skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Usability, Accessibility and Social Entanglements in Advanced Tool Use by Vision Impaired Graduate Students

Published:11 November 2022Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Despite increasing work investigating the accessibility of research tools, most accessibility research has traditionally focused on popular, mainstream, or web technologies. We investigated barriers and workarounds blind and low vision doctoral students in computing-intensive disciplines experienced and engaged, respectively, when using advanced technical tools for research tasks. We conducted an observation and interview study with eight current and former Ph.D. students, closely analyzing the accessibility of specific tasks. Our findings contextualize how inaccessible tools complicate research tasks, adding time and effort, and exacerbating social entanglements in collaborative relationships. This work contributes empirical data that extricates how in/accessibility of advanced technical tools used in research influences productivity and collegial efforts.

References

  1. Amaia Aizpurua, Simon Harper, and Markel Vigo. 2016. Exploring the relationship between web accessibility and user experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 91 (2016), 13--23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.03.008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Khaled Albusays and Stephanie Ludi. 2016. Eliciting programming challenges faced by developers with visual impairments: exploratory study. In Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 82--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Khaled Albusays, Stephanie Ludi, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2017. Interviews and observation of blind software developers at work to understand code navigation challenges. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 91--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Yang Bai, Jenna Grzeslo, Ryan Y Wang, Bumgi Min, and Krishna Jayakar. 2019. Does Accessible Design Benefit General Users of E-Government? Examining the Relationship between Website Usability and Accessibility. In Examining the Relationship between Website Usability and Accessibility (July 26, 2019). TPRC47: The 47th Research Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy. TPRC, McKinney, TX, 31 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Catherine M Baker, Lauren R Milne, and Richard E Ladner. 2015. Structjumper: A tool to help blind programmers navigate and understand the structure of code. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 3043--3052.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Cynthia L Bennett, Erin Brady, and Stacy M Branham. 2018. Interdependence as a frame for assistive technology research and design. In Proceedings of the 20th international acm sigaccess conference on computers and accessibility. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 161--173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Cynthia L Bennett, Daniela K Rosner, and Alex S Taylor. 2020. The care work of access. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Jeffrey P. Bigham, Irene Lin, and Saiph Savage. 2017. The Effects of ?Not Knowing What You Don't Know" on Web Accessibility for Blind Web Users. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (ASSETS '17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 101--109. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3132533Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Mark Blythe, Andrew Monk, and Jisoo Park. 2002. Technology biographies: field study techinques for home use product development. In CHI'02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 658--659.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Stacy M. Branham and Shaun K. Kane. 2015. The Invisible Work of Accessibility: How Blind Employees Manage Accessibility in Mixed-Ability Workplaces. In The 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 163--171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Sheryl Burgstahler, E. Moore, and L. Crawford. 2016. 2016 Report of the AccessSTEM/AccessComputing/DO-IT Longitudinal Transition Study (ALTS). University of Washington, Seattle, WA. https://www.washington.edu/doit/about/evidencebased-practices/indicators-participant-successGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Maria Claudia Buzzi, Marina Buzzi, Barbara Leporini, and Giulio Mori. 2012. Designing E-Learning Collaborative Tools for Blind People. In E-Learning, Elvis Pontes, Anderson Silva, Adilson Guelfi, and Sergio Takeo Kofuji (Eds.). IntechOpen, Rijeka, Chapter 7, 125--144. https://doi.org/10.5772/31377Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mary Elizabeth Collins and Carol Mowbray. 2005. Higher Education and Psychiatric Disabilities: A National Survey of Campus Disability Services. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 75, 2 (April 2005), 304--315. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0002--9432.75.2.304Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. 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 (2019), 1--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Richard Devlin and Dianne Pothier. 2006. Introduction: Toward a Critical Theory of Dis-Citizenship. In Critical Disability Theory: Essays in Philosophy, Politics, Policy, and Law, Dianne Pothier and Richard Devlin (Eds.). UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1--22.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jay Timothy Dolmage. 2017. Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9708722Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Clifford Geertz. 2008. Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The cultural geography reader, Timothy Oakes and Patricia L. Price (Eds.). Routledge, New York, NY, Chapter 4, 29--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine Publishing Co, Chicago, IL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Teri Hibbs and Dianne Pothier. 2006. Post-Secondary Education and Disabled Students: Mining a Level Playing Field or Playing in a Minefield? In Critical Disability Theory: Essays in Philosophy, Politics, Policy, and Law, Dianne Pothier and Richard Devlin (Eds.). UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 195--219.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Megan Hofmann, Devva Kasnitz, Jennifer Mankoff, and Cynthia L. Bennett. 2020. Living Disability Theory: Reflections on Access, Research, and Design. In The 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3416996Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Earl W. Huff, Kwajo Boateng, Makayla Moster, Paige Rodeghero, and Julian Brinkley. 2020. Examining The Work Experience of Programmers with Visual Impairments. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME). IEEE, New York, NY, 707--711. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSME46990.2020.00077Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Dhruv Jain, Venkatesh Potluri, and Ather Sharif. 2020. Navigating Graduate School with a Disability: A Trio-Ethnography. In Proceedings of ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Simeon Keates and P. Clarkson. 2003. Countering design exclusion: Bridging the gap between usability and accessibility. Universal Access in the Information Society 2 (01 2003), 215--225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-003-0059--5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Deborah Rock Kendrick. 2017. Disability Services at Institutions of Higher Education. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Washington. