skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Design for Social Accessibility Method Cards: Engaging Users and Reflecting on Social Scenarios for Accessible Design

Published:16 January 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

This article is an extended version of our 2018 ASSETS paper entitled, “Incorporating Social Factors in Accessible Design.” In our ASSETS paper, we demonstrated the viability of the Design for Social Accessibility perspective through a series of user-centered workshops with professional designers. With this expanded article, we conducted a follow-up research study with a user-centered design course that examined the use of Design for Social Accessibility Method Cards over a longer design cycle, specifically as the method and cards contributed to a term-long project, rather than just a workshop. We also offer a new analysis on work leading to the development of Design for Social Accessibility, with a focus on how practical considerations in the design process influence how designers engage accessible design. We found that the concrete and real-life scenarios in the Design for Social Accessibility Method Cards helped mediate useful interactions between student designers and deaf and hard-of-hearing users. In addition, we identified how practical choices in investigating strategies for socially accessible design enabled designers to center disabled perspectives. The contributions of this work—when added to the findings of our ASSETS 2018 paper on incorporating social factors—demonstrate the viability of Design for Social Accessibility by providing: (1) empirical data showing that designers can use the Design for Social Accessibility perspective and method cards to generate accessible designs and appropriately engage deaf and hard-of-hearing users to incorporate social considerations; and (2) a summative analysis highlighting practical steps for how designers can use the Design for Social Accessibility perspective and methods cards to create accessible designs.

References

  1. Ali Abdolrahmani, Ravi Kuber, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Siri talks at you: An empirical investigation of voice-activated personal assistant (VAPA) usage by individuals who are blind. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 249--258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Mauro Avila, Katrin Wolf, Anke Brock, and Niels Henze. 2016. Remote assistance for blind users in daily life: A survey about Be My Eyes. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM International Conference on Pervasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments. 1--2.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Larwan Berke, Christopher Caulfield, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2017. Deaf and hard-of-hearing perspectives on imperfect automatic speech recognition for captioning one-on-one meetings. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 155--164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Tim Brown. 2008. Design thinking. Harv. Bus. Rev 86, 6 (2008), 84--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Marion Buchenau and Jane Fulton Suri. 2000. Experience Prototyping. ACM Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. William Buxton. 2007. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam; Boston.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. S. Clatworthy. 2011. Service innovation through touch-points: Development of an innovation toolkit for the first stages of new service development. Int. J. Des 5, 2 (2011), 15--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nigel Cross. 1982. Designerly ways of knowing. Spec. Issue Des. Educ. 3, 4 (1982), 221--227.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Tamara Denning, Adam Lerner, Adam Shostack, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2013. Control-alt-hack: The design and evaluation of a card game for computer security awareness and education. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer 8 Communications Security. 915--928.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Alistair D. N. Edwards. 1995. Extra-Ordinary Human-Computer Interaction: Interfaces for Users with Disabilities. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Batya Friedman and David Hendry. 2012. The envisioning cards: A toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1145--1148.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Batya Friedman, Peter Kahn, and Alan Borning. 2006. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. M. E. Sharpe, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. John D. Gould and Clayton Lewis. 1985. Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM 28, 3 (1985), 300--311.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Joan M. Greenbaum and Morten Kyng. 1991. Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Simeon Keates and P. John Clarkson. 2003. Countering design exclusion through inclusive design. In Proceedings of the Conference on Universal Usability. 69--76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Tom Kelley and Jonathan Littman. 2005. The Ten Faces of Innovation : IDEO's Strategies for Beating the Devil's Advocate 8 Driving Creativity Throughout Your Organization. Currency/Doubleday, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Cliff Kuang. 2016. Microsoft's radical bet on a new type of design thinking. The Big Idea. Retrieved from https://www.fastcodesign.com/3054927/the-big-idea/microsofts-inspiring-bet-on-a-radical-new-type-of-design-thinking.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Jonathan Lazar, Jinjuan Heidi Feng, and Harry Hochheiser. 2010. Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley and Sons, Glasgow, UK.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. James R. Mallory, Michael Stinson, Lisa Elliot, and Donna Easton. 2017. Personal perspectives on using automatic speech recognition to facilitate communication between deaf students and hearing customers. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 419--421.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Microsoft. 2018. Microsoft Inclusive Design. Retrieved from https://www.microsoft.com/design/inclusive/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Harold G. Nelson and Erik Stolterman. 2012. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Alan F. Newell and Peter Gregor. 2000. User sensitive inclusive design—In search of a new paradigm. In Proceedings of the Conference on Universal Usability. 39--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 152--158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Donald Norman. 1988. The Design of Everyday Things (2002 ed.). Basic Book, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Alisha Pradhan, Kanika Mehta, and Leah Findlater. 2018. Accessibility came by accident: Use of voice-controlled intelligent personal assistants by people with disabilities. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Sharron Rush, Shawn Lawton Henry, Eric Eggert, Brent Bakken, Vicki Menezes Miller, and Laura Keen. 2018. The business case for digital accessibility. W3C Accessibility Initiative (WAI). Retrieved from https://www.w3.org/WAI/business-case/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Douglas Schuler and Aki Namioka. 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practice. Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Kristen Shinohara, Cynthia L. Bennett, Wanda Pratt, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2018. Tenets for social accessibility: Towards humanizing disabled people in design. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 11, 1 (2018), 1--31. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3178855Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Kristen Shinohara, Cynthia L. Bennett, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2016. How designing for people with and without disabilities shapes student design thinking. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’16). 229--237. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2982142.2982158Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kristen Shinohara and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2011. In the shadow of misperception: Assistive technology use and social interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). 705--714. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979044Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Kristen Shinohara and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2016. Self-conscious or self-confident? A diary study conceptualizing the social accessibility of assistive technology. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 8 2 (2016), 1--31. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2827857Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Kristen Shinohara, Jacob O. Wobbrock, and Wanda Pratt. 2018. Incorporating social factors in accessible design. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 149--160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Ben Shneiderman and Catherine Plaisant. 2004. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-computer Interaction. Pearson/Addison Wesley, Boston, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Hans Jørgen Wiberg. 2019. Be my eyes. Retrieved from https://www.bemyeyes.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Jacob O. Wobbrock, Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Shaun K. Kane, and Gregg C. Vanderheiden. 2018. Ability-based design. Commun. ACM 61 6 (2018), 62--71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Jacob O. Wobbrock, Shaun K. Kane, Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Susumu Harada, and Jon Froehlich. 2011. Ability-based design: Concept, principles, and examples. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. 3, 3 (2011), 1--27.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Aira Tech Corp. 2019. Aira. Retrieved from https://aira.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Design for Social Accessibility Method Cards: Engaging Users and Reflecting on Social Scenarios for Accessible Design

    Recommendations

    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

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
      ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing  Volume 12, Issue 4
      Regular Papers and Special Issue on ASSETS 2018
      December 2019
      158 pages
      ISSN:1936-7228
      EISSN:1936-7236
      DOI:10.1145/3375992
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2020 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 16 January 2020
      • Accepted: 1 October 2019
      • Revised: 1 September 2019
      • Received: 1 April 2019
      Published in taccess Volume 12, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    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