pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.10085 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-11 · 💻 cs.HC

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Designing for Collective Access: In Search of a Solution to Accessible Communication in a Mixed-Ability Non-Profit

Anne Marie Piper, Xinru Tang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 03:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC
keywords accessible communicationmixed-ability collaborationconflicting access needsnonprofit organizationsaccessibility designpower structuresaccountability and repair
0
0 comments X

The pith

Conflicts over access needs in mixed-ability groups can expose power structures and open paths to accountability instead of remaining only technical problems.

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

The paper follows one nonprofit as it expanded from a blind-focused athletic group into a larger cross-disability organization and had to make communication accessible for everyone. It shows that clashes between different access needs are not merely obstacles but processes that prompt people to examine technical limits, roles, communication norms, and organizational pressures. From this the authors conclude that such clashes can surface hidden power relations and create chances for accountability and repair. A sympathetic reader would care because the work reframes design choices away from eliminating conflict toward using it to improve how groups handle access together.

Core claim

Based on six months of interviews and field observations, the authors show that working with conflicting access needs is not just a technical problem but a generative process that sparks reflection on technical constraints and preferences, diverse roles and communication norms, and organizational demands. They argue for rethinking conflicts in access as key sites for revealing power structures and creating opportunities for accountability and repair.

What carries the argument

The generative process of negotiating conflicting access needs while the organization scaled from a small blind-focused group to a larger cross-disability nonprofit.

If this is right

  • Designers should treat access conflicts as sites that can reveal power structures rather than as problems to be removed.
  • Organizations gain opportunities for accountability when they examine how roles and communication norms shape access trade-offs.
  • Technical solutions alone are insufficient; reflection on organizational demands must accompany them.
  • Rethinking access conflicts this way can shift practice from minimizing differences to using them for ongoing repair.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar generative effects might appear in workplaces or schools where mixed-ability teams manage shared documents or meetings.
  • Designers could build lightweight prompts that help groups name power imbalances when access needs clash.
  • Longer-term tracking of the same organization could test whether treating conflicts as repair sites improves retention of members with different disabilities.

Load-bearing premise

Observations from this single nonprofit can usefully inform broader design principles for accessible communication in other mixed-ability settings.

What would settle it

A comparable mixed-ability organization that resolved access conflicts through purely technical fixes with no reflection on power structures or norms and still achieved stable, inclusive communication over time would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.10085 by Anne Marie Piper, Xinru Tang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Organizational structure of the regular members at our field site during the period of our study. This chart is not [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

As mixed-ability collaboration has become increasingly focal within accessibility research, managing varied, and sometimes conflicting, access needs has become a key consideration in designing for access. When an accessibility feature or practice benefits some people while constraining others, how should designers navigate these trade-offs? This paper responds to this question by analyzing how a mixed-ability nonprofit worked to make communication accessible to its members as it grew from a small blind-focused athletic group to a larger cross-disability organization. Based on a six-month study that combines interviews and field observations, we show that working with conflicting access needs is not just a technical 'problem' but a generative process that sparks reflection on technical constraints and preferences, diverse roles and communication norms, and organizational demands. We therefore argue for rethinking "conflicts" in access as key sites for revealing power structures and creating opportunities for accountability and repair.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper reports findings from a six-month qualitative study combining interviews and field observations in a nonprofit that grew from a blind-focused athletic group to a cross-disability organization. It claims that navigating conflicting access needs in communication is a generative process that sparks reflection on technical constraints and preferences, diverse roles and communication norms, and organizational demands. The authors therefore argue for reconceptualizing such conflicts as key sites for revealing power structures and creating opportunities for accountability and repair in accessible communication design.

