Cited by 10Digital Accessibility for DisabilitiesAssistive Technology in Communication and MobilityDisability Rights and Representation

“I just thought it was me”: How Smartphones Fail Users with Mild-to-Moderate Dexterity Differences

Open access
Bowman, Molly, Robinson, Jerry, Buehler, Erin, Kane, Shaun·2023·The 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

Abstract

Accessibility solutions often focus on the experiences of people with more severe disabilities, such as those who are unable to perform certain tasks unassisted. However, disability exists on a spectrum, and people with moderate disabilities may be overlooked when studying or sampling for differences. As a result, these individuals and their needs are excluded from relevant research. In this study, we interviewed 12 adults with mild-to-moderate dexterity impairments about their experiences using smartphones and other mobile devices. While our participants frequently experienced accessibility challenges, they struggled to know where to find help, in part because of discomfort with traditional labels of disability and accessibility. We found four key themes: (1) There were large gaps in available and usable accessibility tools for this population, (2) Users were unlikely to seek out accessibility features due to complex disability identity, (3) Contextual concerns impacted mobile device use, and (4) Users relied on self-created adaptations and modifications to improve usability. We suggest that individuals with mild-to-moderate dexterity challenges are a unique cohort that would benefit from further consideration from the accessibility community and accessibility features that support their needs.

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 · 10.1145/3597638.3608396

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Barriers to formal diagnosis include high financial cost and the stigma of identifying as disabled.

    “Barriers to formal diagnosis have been well-documented in the literature, including high financial cost and the stigma of identifying as disabled [7, 44].”

    From Infrastructuring as Collective Resistance: How Disabled Students Negotiate Access Through Technology in Universities (2026) · cites this paper as [7]

    Section 5.2 describes self-stigma and fear of judgment around disability identity, but relates these to seeking accessibility support, not formal diagnosis. Section 3.1 notes that all participants had a related medical diagnosis. The paper does not identify financial cost or stigma as barriers to obtaining one. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Nicole Ditchman, Shirli Werner, Kristin Kosyluk, Nev Jones, Brianna Elg, and Patrick W. Corrigan. 2013. Stigma and intellectual disability: Potential application of mental illness research. Rehabilitation Psychology 58, 2 (2013), 206-216.
  2. Shanna K Kattari, Miranda Olzman, and Michele D Hanna. 2018. "You look fne!" Ableist experiences by people with invisible disabilities. Aflia 33, 4 (2018), 477-492.
  3. T Louise-Bender Pape, J Kim, and B Weiner. 2002. The shaping of individual meanings assigned to assistive technology: a review of personal factors. Disability and rehabilitation 24, 1-3 (2002), 5-20.
  4. Betsy Phillips and Hongxin Zhao. 1993. Predictors of assistive technology aban- donment. Assistive technology 5, 1 (1993), 36-45.
  5. Marcia J Scherer. 1996. Outcomes of assistive technology use on quality of life. Disability and rehabilitation 18, 9 (1996), 439-448.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowman, M., Robinson, J., Buehler, E., & Kane, S.
Affiliations
Google (United States) (US)
Venue
The 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-10-22
Pages
1-12
OpenAlex
W4387793563
Cited by
9
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4
FWCI
3.77
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
Keywords
smartphone accessibility, accessibility tools, disability identity, assistive technology

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