pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.08514 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: unknown

"Because we are no longer ashamed of our disabilities, we are proud": Advocating and Reclaiming Next-Gen Accessibility Symbols

Karen Joy , Chris Dodge , Harsh Chavda , Alyssa Sheehan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:59 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords accessibility symbolsdisability disclosurewearable devicesuser controlcontext-sensitive designdesign sessionsinclusive technologyagency in disclosure
0
0 comments X

The pith

Accessibility symbols reduce misinterpretation when paired with technologies that let users control visibility and optional explanations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how people with disabilities currently use or avoid accessibility symbols in online and offline settings and what barriers prevent wider adoption. Through twenty-three design sessions involving sketching and storyboarding, participants described ways to embed symbols in wearables, phones, and portable tools so that disclosure remains optional and context-specific. The central finding is that symbols alone often lead to wrong assumptions, but adding user-controlled tech layers helps carriers decide when to reveal information and supplies clear explanations only when needed. This reframes symbols not as static icons but as elements inside a larger disclosure system whose meaning shifts with the person, the device, and the situation. A sympathetic reader would see practical routes to make public interactions less fraught without removing personal choice.

Core claim

Participants proposed integrating accessibility symbols into wearable devices, mobile interfaces, and portable tools with customizable and context-sensitive controls. Symbols become most effective when technologies provide user control over visibility together with optional pathways for explanation, which reduces misinterpretation while preserving agency during disclosure moments. The work treats symbol-based assistance as one part of a broader disclosure system in which meaning depends on the symbol itself, the person carrying it, and the surrounding context.

What carries the argument

User-controlled visibility paired with optional explanation pathways that turn static accessibility symbols into elements of a context-sensitive disclosure system.

If this is right

  • Symbols embedded in wearables let carriers turn visibility on or off depending on immediate social context.
  • Optional explanation features give bystanders clearer information without forcing the carrier to speak first.
  • Treating symbols as part of a larger system rather than standalone icons supports more inclusive design across public and digital spaces.
  • Participant ideas for mobile and portable tools point to concrete prototypes that prioritize agency over automatic display.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar control mechanisms might transfer to other identity-related symbols where unwanted attention is a concern.
  • Real-world deployment studies could reveal whether context sensing improves or complicates user decisions about when to disclose.
  • The emphasis on optional pathways suggests design teams should test explanation content with both carriers and observers to avoid new forms of misunderstanding.

Load-bearing premise

Proposals and preferences gathered from twenty-three participants in remote design sessions will hold for wider populations and that the suggested technology integrations will prove feasible and effective across different disability types, cultures, and everyday settings.

What would settle it

A controlled test that deploys prototype wearables allowing users to toggle symbol visibility and add short explanations, then measures whether misinterpretation rates drop and self-reported comfort with disclosure rises compared with static symbols alone.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.08514 by Alyssa Sheehan, Chris Dodge, Harsh Chavda, Karen Joy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Disability Symbols • RQ2: Usage: How do individuals with disabilities utilize these symbols to represent their specific needs and preferences? • RQ3: Representation: What breakdowns in recognition and interpretation do participants foresee for accessibility symbols across contexts? • RQ4: Reimagination: How do participants reimagine symbols when paired with different technological modalities (wearables, mo… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Our study investigates the relationship between accessibility symbols and emerging technologies in supporting disability disclosure. We conducted twenty three remote design creation sessions with semi structured interviews to examine participants awareness of existing symbols, how they use symbols across online and offline contexts, and barriers to adoption and interpretation. Through participant sketching and future oriented storyboard probes, participants proposed ways to integrate symbols into wearable devices, mobile interfaces, and portable tools, emphasizing customizable and context sensitive disclosure. Our findings suggest symbols are most effective when paired with technologies that provide user control over visibility and optional pathways for explanation, helping reduce misinterpretation while supporting agency in disclosure moments. By reimagining symbol based assistance as part of a broader disclosure system where meaning depends on the symbol, its carrier, and context, this work informs more inclusive accessibility supports across diverse settings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports a qualitative study of 23 remote design-creation sessions with semi-structured interviews exploring participants' awareness of existing accessibility symbols, their use in online/offline contexts, barriers to adoption/interpretation, and proposals for next-generation symbols integrated with wearables, mobile interfaces, and portable tools. Through sketching and future-oriented storyboarding, participants emphasized customizable, context-sensitive disclosure. The central claim is that symbols are most effective when paired with technologies providing user control over visibility and optional explanation pathways, thereby reducing misinterpretation while supporting agency; the work frames symbol-based assistance as part of a broader disclosure system dependent on symbol, carrier, and context.