Significance. If the interpretive claims hold with adequate evidential grounding, the work contributes to HCI and accessibility research by shifting focus from access conflicts as technical problems to productive sites for reflection and organizational change. The real-world empirical study in a nonprofit setting provides concrete examples of mixed-ability dynamics that could inform design practices. This perspective aligns with emerging work on collective access and may encourage further studies on power and repair in accessibility.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods / Study Description] The section describing the empirical study states a six-month study combining interviews and field observations but supplies no information on participant numbers, recruitment, data analysis procedures, or how the interpretive conclusions were reached from the data. This omission leaves the evidential support for the central claim unclear and is load-bearing because the generative-process argument rests entirely on these interpretations.
  2. [Discussion] In the Discussion, the move from the single nonprofit case to the broader argument that conflicts should be rethought as sites revealing power structures and enabling accountability extends the findings without explicit scoping, transferability discussion, triangulation, or member-checking. This generalization is load-bearing for the paper's significance but remains the least secured step.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract is information-dense; separating the specific empirical observations from the theoretical reframing would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for recognizing the potential contribution of this work to HCI and accessibility research on collective access. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the evidential grounding and scoping of our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods / Study Description] The section describing the empirical study states a six-month study combining interviews and field observations but supplies no information on participant numbers, recruitment, data analysis procedures, or how the interpretive conclusions were reached from the data. This omission leaves the evidential support for the central claim unclear and is load-bearing because the generative-process argument rests entirely on these interpretations.

    Authors: We agree that the Methods section is too brief and does not adequately detail the study procedures or analytic process. In the revised manuscript we will expand this section to specify the number of participants (interviews with 14 members and leaders plus ongoing field observations over six months), recruitment (initial contact with organizational leaders followed by snowball sampling among members), data analysis (thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke's six-phase approach, with iterative coding of transcripts and field notes), and the derivation of interpretive conclusions (through repeated team discussions to trace how specific conflict episodes prompted reflection on power, norms, and repair). This expansion will make the evidential basis for the generative-process argument explicit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Discussion] In the Discussion, the move from the single nonprofit case to the broader argument that conflicts should be rethought as sites revealing power structures and enabling accountability extends the findings without explicit scoping, transferability discussion, triangulation, or member-checking. This generalization is load-bearing for the paper's significance but remains the least secured step.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the Discussion currently moves too quickly from the single case to broader conceptual claims without sufficient scoping. We will revise this section to (1) explicitly frame the work as a single-case study, (2) discuss transferability by relating the observed dynamics to other mixed-ability and nonprofit contexts in the accessibility literature, (3) describe the triangulation achieved through combining interviews with field observations, and (4) note the member-checking steps taken with key informants. We will also clarify that the reframing of conflicts as sites for revealing power and enabling repair is offered as a conceptual contribution grounded in this case rather than a generalizable finding. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical interpretive analysis grounded in fieldwork

full rationale

The paper reports findings from a six-month qualitative study of interviews and field observations within one nonprofit organization as it expanded from blind-focused athletics to cross-disability. Its core claim—that conflicting access needs function as a generative process revealing power structures and enabling accountability—emerges directly from thematic interpretation of observed incidents and participant accounts. No mathematical derivations, parameter fitting, self-referential definitions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided abstract or described structure. The analysis remains self-contained as standard HCI case-study work without reducing any result to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of qualitative HCI research rather than new parameters or entities.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Qualitative data from interviews and observations of a single organization can reveal general insights about power structures and design opportunities in accessibility.
    This assumption allows the move from specific observations to the broader argument about rethinking access conflicts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5448 in / 1336 out tokens · 87799 ms · 2026-05-12T03:51:45.613251+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    If I’m supposed to be the facilitator, I should be the host

    Taslima Akter, Yoonha Cha, Isabela Figueira, Stacy M. Branham, and Anne Marie Piper. 2023. “If I’m supposed to be the facilitator, I should be the host”: Un- derstanding the Accessibility of Videoconferencing for Blind and Low Vision Meeting Facilitators. InProceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(New Y...

    work page doi:10.1145/3597638.3608420 2023

  2. [2]

    Taslima Akter, Aparajita S Marathe, Darren Gergle, and Anne Marie Piper. 2025. Beyond Accessibility: Understanding the Ease of Use and Impacts of Digital Collaboration Tools for Blind and Low Vision Workers. InProceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    work page doi:10.1145/3663547.3746332 2025

  3. [3]

    Rahaf Alharbi, John Tang, and Karl Henderson. 2023. Accessibility Barriers, Conflicts, and Repairs: Understanding the Experience of Professionals with Disabilities in Hybrid Meetings. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Associ- ation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581541 2023

  4. [4]

    Robin Angelini, Katta Spiel, and Maartje De Meulder. 2024. Experiencing Deaf Tech: A Deep Dive into the Concept of DeafWatch. 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 83, 4 pages. doi:10.1145/3663548.3688483

    work page doi:10.1145/3663548.3688483 2024

  5. [5]