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1972443236 Dissertation/Thesis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Kimia Kiani, Parmit K. Chilana, Andrea Bunt, Tovi Grossman, and George Fitzmaurice. 2020. ?I Would Just Ask Someone": Learning Feature-Rich Design Software in the Modern Workplace. In 2020 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, New York, NY, 1--10. https://doi.org/10.1109/VL/HCC50065. 2020.9127288Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Kelly Mack, Maitraye Das, Dhruv Jain, Danielle Bragg, John Tang, Andrew Begel, Erin Beneteau, Josh Urban Davis, Abraham Glasser, Joon Sung Park, et al. 2021. Mixed Abilities and Varied Experiences: a group autoethnography of a virtual summer internship. In The 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Kelly Mack, Emma J. McDonnell, Venkatesh Potluri, Maggie Xu, Jailyn Zabala, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Jennifer Mankoff, and Cynthia L. Bennett. 2022. Anticipate and Adjust: Cultivating Access in Human-Centered Methods. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501882Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Sean Mealin and Emerson Murphy-Hill. 2012. An exploratory study of blind software developers. In 2012 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, NY, USA, 71--74.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Salda na. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Aile Montoya. 2009. A comparison of the educational supports needed and provided for undergraduate and graduate students with learning disabilities in higher education. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Florida.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'94). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 152--158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Jakob Nielsen and Rolf Molich. 1990. Improving a human-computer dialogue. Commun. ACM 33, 3 (March 1990), 338--348.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Maulishree Pandey, Vaishnav Kameswaran, Hrishikesh V. Rao, Sile O'Modhrain, and Steve Oney. 2021. Understanding Accessibility and Collaboration in Programming for People with Visual Impairments. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, CSCW1, Article 129 (apr 2021), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449203Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Michael Quinn Patton. 2014. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Helen Petrie and Omar Kheir. 2007. The relationship between accessibility and usability of websites. In Proceedings of the 2007 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 397--406. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/7394/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. 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.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Venkatesh Potluri, Priyan Vaithilingam, Suresh Iyengar, Y Vidya, Manohar Swaminathan, and Gopal Srinivasa. 2018. Codetalk: Improving programming environment accessibility for visually impaired developers. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Christopher Power, André Freire, Helen Petrie, and David Swallow. 2012. Guidelines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 433--442.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Dagfinn Rømen and Dag Svanæs. 2012. Validating WCAG versions 1.0 and 2.0 through usability testing with disabled users. Universal Access in the Information Society 11, 4 (2012), 375--385.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Harini Sampath, Alice Merrick, and Andrew Macvean. 2021. Accessibility of Command Line Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 489, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445544Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. John Gerard Schoeberlein and Yuanqiong Wang. 2014. Usability Evaluation of an Accessible Collaborative Writing Prototype for Blind Users. Journal of Usability Studies 10, 1 (2014), 26--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Margrit Shildrick. 2012. Critical Disability Studies. In Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies, Nick Watson (Ed.). Routledge, London, 12 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Kristen Shinohara, Michael McQuaid, and Nayeri Jacobo. 2020. Access Differential and Inequitable Access: Inaccessibility for Doctoral Students in Computing. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS '20. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 12 pages pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. 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. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Ann C Smith, Justin S Cook, Joan M Francioni, Asif Hossain, Mohd Anwar, and M Fayezur Rahman. 2003. Nonvisual tool for navigating hierarchical structures. ACM SIGACCESS Accessibility and Computing 77--78 (2003), 133--139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. James P Spradley. 2016. Participant observation. Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Kevin M Storer, Harini Sampath, and M. Alice Merrick. 2021. "It's Just Everything Outside of the IDE That's the Problem": Information Seeking by Software Developers with Visual Impairments. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 487, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445090Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Sarit Felicia Anais Szpiro, Shafeka Hashash, Yuhang Zhao, and Shiri Azenkot. 2016. How people with low vision access computing devices: Understanding challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 171--180.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Murtaza Tamjeed, Vinita Tibdewal, Madison Russell, Michael McQuaid, Tae Oh, and Kristen Shinohara. 2021. Understanding Disability Services Toward Improving Graduate Student Support. In The 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. John Tang. 2021. Understanding the Telework Experience of People with Disabilities. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5 (04 2021), 1--27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449104Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Mary Frances Theofanos and Janice Redish. 2003. Bridging the gap: between accessibility and usability. interactions 10, 6 (2003), 36--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Bess Williamson. 2015. Access. NYU Press, New York, NY, 14--17. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15nmhws.6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. 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. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 1--16. https://doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3381828Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Zeynep Yildiz and Ozge Subasi. 2020. Disabled and Design Researcher: An Unexpected Relationship?. In Companion Publication of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 61--66.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Usability, Accessibility and Social Entanglements in Advanced Tool Use by Vision Impaired Graduate Students

        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 Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
          Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction  Volume 6, Issue CSCW2
          CSCW
          November 2022
          8205 pages
          EISSN:2573-0142
          DOI:10.1145/3571154
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2022 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: 11 November 2022
          Published in pacmhci Volume 6, Issue CSCW2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader