Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 58

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

Oswal, Sushil K.·2019·Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication
DOI 10.1145/3328020.3353957
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3328020.3353957

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. 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).
  9. 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

See all 58

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
DOI
10.1145/3328020.3353957
Cited by
58
References
60
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)

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.