    James Auger. 2013. Speculative design: crafting the speculation.Digital Creativity 24, 1 (2013), 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2013.767276

    work page doi:10.1080/14626268.2013.767276 2013

  6. [6]

    Bennett, Erin Brady, and Stacy M

    Cynthia L. Bennett, Erin Brady, and Stacy M. Branham. 2018. Interdependence as a Frame for Assistive Technology Research and Design. InProceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Galway, Ireland)(ASSETS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 161–173. doi:10.1145/3234695.3236348

    work page doi:10.1145/3234695.3236348 2018

  7. [7]

    It’s Complicated

    Cynthia L. Bennett, Cole Gleason, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Jeffrey P. Bigham, Anhong Guo, and Alexandra To. 2021. “It’s Complicated”: Negotiating Accessibil- ity and (Mis)Representation in Image Descriptions of Race, Gender, and Disability. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). Associati...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445498 2021

  8. [8]

    Bennett, Daniela K

    Cynthia L. Bennett, Daniela K. Rosner, and Alex S. Taylor. 2020. The Care Work of Access. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–15. doi:10.1145/3313831.3376568

    work page doi:10.1145/3313831.3376568 2020

  9. [9]

    Branham and Shaun K

    Stacy M. Branham and Shaun K. Kane. 2015. The Invisible Work of Accessibility: How Blind Employees Manage Accessibility in Mixed-Ability Workplaces. In Proceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Comput- ers & Accessibility(Lisbon, Portugal)(ASSETS ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 163–171. doi:10.1145/270...

    work page doi:10.1145/2700648.2809864 2015

  10. [10]

    Alexis Buettgen, Thomas Klassen, et al. 2020. The role of the nonprofit sector as a site for inclusive employment.Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research11, 2 (2020), 15–15. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjnser.2020v11n2a367

    work page doi:10.29173/cjnser.2020v11n2a367 2020

  11. [11]

    Yoonha Cha, Victoria Jackson, Karina Kohl, Rafael Prikladnicki, André van der Hoek, and Stacy Branham. 2025. The Dilemma of Building Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Solutions For Workplace Accessibility. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 47, 17 pag...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713302 2025

  12. [12]

    2006.Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis

    Kathy Charmaz. 2006.Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage

    work page 2006

  13. [13]

    Marsha Cohen and Susan Avanzino. 2010. We are people first: Framing orga- nizational assimilation experiences of the physically disabled using co-cultural theory.Communication Studies61, 3 (2010), 272–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10510971003791203

    work page 2010

  14. [14]

    Melvin E Conway. 1968. How do committees invent.Datamation14, 4 (1968), 28–31

    work page 1968

  15. [15]

    2016.Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches

    John W Creswell and Cheryl N Poth. 2016.Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications

    work page 2016

  16. [16]

    I use video calling in all areas of my life

    Humphrey Curtis, Erin Beneteau, Edward Cutrell, Denae Ford, Sasa Junuzovic, Ann Paradiso, John Tang, and Martez E Mott. 2025. "I use video calling in all areas of my life": Understanding the Video Calling Experiences of Chronically Ill People. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computi...

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713193 2025

  17. [17]

    It doesn’t win you friends

    Maitraye Das, Darren Gergle, and Anne Marie Piper. 2019. "It doesn’t win you friends": Understanding Accessibility in Collaborative Writing for People with Vision Impairments.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.3, CSCW, Article 191 (Nov. 2019), 26 pages. doi:10.1145/3359293

    work page doi:10.1145/3359293 2019

  18. [18]

    Maitraye Das, Thomas Barlow McHugh, Anne Marie Piper, and Darren Gergle

    work page

  19. [19]

    InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(New Orleans, LA, USA)(CHI ’22)

    Co11ab: Augmenting Accessibility in Synchronous Collaborative Writing for People with Vision Impairments. 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, USA, Article 196, 18 pages. doi:10.1145/3491102.3501918

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501918 2022

  20. [20]

    Maitraye Das, Anne Marie Piper, and Darren Gergle. 2022. Design and Evaluation of Accessible Collaborative Writing Techniques for People with Vision Impair- ments.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.29, 2, Article 9 (Jan. 2022), 42 pages. doi:10.1145/3480169

    work page doi:10.1145/3480169 2022

  21. [21]

