The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Breaking the exclusionary boundary between user experience and access: steps toward making UX inclusive of users with disabilities
Abstract
This research paper points out that we as Designers have failed to come up with a model of UX that would proximate a satisfying user experience for users with disabilities. It underscores the gaps in designer knowledge about disabled bodies. The research paper also draws the attention of the designer community to the limited understanding we presently possess of the disabled people's notions of, and expectations from, satisfying user experiences. It proposes a multi-step process for shifting the focus of design activity from a "medical model of accessibility design" that retrofits normative designs to the needs of users with disabilities to developing an "accessible user experience model (AUX)" of design that counts these users as design collaborators, possessors of special knowledge about disabled bodies, and untapped sources of innovative designs that might offer additional design features for all users.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“In the worst case, web accessibility is experienced as a meaningless box-ticking exercise (Holliday, 2020; Oswal, 2019) that leads to poor implementations for all users.”
From How compliance with web accessibility standards shapes the experiences of users with and without disabilities (2023) · cites this paper as Oswal, 2019
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A. (2012) · Design Issues · doi:10.1162/desi_a_00165 · Cited by 784 · cited 1×
“far [60] but the discussions of temporality and women's embodied experiences have challenged some of the scientifically”
BackgroundPersson, H., Åhman, H., Yngling, A. A., & Gulliksen, J. (2015) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-014-0358-z · Cited by 536
Participation in design things
Ehn, P. (2008) · Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) · doi:10.5555/1795234.1795248 · Cited by 473
Disability studies as a source of critical inquiry for the field of assistive technology
Mankoff, J., Hayes, G. R., & Kasnitz, D. (2010) · Proceedings of the 12th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility · doi:10.1145/1878803.1878807 · Cited by 406
Maximizing Usability: The Principles of Universal Design
Story, M. F. (1998) · Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/10400435.1998.10131955 · Cited by 401
A “Social Model” of Design: Issues of Practice and Research
Margolin, V., & Margolin, S. (2002) · Design Issues · doi:10.1162/074793602320827406 · Cited by 368
Guidelines are only half of the story: accessibility problems encountered by blind users on the web
Power, C., Freire, A., Petrie, H., & Swallow, D. (2012) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2207676.2207736 · Cited by 327
Usable gestures for blind people: understanding preference and performance
Kane, S. K., Wobbrock, J. O., & Ladner, R. E. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979001 · Cited by 314 · cited 1×
“arrived at several recommendations that challenged traditional design wisdom for mobile devices: 1) “avoid symbols used in print writing”, 2) “favor edges, corners, and other landmarks”, 3) “reduce demand for location accuracy”, 4) “limit time-based gesture processing”, and 5) “reproduce traditional spatial layouts wh…”
BackgroundGinsburg, F., & Rapp, R. (2013) · Annual Review of Anthropology · doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155502 · Cited by 257
Glăveanu, V. P. (2017) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2017.11.006 · Cited by 215
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Nicoletta Di Blas , Paolo Paolini , and Marco Speroni . ( 2004 ). Web for blind users . Proceedings of 8th ERCIM Workshop: User Interfaces for All , Vienna. Springer. Nicoletta Di Blas, Paolo Paolini, and Marco Speroni. (2004). Web for blind users. Proceedings of 8th ERCIM Workshop: User Interfaces for All, Vienna. Springer.
- Sambhavi Chandrashekar , Rachel Benedyk . ( 2006 ). Accessibility vs. usability: Where is the dividing line contemporary ergonomics . Proceedings of the Ergonomics Society's Annual Conference. Sambhavi Chandrashekar, Rachel Benedyk. (2006). Accessibility vs. usability: Where is the dividing line contemporary ergonomics. Proceedings of the Ergonomics Society's Annual Conference.
- Jonathan Shariat and Cynthia. S. Saucier . ( 2017 ). Tragic Design: The Impact of Bad Product Design and How to Fix It . O'Reilly Media, Inc. Jonathan Shariat and Cynthia. S. Saucier. (2017). Tragic Design: The Impact of Bad Product Design and How to Fix It. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
- Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 , 104 Stat. 327. ((2006 & Supp . V 2011) ).). Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101--12213. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 327. ((2006 & Supp. V 2011)).). Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101--12213.
- Jim Sandhu . ( 2011 ). The Rhinoceros Syndrome: A Contrarian View of Universal Design , Universal Design Handbook (2nd. ed.) . McGraw-Hill , New York, NY, USA Jim Sandhu. (2011). The Rhinoceros Syndrome: A Contrarian View of Universal Design, Universal Design Handbook (2nd. ed.). McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA
- Sushil K. Oswal . ( 2013 ). ableism. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 18(1) . Sushil K. Oswal. (2013). ableism. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 18(1).
- Fiona K. Campbell . ( 2016 ). Ability. Keywords for disability studies . New York University Press , New York, NY, USA . Fiona K. Campbell. (2016). Ability. Keywords for disability studies. New York University Press, New York, NY, USA.
- Elaine Ostroff . ( 1997 ). Mining our natural resources: The user as expert. Innovation, 16(1) . Elaine Ostroff. (1997). Mining our natural resources: The user as expert. Innovation, 16(1).
- Sarah Lewthwaite , David Sloan , and Sarah Horton . ( 2018 ). A web for all: A manifesto for critical disability studies in accessibility and user experience design. Manifestos for the Future of Critical Disability Studies Routledge , London, England, UK . Sarah Lewthwaite, David Sloan, and Sarah Horton. (2018). A web for all: A manifesto for critical disability studies in accessibility and user experience design. Manifestos for the Future of Critical Disability Studies Routledge, London, England, UK.
Cited by
Vollenwyder, B., Petralito, S., Iten, G. H., Brühlmann, F., Opwis, K., & Mekler, E. D. (2023) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102956 · Cited by 62
Palmer, Z. B., & Oswal, S. K. (2025) · Journal of Business and Technical Communication · doi:10.1177/10506519241280644 · Cited by 22
Self-citationOswal, S. K., & Palmer, Z. B. (2024) · Proceedings of the 42nd ACM International Conference on Design of Communication · doi:10.1145/3641237.3691647 · Cited by 7
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Oswal, S. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2019-10-04
- Pages
- 1-8
- Cited by
- 58
- References
- 60
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