Significance. If the interpretive findings hold, the work contributes user-generated insights to HCI on reclaiming and extending accessibility symbols for disability disclosure, highlighting preferences for agency and context sensitivity. It offers concrete design probes (wearables, optional explanations) that could inform inclusive technology development. The study is grounded in participant voices and provides a starting point for rethinking symbols beyond static icons, though its impact is tempered by the absence of empirical validation of the proposed effectiveness mechanisms.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and findings section: The assertion that symbols 'are most effective when paired with technologies that provide user control over visibility and optional pathways for explanation, helping reduce misinterpretation' is presented as a finding but derives solely from interpretive synthesis of 23 participants' sketches, storyboards, and interview responses. No direct measures of effectiveness (e.g., interpretation error rates, controlled comparison tasks, or deployment metrics) are reported, leaving the 'most effective' claim and the proposed mechanism of reduced misinterpretation as untested assumptions about hypothetical designs.
  2. [Methods] Methods (implied in abstract and study description): Participant selection criteria, recruitment strategy, data analysis methods (e.g., thematic analysis details, coding process, inter-rater reliability), and validation approaches are not described. This absence makes it impossible to assess the rigor or transferability of the reported preferences and proposals, directly affecting the load-bearing claim about effectiveness and generalizability across disability types and settings.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The title and abstract use the phrase 'next-gen accessibility symbols' without a precise definition or contrast to existing symbols; a brief operationalization early in the paper would clarify scope.
  2. [Discussion] The manuscript would benefit from explicit discussion of limitations, particularly around sample size (n=23), remote format, and the speculative nature of storyboard probes, to contextualize the strength of the 'most effective' claim.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which highlights important opportunities to strengthen the framing of our interpretive findings and to enhance methodological transparency. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to address these points while preserving the qualitative, participant-driven nature of the study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and findings section: The assertion that symbols 'are most effective when paired with technologies that provide user control over visibility and optional pathways for explanation, helping reduce misinterpretation' is presented as a finding but derives solely from interpretive synthesis of 23 participants' sketches, storyboards, and interview responses. No direct measures of effectiveness (e.g., interpretation error rates, controlled comparison tasks, or deployment metrics) are reported, leaving the 'most effective' claim and the proposed mechanism of reduced misinterpretation as untested assumptions about hypothetical designs.

    Authors: We agree that the original phrasing in the abstract and findings section presents the claim too strongly by using 'most effective' without empirical validation of the mechanism. As a qualitative study based on design probes and interviews, our findings reflect participants' proposals and interpretive synthesis rather than tested outcomes. In the revised manuscript, we have toned down the language throughout the abstract, findings, and discussion to clarify that these are participant-derived insights and suggestions (e.g., 'participants proposed that symbols may be more effective when...'). We have also added explicit caveats noting the exploratory nature and absence of quantitative validation, ensuring the claims align with the data collected. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Methods (implied in abstract and study description): Participant selection criteria, recruitment strategy, data analysis methods (e.g., thematic analysis details, coding process, inter-rater reliability), and validation approaches are not described. This absence makes it impossible to assess the rigor or transferability of the reported preferences and proposals, directly affecting the load-bearing claim about effectiveness and generalizability across disability types and settings.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original manuscript provided insufficient detail on the methods. In the revised version, we have substantially expanded the Methods section to include: (1) participant selection criteria (self-identified adults with disabilities who had prior experience with accessibility symbols or disclosure challenges); (2) recruitment strategy (via disability advocacy organizations, online forums, social media, and snowball sampling, with details on screening and consent); (3) data analysis methods (thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach, including iterative coding, codebook development, and how themes were derived from sketches, storyboards, and transcripts); and (4) validation approaches (e.g., peer debriefing among researchers and member checking with a subset of participants). These additions improve transparency and allow readers to better evaluate rigor and potential transferability, while noting the study's focus on diverse disability experiences rather than broad generalizability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: claims rest on participant data without self-referential derivations