    That comes with a huge career cost:

    Maitraye Das, Abigale Stangl, and Leah Findlater. 2024. "That comes with a huge career cost:" Understanding Collaborative Ideation Experiences of Disabled Professionals.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1, Article 179 (April 2024), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3641018

    work page doi:10.1145/3641018 2024

  22. [22]

    Ringland, and Anne Marie Piper

    Maitraye Das, John Tang, Kathryn E. Ringland, and Anne Marie Piper. 2021. Towards Accessible Remote Work: Understanding Work-from-Home Practices of Neurodivergent Professionals.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.5, CSCW1, Article 183 (April 2021), 30 pages. doi:10.1145/3449282

    work page doi:10.1145/3449282 2021

  23. [23]

    Retrieved September, 2025

    Disability & Philanthropy Forum. Retrieved September, 2025. Foundation Giving for Disability. https://disabilityphilanthropy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/ FoundationGivingForDisability_FullReport.pdf

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    2017.Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education

    Jay Timothy Dolmage. 2017.Academic Ableism: Disability and Higher Education. University of Michigan Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvr33d50

    work page 2017

  25. [25]

    Md Ehtesham-Ul-Haque and Syed Masum Billah. 2025. ToPSen: Task-Oriented Priming and Sensory Alignment for Comparing Coding Strategies Between Sighted and Blind Programmers. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Designing Inter- active Systems Conference (DIS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2103–2116. doi:10.1145/3715336.3735839

    work page doi:10.1145/3715336.3735839 2025

  26. [26]

    2011.Writing ethnographic fieldnotes

    Robert M Emerson, Rachel I Fretz, and Linda L Shaw. 2011.Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago press

    work page 2011

  27. [27]

    Kapil Garg, Darren Gergle, and Haoqi Zhang. 2023. Orchestration Scripts: A System for Encoding an Organization’s Ways of Working to Support Situated Work. 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 418, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3544...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581456 2023

  28. [28]

    It’s trained by non-disabled people

    Kapil Garg, Xinru Tang, Jimin Heo, Dwayne R Morgan, Darren Gergle, Erik B Sudderth, and Anne Marie Piper. 2026. “It’s trained by non-disabled people”: Evaluating How Image Quality Affects Product Captioning with Vision-Language Models. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machi...

    work page doi:10.1145/3772318.3791309 2026

  29. [29]

    Tom Giraud, Ines Di Loreto, and Matthieu Tixier. 2020. The Making of Acces- sibility to Rural Place for Blind People: The Relational Design of an Interactive Map. InProceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Eindhoven, Netherlands)(DIS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1419–1431. doi:10.1145/3357236.3395527

    work page doi:10.1145/3357236.3395527 2020

  30. [30]

    Nicholas A Giudice. 2018. Navigating without vision: Principles of blind spatial cognition. InHandbook of behavioral and cognitive geography. Edward Elgar Publishing, 260–288

    work page 2018

  31. [31]

    Paul Goddard, Nervo Verdezoto, Tom H Margrain, Yu-Kun Lai, and Parisa Es- lambolchilar. 2024. Seeing Art Differently: Design Considerations to Improve Visual Art Engagement for People with Low Vision. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Copenhagen, Denmark)(DIS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3660675 2024

  32. [32]

    Fanlu Gui, Chun-Hua Tsai, and John M. Carroll. 2022. Community Acknowl- edgment: Engaging Community Members in Volunteer Acknowledgment.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.6, GROUP, Article 20 (Jan. 2022), 18 pages. doi:10. 1145/3492839

    work page 2022

  33. [33]

    Aimi Hamraie. 2012. Universal design research as a new materialist practice. Disability Studies Quarterly32, 4 (2012). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v32i4.3246

    work page doi:10.18061/dsq.v32i4.3246 2012

  34. [34]

    2017.Building access: Universal design and the politics of disability

    Aimi Hamraie. 2017.Building access: Universal design and the politics of disability. U of Minnesota Press

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Aimi Hamraie and Kelly Fritsch. 2019. Crip technoscience manifesto.Catalyst: Feminism, theory, technoscience5, 1 (2019), 1–33. http://orcid.org/0000-0003- 0786-8198

