Cited by 19Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesUsability and User Interface DesignDesign Education and Practice

Tough but Effective: Exploring the use of Remote Participatory Design in an Inclusive Design Course Through Student Reflections

Brinkley, Julian, Huff, Earl W., Boateng, Kwajo·2021·Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

Abstract

Accessibility is a topic that is recognized as increasingly important in both industry and academia. In industry, there is a growing awareness of the importance of designing technologies that provide an optimal user experience regardless of the user's ability or impairment. At the university level, this awareness of the need for accessibility minded future technologists has encouraged the incorporation of accessibility and inclusive design content into a wide range of computer science and related courses. Despite this growing awareness, the actual process of teaching students about the needs and perspectives of persons with disabilities remains challenging. Within this paper we report on our experience teaching a graduate course on inclusive design with a specific focus on our experience incorporating a participatory design (PD) activity involving older adults as the course's concluding design activity. While students responded favorably to much of the course's content, learning was enhanced through the design activity which mirrored a real-world project and included three older adult (80+) co-designers. Despite the benefits of PD, students were at times overwhelmed by the workload and the logistical difficulties of working within a remote participatory design process. We believe that a review of our experience and student reflections may prove beneficial to those similarly teaching inclusive design and accessibility.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3408877.3432527

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Six papers reported teaching students about participatory design and accessibility-focused design methods such as Ability-Based Design, and five of these required students to interact with disabled people to inform or evaluate their projects.

    “Six papers reported teaching students about participatory design and accessibility-focused design methods such as Ability-Based Design (e.g., [13, 14]), and five of these required students to interact with disabled people to inform or evaluate their projects.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brinkley, J., Huff, E. W., & Boateng, K.
Affiliations
Clemson University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-03-03
Pages
170-176
OpenAlex
W3135609740
Cited by
19
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.96
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1849924)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
Keywords
inclusive design, accessibility, participatory design, older adults, co-design, graduate courses, computer science education, students with disabilities, remote collaboration, workload, student reflection

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