Articulations toward a crip HCI
Abstract
research-article Articulations toward a crip HCI Share on Authors: Rua M. Williams Purdue University Purdue UniversityView Profile , Kathryn Ringland University of California, Santa Cruz University of California, Santa CruzView Profile , Amelia Gibson University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina at Chapel HillView Profile , Mahender Mandala Georgia Tech Georgia TechView Profile , Arne Maibaum Technical University of Berlin Technical University of BerlinView Profile , Tiago Guerreiro Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de LisboaView Profile Authors Info & Claims InteractionsVolume 28Issue 3May - June 2021 pp 28–37https://doi.org/10.1145/3458453Online:27 April 2021Publication History 0citation1,302DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations0Total Downloads1,302Last 12 Months1,302Last 6 weeks44 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteGet Access
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Individuals who directly encounter access frictions possess the situated knowledge required to subvert and reactivate them as counteractive forces that confront university decision-makers.
“Individuals who directly encounter access frictions possess the situated knowledge [1, 21, 64] required to subvert and reactivate them as counteractive forces that confront university decision-makers [20].”
From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [64]
Cites
Prefigurative Politics and Passionate Witnessing
Williams, R. M., & Boyd, L. E. (2019) · Proceedings of the 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3308561.3355617 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ADHD and Technology Research – Investigated by Neurodivergent Readers
Spiel, K., Hornecker, E., Williams, R. M., & Good, J. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517592 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Misfitting With AI: How Blind People Verify and Contest AI Errors
Alharbi, R., Lor, P., Herskovitz, J., Schoenebeck, S., & Brewer, R. N. (2024) · The 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663548.3675659 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Rethinking Productivity with GenAI: A Neurodivergent Students' Perspective
Jamshed, H., Naseem, M., Potluri, V., & Brewer, R. N. (2025) · Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663547.3746329 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
“…increasingly leveraging disability studies scholarship to critically and authentically engage with participants’ lived realities [14, 40, 48, 73, 83], our study contributes to calls for working with neurodivergent individuals to understand and reflect on their experiences with (GenAI)…”
InfluentialZhang, H., Feng, Y., Walker, A., & Rode, J. A. (2025) · Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663547.3746363 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Informed by disability justice research in HCI [4, 71, 85], we respect participants’ “lived experience” and their disability identities and accordingly, we organize our findings into three categories reflecting three distinct types of disabilities our participants self-identified with:…”
Cripping AI: Reimagining AI Through Lived Disability Experiences
Tang, X., Lin, T.-A., Li, J., & Wu, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3805689.3806744 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Crip theory, or critical disability studies more broadly, have been vital in shaping computing research such as HCI and accessible computing [100, 101, 105, 107, 108, 154, 209, 270].”
Kim Ly, C., Cross, T., Tasman, S., Mattka, J., Doggett, O., Marathe, M., & Chandra, P. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791638
“In alignment with recent HCI scholarship that draws on Critical Disability Studies [3, 23, 59, 60, 63, 64], we position disabled people not only as recipients of care but also as infrastructural experts whose knowing-making practices [20] demonstrate the political potential of friction [27, 51].”
Influential
- Authors
- Williams, R. M., Ringland, K., Gibson, A., Mandala, M., Maibaum, A., & Guerreiro, T.
- Affiliations
- Purdue University
- University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Technische Universität Berlin (DE)
- University of Lisbon (PT)
- Venue
- Interactions
- Published
- 2021-04-27
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 28-37
- ISSN
- 1072-5520 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-3449
- OpenAlex
- W3158317365
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 10.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- interactions (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Keywords
- crip theory, disability, human-computer interaction, assistive technology, accessibility, disability studies, inclusive design
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