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Margot Hanley, Solon Barocas, Karen Levy, Shiri Azenkot, and Helen Nissenbaum

    work page

  37. [37]

    InProceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(Virtual Event, USA)(AIES ’21)

    Computer Vision and Conflicting Values: Describing People with Auto- mated Alt Text. InProceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society(Virtual Event, USA)(AIES ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 543–554. doi:10.1145/3461702.3462620

    work page doi:10.1145/3461702.3462620 2021

  38. [38]

    Ellie Harmon, Matthias Korn, and Amy Voida. 2017. Supporting Everyday Philan- thropy: Care Work In Situ and at Scale. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing(Portland, Ore- gon, USA)(CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1631–1645. doi:10.1145/2998181.2998330

    work page doi:10.1145/2998181.2998330 2017

  39. [39]

    Dar’ya Heyko and David R. Flatla. 2021. Identifying the Factors That Influence DHH Employee Success Under Hearing Supervisors. InProceedings of the 2021 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Virtual Event, USA)(DIS ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 420–437. doi:10. 1145/3461778.3462052

    work page arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Megan Hofmann, Devva Kasnitz, Jennifer Mankoff, and Cynthia L Bennett. 2020. Living Disability Theory: Reflections on Access, Research, and Design. InPro- ceedings 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

  41. [41]

    Stacy Hsueh, Danielle Van Dusen, Anat Caspi, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2025. Minor Resistance: The Everyday Politics and Power Dynamics of Assistive Technology Adoption. InProceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 57, 16 pages. doi...

    work page doi:10.1145/3663547.3746465 2025

  42. [42]

    Retrieved September, 2025

    Internal Revenue Service. Retrieved September, 2025. Internal Revenue Service Data Book, 2024. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p55b.pdf

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Saman Karim, Jin Kang, and Audrey Girouard. 2023. Exploring Rulebook Acces- sibility and Companionship in Board Games via Voiced-based Conversational Agent Alexa. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Con- ference(Pittsburgh, PA, USA)(DIS ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2221–2232. doi:10.1145/3563657.3595970

    work page doi:10.1145/3563657.3595970 2023

  44. [44]

    Yeon Soo Kim, Sunok Lee, and Sangsu Lee. 2022. A Participatory Design Approach to Explore Design Directions for Enhancing Videoconferencing Experience for Non-signing Deaf and Hard of Hearing Users. InProceedings of the 24th Inter- national ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Athens, Greece)(ASSETS ’22). Association for Computing Machi...

    work page doi:10.1145/3517428.3550375 2022

  45. [45]

    Kushalnagar and Christian Vogler

    Raja S. Kushalnagar and Christian Vogler. 2020. Teleconference Accessibility and Guidelines for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Users. 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 9, 6 pages. doi:10.1145/3373625.3417299

    work page doi:10.1145/3373625.3417299 2020

  46. [46]

    Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha. 2018. Creating Collective Access: Crip made brilliance in Detroit and beyond. https://alliedmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2020/10/creating_collective_access.pdf Retrieved December 19, 2025

    work page 2018

  47. [47]

    Cheuk Yin Phipson Lee, Zhuohao Zhang, Jaylin Herskovitz, JooYoung Seo, and Anhong Guo. 2022. CollabAlly: Accessible Collaboration Awareness in Document Editing. 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, USA, Article 596, 17 pages. doi:10...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3517635 2022

  48. [48]

    Jingjin Li, Shaomei Wu, and Gilly Leshed. 2024. Re-envisioning Remote Meetings: Co-designing Inclusive and Empowering Videoconferencing with People Who Stutter. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Copenhagen, Denmark)(DIS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1926–1941. doi:10.1145/3643834.3661533

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3661533 2024

  49. [49]

    Pamela Lindgren and Sara Ljungblad. 2024. Drones as Accessibility Probes in Able-Bodied Norms: Insights from People with Lived Experiences of Disabilities. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference(Copen- hagen, Denmark)(DIS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2946–2957. doi:10.1145/3643834.3661580

    work page doi:10.1145/3643834.3661580 2024

  50. [50]

    Pandora’s Box

    Rocío López-Cabrera, Alicia Arenas, Francisco J Medina, Martin Euwema, and Lourdes Munduate. 2020. Inside “Pandora’s Box” of solidarity: Conflicts between paid staff and volunteers in the non-profit sector.Frontiers in Psychology11 (2020), 556. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00556

    work page doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00556 2020

  51. [51]

