Representing users in accessibility research

The need to study representative users is widely accepted within the human-computer interaction (HCI) community. While exceptions exist, and alternative populations are sometimes studied, virtually any introduction to the process of designing user interfaces will discuss the importance of understanding the intended users as well as the significant impact individual differences can have on how effectively individuals can use various technologies. HCI researchers are expected to provide relevant demographics regarding study participants as well as information about experience using similar technologies. Yet, in the field of accessibility we continue to see studies that do not appropriately include representative users. Highlighting ways to remedy this multifaceted problem, we argue that expectations regarding how accessibility research is conducted and reported must be raised if this field is to have the desired impact with regard to inclusive design, the information technologies studied, and the lives of the individuals being studied.

[1]  M. Heller.  Picture and Pattern Perception in the Sighted and the Blind: The Advantage of the Late Blind , 1989, Perception.

[2]  Alistair D. N. Edwards,et al.  An approach to the evaluation of assistive technology , 1996, Assets '96.

[3]  Clare-Marie Karat,et al.  Productivity, satisfaction, and interaction strategies of individuals with spinal cord injuries and traditional users interacting with speech recognition software , 2001, Universal Access in the Information Society.

[4]  Helen Petrie,et al.  Remote usability evaluations With disabled people , 2006, CHI.

[5]  Kristen Shinohara,et al.  Observing Sara: a case study of a blind person's interactions with technology , 2007, Assets '07.

[6]  Matt Huenerfauth,et al.  Evaluating American Sign Language generation through the participation of native ASL signers , 2007, Assets '07.

[7]  Peter G. Fairweather.  How older and younger adults differ in their approach to problem solving on a complex website , 2008, Assets '08.

[8]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  Improving the performance of motor-impaired users with automatically-generated, ability-based interfaces , 2008, CHI.

[9]  Andrew Sears,et al.  The Development and Evaluation of Performance-Based Functional Assessment: A Methodology for the Measurement of Physical Capabilities , 2009, TACC.

[10]  M. Dijkers,et al.  When the Best Is the Enemy of the Good: The Nature of Research Evidence Used in Systematic Reviews and Guidelines. , 2009 .

[11]  Vicki L. Hanson,et al.  Exploring Visual and Motor Accessibility in Navigating a Virtual World , 2009, TACC.

[12]  Jeffrey P. Bigham,et al.  Evaluating existing audio CAPTCHAs and an interface optimized for non-visual use , 2009, CHI.

[13]  Gitte Lindgaard,et al.  Evaluating a tool for improving accessibility to charts and graphs , 2010, ASSETS '10.

[14]  Gillian R. Hayes,et al.  vSked: evaluation of a system to support classroom activities for children with autism , 2010, CHI.

[15]  Bruce N. Walker,et al.  Universal Design of Auditory Graphs: A Comparison of Sonification Mappings for Visually Impaired and Sighted Listeners , 2010, TACC.