Why is Accessibility So Hard? Insights From the History of Privacy
Open accessAbstract
While HCI and CSCW research has recognized the importance of accessibility, the field has primarily focused on individual capabilities and technological solutions. Inspired by the evolution of privacy research, I argue for expanding accessibility research to influence accessibility in real-world practice. Similar to privacy, accessibility is driven by a poorly defined core concept and faces comparable challenges including substantial demands placed on software development and the general lack of pushback. By drawing insights from the lessons learned from the privacy research community, this paper explores the current challenges faced by accessibility research. I propose centralized support and policymaking - two areas currently under-explored within accessibility research - hold rich potential for driving meaningful progress.
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?
Many of the issues identified are shared across geographical areas, such as the widespread lack of accessible resources, negotiation between multiple parties, and significant labor placed on disabled students.
“Many of the issues we identified are shared across geographical areas, such as the widespread lack of accessible resources [86, 87], negotiation between multiple parties [52, 55], and significant labor placed on disabled students [41].”
From Access in the Shadow of Ableism: An Autoethnography of a Blind Student's Higher Education Experience in China (2026) · cites this paper as [86]
The diversity of disabled experiences makes exhausting population experiences nearly impossible.
“The diversity of disabled experiences also makes exhausting population experiences nearly impossible [93, 96].”
From Disability-First AI Dataset Annotation: Co-designing Stuttered Speech Annotation Guidelines with People Who Stutter (2026) · cites this paper as [93]
Cites
Lau, J., Zimmerman, B., & Schaub, F. (2018) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3274371 · Cited by 568 · see citing works
Interdependence as a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design
Bennett, C. L., Brady, E., & Branham, S. M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3234695.3236348 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Accessibility in Software Practice: A Practitioner’s Perspective
Bi, T., Xia, X., Lo, D., Grundy, J., Zimmermann, T., & Ford, D. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3503508 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Examining Image-Based Button Labeling for Accessibility in Android Apps through Large-Scale Analysis
Ross, A. S., Zhang, X., Fogarty, J., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2018) · Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3234695.3236364 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
The FATE Landscape of Sign Language AI Datasets: An Interdisciplinary Perspective
Bragg, D., Caselli, N., Hochgesang, J. A., Huenerfauth, M., Katz-Hernandez, L., Koller, O., Kushalnagar, R., Vogler, C., & Ladner, R. E. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3436996 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
McDonnell, E. J., Liu, P., Goodman, S. M., Kushalnagar, R., Froehlich, J. E., & Findlater, L. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3479578 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Access Differential and Inequitable Access: Inaccessibility for Doctoral Students in Computing
Shinohara, K., McQuaid, M., & Jacobo, N. (2020) · Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3373625.3416989 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tang, X., Li, J., & Wu, S. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790405 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“The diversity of disabled experiences also makes ex-hausting population experiences nearly impossible [93, 96].”
Self-citationTang, X., & Zhang, W. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790464 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“In accessible computing, autoethnographic studies have provided valuable insights into broader contexts shaping accessibility and informed the design of assistive technologies [2, 12, 37, 41, 50, 98, 99].”
Self-citationCripping 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
Self-citation
- Authors
- Tang, X.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Irvine (US)
- Corresponding author
- Tang, Xinru
- ORCID
- Tang, Xinru
- Venue
- Companion Publication of the 2024 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-11-11
- Pages
- 362-368
- OpenAlex
- W4404331286
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 1.64
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Keywords
- accessibility, history of privacy, privacy research
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