    Carolyn Kim Ly, Trevor Cross, Adrian Petterson, Ishani Pandey, and Priyank Chandra. 2025. Accessibility Work in Academia: Balancing Needs, Bridging Gaps, and Breaking Down Barriers.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 7, Article CSCW273 (Oct. 2025), 27 pages. doi:10.1145/3757454

    work page doi:10.1145/3757454 2025

  52. [52]

    Kelly Mack, Maitraye Das, Dhruv Jain, Danielle Bragg, John Tang, Andrew Begel, Erin Beneteau, Josh Urban Davis, Abraham Glasser, Joon Sung Park, and Venkatesh Potluri. 2021. Mixed Abilities and Varied Experiences: a group autoethnography of a virtual summer internship. InProceedings of the 23rd In- ternational ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Acc...

    work page doi:10.1145/3441852.3471199 2021

  53. [53]

    Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 371, 18 pages

    Kelly Mack, Emma McDonnell, Dhruv Jain, Lucy Lu Wang, Jon E. Froehlich, and Leah Findlater. 2021. What Do We Mean by “Accessibility Research”? A Literature Survey of Accessibility Papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan)(CHI ’21). Association for Computing ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3411764.3445412 2021

  54. [54]

    Aparajita S Marathe and Anne Marie Piper. 2025. The Accessibility Paradox: How Blind and Low Vision Employees Experience and Negotiate Accessibility in the Technology Industry.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.9, 7, Article CSCW485 (Oct. 2025), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/3757666

    work page doi:10.1145/3757666 2025

  55. [55]

    Easier or Harder, Depending on Who the Hearing Person Is

    Emma J McDonnell, Soo Hyun Moon, Lucy Jiang, Steven M. Goodman, Raja Kushalnagar, Jon E. Froehlich, and Leah Findlater. 2023. “Easier or Harder, Depending on Who the Hearing Person Is”: Codesigning Videoconferencing Tools for Small Groups with Mixed Hearing Status. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Ger...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3580809 2023

  56. [56]

    Meredith Moore. 2025. Executive Dysfunction by Design: A Cognitive Accessi- bility Analysis of AI Support vs. Healthcare Barriers. InProceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (AS- SETS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 22, 5 pages. doi:10.1145/3663547.3749831

    work page doi:10.1145/3663547.3749831 2025

  57. [57]

    F Ellen Netting, Mary Katherine O’Connor, M Lori Thomas, and Gaynor Yancey

    work page

  58. [58]

    doi:10.1177/0899764005275204

    Mixing and phasing of roles among volunteers, staff, and participants in faith-based programs.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly34, 2 (2005), 179–205. doi:10.1177/0899764005275204

    work page doi:10.1177/0899764005275204 2005

  59. [59]

    Kaia Newman, Sarah Snay, Madeline Endres, Manasvi Parikh, and Andrew Begel

    work page

  60. [60]

    InProceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25)

    Disclosure of Neurodivergence in Software Workplaces: a Mixed Methods Study of Forum and Survey Perspectives. InProceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25). As- sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 82, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3663547.3746334

    work page doi:10.1145/3663547.3746334

  61. [61]

    2024.Crip spacetime

    Margaret Price. 2024.Crip spacetime. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10. 1515/9781478093992

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    In this online environment, we’re limited

    Jazz Rui Xia Ang, Ping Liu, Emma McDonnell, and Sarah Coppola. 2022. “In this online environment, we’re limited”: Exploring Inclusive Video Conferencing Design for Signers. 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, USA, Article 609, 16 p...

