Self-Conscious or Self-Confident? A Diary Study Conceptualizing the Social Accessibility of Assistive Technology

Abstract

With the recent influx of smartphones, tablets, and wearables such as watches and glasses, personal interactive device use is increasingly visible and commonplace in public and social spaces. Assistive Technologies (ATs) used by people with disabilities are observable to others and, as a result, can affect how AT users are perceived. This raises the possibility that what we call “social accessibility” may be as important as “functional accessibility” when considering ATs. But, to date, ATs have almost exclusively been regarded as functional aids. For example, ATs are defined by the Technical Assistance to the States Act as technologies that are “used to increase, maintain or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.” To investigate perceptions and self-perceptions of AT users, we conducted a diary study of two groups of participants: people with disabilities and people without disabilities. Our goal was to explore the types of interactions and perceptions that arise around AT use in social and public spaces. During our 4-week study, participants with sensory disabilities wrote about feeling either self-conscious or self-confident when using an assistive device in a social or public situation. Meanwhile, participants without disabilities were prompted to record their reactions and feelings whenever they saw ATs used in social or public situations. We found that AT form and function does influence social interactions by impacting self-efficacy and self-confidence. When the design of form or function is poor, or when inequality between technological accessibility exists, social inclusion is negatively affected, as are perceptions of ability. We contribute a definition for the “social accessibility” of ATs and subsequently offer Design for Social Accessibility (DSA) as a holistic design stance focused on balancing an AT user's sociotechnical identity with functional requirements.