full rationale

The paper reports a qualitative study of 23 design sessions using sketching, storyboards, and interviews. Its central claim—that symbols are most effective when paired with user-controlled visibility and optional explanation pathways—arises directly from interpretive synthesis of participant proposals rather than any fitted parameters, equations, or self-citations. No mathematical derivations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes appear; the work contains no load-bearing self-references to prior author work that would reduce the findings to inputs by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks of participant input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on interpretive analysis of qualitative data from a small participant group; no technical free parameters or invented entities are involved.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Insights from 23 design-session participants reflect broadly relevant needs for accessibility symbol design
    The study draws general recommendations from this limited sample without stated justification for representativeness.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5447 in / 1235 out tokens · 99346 ms · 2026-05-10T16:59:28.772080+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tawfiq Ammari, Eunhye Ahn, Astha Lakhankar, and Joyce Y. Lee. 2025. Finding Understanding and Support: Navigating Online Communities to Share and Connect at the intersection of Abuse and Foster Care Experiences.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2, Article CSCW087 (May 2025), 40 pages. doi:10.1145/3710985

    work page doi:10.1145/3710985 2025

  2. [2]

    Katrin Angerbauer, Phoenix Van Wagoner, Tim Halach, Jonas Vogelsang, Natalie Hube, Andria Smith, Ksenia Keplinger, and Michael Sedlmair

  3. [3]

    InProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(St

    Is it Part of Me? Exploring Experiences of Inclusive Avatar Use For Visible and Invisible Disabilities in Social VR. InProceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(St. John’s, NL, Canada)(ASSETS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 54, 15 pages. doi:10.1145/3663548.3675601

    work page doi:10.1145/3663548.3675601

  4. [4]

    Gaurav Bansal, David Gefen, et al. 2010. The impact of personal dispositions on information sensitivity, privacy concern and trust in disclosing health information online.Decision support systems49, 2 (2010), 138–150

    2010

  5. [5]

    Samuel Barnett. 2024. Envisioning a human-centric data economy through speculative practice and co-design. InCompanion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark)(DIS ’24 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6–10. doi:10.1145/3656156.3665130

    work page doi:10.1145/3656156.3665130 2024

  6. [6]

    Beth A Barstow, Jason Vice, Sean Bowman, Tapan Mehta, Seanna Kringen, Peter Axelson, and Sangeetha Padalabalanarayanan. 2019. Examining perceptions of existing and newly created accessibility symbols.Disability and Health Journal12, 2 (2019), 180–186

    2019

  7. [7]

    Susanne Bødker and Morten Kyng. 2018. Participatory Design that Matters—Facing the Big Issues.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.25, 1, Article 4 (Feb. 2018), 31 pages. doi:10.1145/3152421

    work page doi:10.1145/3152421 2018

  8. [8]

    Jeffrey M Borkan. 2022. Immersion–Crystallization: a valuable analytic tool for healthcare research.Family Practice39, 4 (2022), 785–789

    2022

  9. [9]

    Jerome S Bruner. 2003. Chapter 3. The narrative construction of reality. InNarrative intelligence. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 41–62

    2003

  10. [10]

    Sophia Carroll. 2023. Why Designers Should Study Semiotics: Applications of Semiotics to User Interface Design. (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Leona Chandra-Kruse, Stefan Seidel, and Alexander Maedche. 2021. Levels of Digital Representation: Semiotics and the Articulation of Meaning. (2021)

    2021

  12. [12]

    Ge Chen. 2011. Narrative research on the identity of disabled people in Tibetan culture.Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Psychologica4, 1 (2011), 85–91

    2011

  13. [13]

    2022.Doing Qualitative Research(3 ed.)