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102 2022

  63. [63]

    Retrieved September, 2025

    Sins Invalid. Retrieved September, 2025. 10 Principles of Disability Justice. https: //sinsinvalid.org/10-principles-of-disability-justice/

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    Katta Spiel. 2022. Transreal tracing: Queer-feminist speculations on disabled technologies.Feminist Theory23, 2 (2022), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 14647001221082299

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

    Semaan, and Jahmeilah A

    Charlotte Tang, Yunan Chen, Bryan C. Semaan, and Jahmeilah A. Roberson

    work page

  66. [66]

    Restructuring Human Infrastructure: The Impact of EHR Deployment in a Volunteer-Dependent Clinic. InProceedings of the 18th ACM Conference DIS ’26, June 13–17, 2026, Singapore, Singapore Tang and Piper on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing(Vancouver, BC, Canada)(CSCW ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 649–661...

    work page doi:10.1145/2675133.2675277 2026

  67. [67]

    Xinru Tang, Ali Abdolrahmani, Darren Gergle, and Anne Marie Piper. 2025. Everyday Uncertainty: How Blind People Use GenAI Tools for Information Access. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 63, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713433

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713433 2025

  68. [68]

    Xinru Tang, Xiang Chang, Nuoran Chen, Yingjie (MaoMao) Ni, RAY LC, and Xin Tong. 2023. Community-Driven Information Accessibility: Online Sign Language Content Creation within d/Deaf Communities. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Hamburg, Germany)(CHI ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA...

    work page doi:10.1145/3544548.3581286 2023

  69. [69]

    Xinru Tang, Jingjin Li, and Shaomei Wu. 2026. Disability-First AI Dataset Anno- tation: Co-designing Stuttered Speech Annotation Guidelines with People Who Stutter. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 284, 22 pages. doi:10.1145/3772318.3790405

    work page doi:10.1145/3772318.3790405 2026

  70. [70]

    Xinru Tang and Anne Marie Piper. 2026. Reimagining Sign Language Technolo- gies: Analyzing Translation Work of Chinese Deaf Online Content Creators. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 244, 20 pages. doi:10.1145/3772318.3790624

    work page doi:10.1145/3772318.3790624 2026

  71. [71]

    Xinru Tang and Weijun Zhang. 2026. Access in the Shadow of Ableism: An Autoethnography of a Blind Student’s Higher Education Experience in China. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 469, 14 pages. doi:10.1145/3772318.3790464

    work page doi:10.1145/3772318.3790464 2026

  72. [72]

    Retrieved July, 2025

    TeamSnap. Retrieved July, 2025. TeamSnap. https://www.teamsnap.com/

    work page 2025

  73. [73]

    Retrieved Januar 11, 2026

    The World Wide Web Consortium. Retrieved Januar 11, 2026. W3C Accessibility Standards Overview. https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/

    work page 2026

  74. [74]

    2011.The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning

    Tanya Titchkosky. 2011.The Question of Access: Disability, Space, Meaning. Uni- versity of Toronto Press

    work page 2011

  75. [75]

    Mindy Tran, Xinru Tang, Adryana Hutchinson, Adam J Aviv, and Yixin Zou. 2026. Toward Inclusive Security and Privacy for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing People: A Community-Based Interview Study. In2026 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P). IEEE

    work page 2026

  76. [76]

    Amy Voida, Ellie Harmon, and Ban Al-Ani. 2011. Homebrew databases: com- plexities of everyday information management in nonprofit organizations. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada)(CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 915–924. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979078

    work page doi:10.1145/1978942.1979078 2011

  77. [77]

    Wang and Anne Marie Piper

    Emily Q. Wang and Anne Marie Piper. 2018. Accessibility in Action: Co-Located Collaboration among Deaf and Hearing Professionals.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.2, CSCW, Article 180 (Nov. 2018), 25 pages. doi:10.1145/3274449

    work page doi:10.1145/3274449 2018

  78. [78]

    Shaomei Wu, Jingjin Li, and Gilly Leshed. 2024. Finding My Voice over Zoom: An Autoethnography of Videoconferencing Experience for a Person Who Stutters. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 916, 16 pages. doi:10.1145/361...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642746 2024

  79. [79]

    Lan Xiao, Maryam Bandukda, Katrin Angerbauer, Weiyue Lin, Tigmanshu Bhat- nagar, Michael Sedlmair, and Catherine Holloway. 2024. A Systematic Review of Ability-diverse Collaboration through Ability-based Lens in HCI. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machin...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3641930 2024

  80. [80]

    Sijia Xiao, Haodi Zou, Alice Qian Zhang, Deepak Kumar, Hong Shen, Jason Hong, and Motahhare Eslami. 2025. What Comes After Harm? Mapping Reparative Actions in AI through Justice Frameworks. InProceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, Vol. 8. 2744–2756. https://doi.org/10.1609/ aies.v8i3.36754

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.