References

1. B. Ariyatum, R. Holland, D. Harrison, and T. Kazi. 2005. The future design direction of Smart Clothing development. Journal of the Textile Institute 96, 4 (August 2005), 199--210. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1533/joti.2004.0071
2. Shiri Azenkot, Sanjana Prasain, Alan Borning, Emily Fortuna, Richard E. Ladner, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2011. Enhancing independence and safety for blind and deaf-blind public transit riders. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'11). ACM Press, 3247--3256.
3. JoAnne Bichard, Roger Coleman, and Patrick Langdon. 2007. Does my stigma look big in this? Considering acceptability and desirability in the inclusive design of technology products. In Universal Access in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity, Constantine Stephanidis (Ed.). Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 622--631.
4. Jeffrey P. Bigham, Chandrika Jayant, Hanjie Ji, Greg Little, Andrew Miller, Robert C. Miller, Robin Miller, Aubrey Tatarowicz, Brandyn White, Samual White, and Tom Yeh. 2010. VizWiz: Nearly real-time answers to visual questions. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST'10). ACM Press, 333--342.
5. M. Carter and V. Grover. 2016. Me, My Self, and I(T): Conceptualizing information technology identity and its implications. MIS Quarterly (2016).
6. James I. Charlton. 1998. Nothing About Us without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
7. Charles H. Christiansen. 1999. Defining lives: Occupation as identity: An essay on competence, Coherence, and the creation of meaning. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 53, 6 (November 1999), 547--558. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.5014/ajot.53.6.547
8. Betty Rose Connell et al. 1997. The Principles of Universal Design. North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design. https://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/udprinciplestext.htm, last accessed, January 2016.
9. Albert M. Cook and Susan M. Hussey. 2002. Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice, 2nd ed. Mosby, St. Louis, MO.
10. Nigel Cross. 2011. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work. Berg, Oxford/New York.
11. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi and Eugene Rochberg-Halton. 1981. The Meaning of Things. Cambridge University Press, New York.
12. Gary Scott Danford. 2003. Universal design people with vision, hearing, and mobility impairments evaluate a model building. Generations 27, 1 (2003), 91.
13. Chris Edwards. 2003. Wearable computing struggles for social acceptance. IEEE Review 49, 9 (October 2003), 24--25.
14. Gregory C. Elliott, Herbert L. Ziegler, Barbara M. Altman, and Deborah R. Scott. 1982. Understanding stigma. Deviant Behavior 3, 3 (1982), 275--300.
15. Brian Ferris, Kari Watkins, and Alan Borning. 2010. OneBusAway: Results from providing real-time arrival information for public transit. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'10). ACM Press, 1807--1816.
16. A. Giddens. 1991. Modernity and Self Identity. Cambridge: Polity.
17. A. Giddens. 1993. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity.
18. Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine.
19. Erving Goffman. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
20. Erving Goffman. 1963a. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. Free Press, New York.
21. Erving Goffman. 1963b. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
22. Edward T. Hall. 1963. A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist 65, 5 (October 1963), 1003--1026. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/668580
23. Edward T. Hall. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
24. Clare Hocking. 1999. Function or feelings: Factors in abandonment of assistive devices. Technology & Disability 11, 1/2 (1999), 3.
25. Amy Hurst and Shaun Kane. 2013. Making “making” accessible. In Proceedings of the Conference on Interaction Design and Children, ACM, New York, 635--638.
26. Anja Kintsch and Rogerio DePaula. 2002. A framework for the adoption of assistive technology. Paper presented at SWAAAC 2002: Supporting learning through assistive technology, Winter Park, CO, USA.
27. G. V. Kondraske. 1988. Rehabilitation engineering: Towards a systematic process. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 7, 3 (1988), 11--15.
28. Hyun-Mee Lee. 2009. A study on the acceptance of wearable computers based on the extended technology acceptance model. Research Journal of the Costume Culture 17, 6 (2009), 1155--1172.
29. Jacki Lyden. 2015. From canes to closures, designing with style for people with disabilities. Retrieved July 28, 2015 from http://www.npr.org/2015/07/25/425890021/from-canes-to-closures-designing-with-style-for-people-with-disabilities.
30. George H. Mead. 1962. Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
31. Matthew B. Miles and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
32. Alan F. Newell and Peter Gregor. 2000. User sensitive inclusive design- in search of a new paradigm. In Proceedings of Universal Usability 2000. ACM, 39--44.
33. Alan Newell, P. Gregor, M. Morgan, Graham Pullin, and C. Macaulay. 2011. User-sensitive inclusive design. Universal Access in the Information Society 10, 3 (August 2011), 235--243.
34. 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, 1/2/3 (2002), 5--20.
35. Phil Parette and Marcia Scherer. 2004. Assistive technology use and stigma. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 39, 3 (2004), 217--26.
36. B. Phillips and H. Zhao. 1993. Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology: The Official Journal of RESNA 5, 1 (1993), 36--45.
37. John Potts and John Scannell. 2013. The Unacceptable. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
38. M. J. Scherer. 1993a. Living in the State of Stuck: How Technologies Affect the Lives of People with Disabilities. MA: Brookline Books, Cambridge, MA.
39. M. J. Scherer. 1993b. What we know about women's technology use, avoidance, and abandonment. Women & Therapy 14, 3--4 (1993), 117--132.
40. M. J. Scherer and G. Craddock. 2002. Matching person & technology (MPT) assessment process. Technology & Disability 14, 3 (2002), 125--131.
41. Kristen Shinohara and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2011. In the shadow of misperception: Assistive technology use and social interactions. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'11). ACM Press, 705--714.
42. Kristin L. Sommer, Roy F. Baumeister, and T. F. Stillman. 1998. The construction of meaning from life events: Empirical studies of personal narratives. In The Human Quest for Meaning, P. T. P. Wong and P. S. Fry (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 143--161.
43. Lucy A. Suchman. 2007. Human-Machine Reconfigurations, Plans and Situated Actions, 2nd Edition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Michael Tomasello. 2014. A Natural History of Human Thinking. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
45. Viswanath Venkatesh, Michael G. Morris, B. Davis Gordon, and Fred D. Davis. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27, 3 (2003), 425--478.
46. Terry Winograd. 1996. Bringing Design to Software. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.
47. Jacob O. Wobbrock, Shaun K. Kane, Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Susumu Harada, and Jon Froehlich. 2011. Ability-based design: Concept, principles, and examples. ACM TACCESS 3, 3 (2011), 1--27.

Index Terms

• Social and professional topics