    Benjamin Crabtree and {William L.} Miller. 2022.Doing Qualitative Research(3 ed.). SAGE Publications Inc., United States

    2022

  14. [14]

    Benjamin F Crabtree and William L Miller. 1992. Doing qualitative research.. InAnnual North American Primary Care Research Group Meeting, 19th, May, 1989, Quebec, PQ, Canada. Sage Publications, Inc

    1992

  15. [15]

    Philippa M Dall and Andrew Kerr. 2010. Frequency of the sit to stand task: an observational study of free-living adults.Applied ergonomics41, 1 (2010), 58–61

    2010

  16. [16]

    Taraprasad Das, Padmaja K Rani, Sobha Sivaprasad, and Rajiv Raman. 2021. The blue circle and 100 years of insulin discovery.Indian Journal of Ophthalmology69, 11 (2021), 2920–2924

    2021

  17. [17]

    Kausalya Ganesh and Amanda Lazar. 2021. The Work of Workplace Disclosure: Invisible Chronic Conditions and Opportunities for Design.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1, Article 73 (April 2021), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3449147

    work page doi:10.1145/3449147 2021

  18. [18]

    Invisible illness is no longer invisible

    Ria J. Gualano, Lucy Jiang, Kexin Zhang, Andrea Stevenson Won, and Shiri Azenkot. 2023. “Invisible Illness Is No Longer Invisible”: Making Social VR Avatars More Inclusive for Invisible Disability Representation. InProceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(New York, NY, USA)(ASSETS ’23). Association for ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3597638.3614480 2023

  19. [19]

    Carlos Guerrero Millan, Sonja Rattay, and Youngsil Lee. 2024. A Manifesto for Other-Than-Human Imaginaries of Data (DIS). InCompanion Publication of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark)(DIS ’24 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 253–256. doi:10.1145/3656156.3663709

    work page doi:10.1145/3656156.3663709 2024

  20. [20]

    2017.Designing Disability

    Elizabeth Guffey. 2017.Designing Disability. Bloomsbury Publishing

    2017

  21. [21]

    Alnajim, Sheroz Khan, and Mohammed F

    Adib Habbal, Hassen Hamouda, Abdullah M. Alnajim, Sheroz Khan, and Mohammed F. Alrifaie. 2024. Privacy as a Lifestyle: Empowering assistive technologies for people with disabilities, challenges and future directions.J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci.36, 4 (April 2024), 21 pages. Manuscript submitted to ACM 16 Joy et al. doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2024.102039

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2024.102039 2024

  22. [22]

    Holly E Handcock, Wendy A Rogers, Derek Schroeder, and Arthur D Fisk. 2004. Safety symbol comprehension: Effects of symbol type, familiarity, and age.Human Factors46, 2 (2004), 183–195

    2004

  23. [23]

    Megan Hofmann, Devva Kasnitz, Jennifer Mankoff, and Cynthia L Bennett. 2020. Living Disability Theory: Reflections on Access, Research, and Design. InProceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Virtual Event, Greece)(ASSETS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 4, 13 pages. ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3373625.3416996 2020

  24. [24]

    Martin Irvine. 2023. Semiotics in Computing and Information Systems.Bloomsbury Semiotics Volume 2: Semiotics in the Natural and Technical Sciences2 (2023), 203

    2023

  25. [25]

    If it has an exclamation point, I step away from it, I need facts, not excited feelings

    Karen Joy, Michelle Liang, and Tawfiq Ammari. 2025. "If it has an exclamation point, I step away from it, I need facts, not excited feelings": Technologically Mediated Parental COVID Uncertainty.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 2, Article CSCW111 (May 2025), 38 pages. doi:10.1145/ 3711009

    2025

  26. [26]

    Skov, and Niels van Berkel

    Naja Kathrine Kollerup, Joel Wester, Mikael B. Skov, and Niels van Berkel. 2024. How Can I Signal You To Trust Me: Investigating AI Trust Signalling in Clinical Self-Assessments. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Copenhagen, Denmark)(DIS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 525–540. doi:10.1145...

