Troika. In Troika, a proof author partitions a page into components and writes specifications for them. Troika then verifies the specifications, and uses those specifications to verify whole-page properties. Troika also enables the proof author to verify different component specifications with different verification tools, leveraging the strengths of each. In a case study, we use Troika to verify a large web page and demonstrate a speed-up of 13--1469x over existing tools, taking verification time from hours to seconds. We develop a systematic approach to writing Troika proofs and demonstrate it on 8 proofs of properties from prior work to show that modular layout proofs are short, easy to write, and provide benefits over existing tools.