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3661612 2024

  27. [27]

    Markos Konstantakis and George Caridakis. 2020. Adding Culture to UX: UX Research Methodologies and Applications in Cultural Heritage.J. Comput. Cult. Herit.13, 1, Article 4 (Feb. 2020), 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3354002

    work page doi:10.1145/3354002 2020

  28. [28]

    Goeun Kuu-Park, Andrea Botero, and Cindy Kohtala. 2024. Evolving PD tools through iteration: Analyzing templates used for multiple participatory renewable energy projects. InProceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2024: Exploratory Papers and Workshops - Volume 2(Sibu, Malaysia) (PDC ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3661455.3669869 2024

  29. [29]

    Makayla Lewis, Miriam Sturdee, Jason Alexander, Jelle Van Dijk, Majken Kirkegård Rasmussen, and Thuong Hoang. 2017. SketchingDIS: Hand-drawn Sketching in HCI. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems(Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (DIS ’17 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    work page doi:10.1145/3064857.3064863 2017

  30. [30]

    Mark R Luborsky. 1994. The cultural adversity of physical disability: Erosion of full adult personhood.Journal of Aging Studies8, 3 (1994), 239–253

    1994

  31. [31]

    Smith, and Fannie Liu

    Kelly Mack, Rai Ching Ling Hsu, Andrés Monroy-Hernández, Brian A. Smith, and Fannie Liu. 2023. Towards Inclusive Avatars: Disability Representation in Avatar Platforms. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 607, 13 pages. do...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581481 2023

  32. [32]

    Mohammad Issa Mehawesh. 2014. The socio-semiotic theory of language and translation: An overview.International Journal of Language and Literatures2, 2 (2014), 251–69

    2014

  33. [33]

    Tamanna Motahar, Noelle Brown, Eliane Stampfer Wiese, and Jason Wiese. 2024. Toward Building Design Empathy for People with Disabilities Using Social Media Data: A New Approach for Novice Designers. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Copenhagen, Denmark)(DIS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3660687 2024

  34. [34]

    Michelle R Nario-Redmond, Jeffrey G Noel, and Emily Fern. 2013. Redefining disability, re-imagining the self: Disability identification predicts self-esteem and strategic responses to stigma.Self and Identity12, 5 (2013), 468–488

    2013

  35. [35]

    Sushil S Nifadkar and Suresh Bhagavatula. 2021. Online health behavior: Antecedents and outcomes of employee participation in an organization’s online health program.Personnel Psychology74, 3 (2021), 449–476

    2021

  36. [36]

    Frans Fandy Palinoan, I Made Markus Suma, Patrio Tandiangga, and Arwin Dama. 2024. Charles Sanders Peirce’s semiotic analysis of human values in the film sound of freedom.JPPI (Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Indonesia)10, 3 (2024), 358–365

    2024

  37. [37]

    Soya Park, Eun-Jeong Kang, Karen Joy, Rosanna Bellini, Jérémie Lumbroso, Danaë Metaxa, and Andrés Monroy-Hernández. 2023. The Future of Conferences Is Unconferences: Exploring a Decentralized Network of Regional Meetups.Interactions30, 5 (2023), 50–53

    2023

  38. [38]

    Pina, Sang-Wha Sien, Teresa Ward, Jason C

    Laura R. Pina, Sang-Wha Sien, Teresa Ward, Jason C. Yip, Sean A. Munson, James Fogarty, and Julie A. Kientz. 2017. From Personal Informatics to Family Informatics: Understanding Family Practices around Health Monitoring. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(Portland, Oregon, USA)(CSCW ’17). A...

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998362 2017

  39. [39]

    Jan Ole Rixen, Mark Colley, Ali Askari, Jan Gugenheimer, and Enrico Rukzio. 2022. Consent in the Age of AR: Investigating The Comfort With Displaying Personal Information in Augmented Reality. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, US...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3502140 2022

  40. [40]

    Holly M Rus and Linda D Cameron. 2016. Health communication in social media: message features predicting user engagement on diabetes-related Facebook pages.Annals of behavioral medicine50, 5 (2016), 678–689

    2016

  41. [41]

    I was really, really nervous posting it

    Shruti Sannon, Elizabeth L. Murnane, Natalya N. Bazarova, and Geri Gay. 2019. "I was really, really nervous posting it": Communicating about Invisible Chronic Illnesses across Social Media Platforms. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Glasgow, Scotland Uk)(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3290605.3300583 2019

  42. [42]

    Alecia M Santuzzi and Pamela R Waltz. 2016. Disability in the workplace: A unique and variable identity.Journal of Management42, 5 (2016), 1111–1135

    2016

  43. [43]

    Because we are no longer ashamed of our disabilities, we are proud

    Bruno Sartini, Sarah Binta Alam Shoilee, Claudia A. Libbi, and Victor de Boer. 2024. Multivocal Exhibition: Exploring Cultural Perspectives through User-Curated Art Exhibitions.J. Comput. Cult. Herit.17, 4, Article 73 (Dec. 2024), 21 pages. doi:10.1145/3679020 Manuscript submitted to ACM "Because we are no longer ashamed of our disabilities, we are proud"...

    work page doi:10.1145/3679020 2024

  44. [44]

    Ben Shneiderman. 2020. Human-centered artificial intelligence: Reliable, safe & trustworthy.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 36, 6 (2020), 495–504

    2020

  45. [45]

    Miriam Sturdee, Makayla Lewis, Angelika Strohmayer, Katta Spiel, Nantia Koulidou, Sarah Fdili Alaoui, and Josh Urban Davis. 2021. A Plurality of Practices: Artistic Narratives in HCI Research. InProceedings of the 13th Conference on Creativity and Cognition(Virtual Event, Italy)(C&C ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 35,...

    work page doi:10.1145/3450741.3466771 2021

  46. [46]

    Truong, Gillian R

    Khai N. Truong, Gillian R. Hayes, and Gregory D. Abowd. 2006. Storyboarding: an empirical determination of best practices and effective guidelines. InProceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems(University Park, PA, USA)(DIS ’06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 12–21. doi:10.1145/1142405.1142410

    work page doi:10.1145/1142405.1142410 2006

  47. [47]

    Remko Van der Lugt. 2005. How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings.Design studies26, 2 (2005), 101–122

    2005

  48. [48]

    Ilse M Verstijnen, Cees van Leeuwen, Gabriela Goldschmidt, Ronald Hamel, and JM Hennessey. 1998. Sketching and creative discovery.Design studies19, 4 (1998), 519–546

    1998

  49. [49]

    Jason Vice, Beth A Barstow, Sean Bowman, Tapan Mehta, and Sangeetha Padalabalanarayanan. 2020. Effectiveness of the International Symbol of Access and inclusivity of other disability groups.Disability and Health Journal13, 1 (2020), 100836

    2020

  50. [50]

    Fan Wang, Zonghai Zhang, Liangyi Li, and Siyu Long. 2024. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in Artistic Expression: A Comprehensive Study of Innovative Technologies.International Journal of Advanced Computer Science & Applications15, 3 (2024)

    2024

  51. [51]

    Stroud, Xuan Zhu, Jennifer E

    Dong Whi Yoo, Austin M. Stroud, Xuan Zhu, Jennifer E. Miller, and Barbara Barry. 2025. Toward Patient-Centered AI Fact Labels: Leveraging Extrinsic Trust Cues. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 676–690. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735758

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735758 2025

  52. [52]

    It’s Just Part of Me:

    Kexin Zhang, Elmira Deldari, Zhicong Lu, Yaxing Yao, and Yuhang Zhao. 2022. “It’s Just Part of Me:” Understanding Avatar Diversity and Self-presentation of People with Disabilities in Social Virtual Reality. InProceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Athens, Greece)(ASSETS ’22). Association for Computin...

    work page doi:10.1145/3517428.3544829 2022