Archives

“I Don’t Trust it, but I Use it”: Navigating Trust, Privacy, and Identity in Disabled People’s Use of Generative AI

Leave a comment

Jazette Johnson, Aaleyah Lewis, Jennifer Mankoff, and Olivia Banner. 2026. “I Don’t Trust it, but I Use it”: Navigating Trust, Privacy, and Identity in Disabled People’s Use of Generative AI. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26), April 13–17

As generative AI (GenAI) is integrated into everyday technologies, it offers new accessibility opportunities and risks for disabled people. However, little is known about how disabled people navigate GenAI in their everyday lives, particularly how trust, privacy, and intersectional identities affect these experiences. We present findings from seven cross-disability focus groups (N=20) that explore how disabled people navigate GenAI. Our findings reveal that while GenAI supports autonomy, efficiency, and communication, it also introduces accessibility taxes and ethical dilemmas. Although participants voiced skepticism, many continued using GenAI out of necessity. Finally, we found identity-based benefits and tensions, in which GenAI preserved and validated intersecting identities, but also misrepresented and erased those identities. We frame these negotiations as a constant balancing act between access and risk, urging research to further examine how “access” is conceptualized. We offer implications for creating GenAI tools that are transparent, trustworthy, and responsive to intersectional identities.

Demonstrating SensiPrint: 3D-Printed Soft Foams for Physical Augmentation and Sensing

Leave a comment

Demonstrating SensiPrint: 3D-Printed Soft Foams for Physical Augmentation and Sensing. Jerry Cao, Yuecheng Peng, Hongrui Wu, Yuxuan Miao, Sanjana Satagopan, Runxin Shi, Brier Hehmeyer, Brett Emery, Jeffrey Lipton, Jennifer Mankoff, and Shwetak Naran Patel. SCF Demos 2025. https://doi.org/10.1145/3774746.3779262

When purging 3D printing filament from a nozzle, you may notice a peculiar coiling behavior as the material deposits on a surface. This phenomenon is known as liquid rope coiling (LRC). In this demo, we utilize LRC to enable users to 3D print soft foam augmentations directly on top of existing objects, as well as create pressure sensors to facilitate interactive applications.

Disabled Innovators & Innovations

Leave a comment

Disability culture, disability innovation, and DIY efforts have long been an important part of the work that disabled leaders and resesearch values, studies, and contributes to. Over the last year, we’ve been exploring this through a couple of perspectives:

First, we’ve been developing A11yhood.org, a website that automates the collection of open source accessibility solutions across a wide variety of media from 3D printing to knitting to software, and supports search and exploration. We searched for words like “accessibility” and found over 1440 repositories/things. This project was recently launched at the Open Source and Accessibility Summit and is supported by the GitHub Tides Foundation, NIDILRR’s RERC program (90REGE0026) and in collaboration with other open-source and accessibility focused organizations and leaders including GitHub’s Ed Summers, CAOS and GOAT.

Next, we have been talking to disabled innovators. We presented a paper at ASSETS 2025 that highlights cultural processes of finding community and building solidarity, valuing disabled agency and knowledge, and rejecting ableist norms. To see how these cultural aspects might inform accessibility technology design, we studied accessibility technologies made by disabled people for disabled people – interviewing disabled innovators who had created and disseminated accessibility technologies. We asked these innovators to share their stories and reflect on goals and values they imbued in their innovations. We analyzed how cultural themes of belonging, knowledge, and creativity influenced their work. Our work highlights the potential of a cultural lens in aligning accessibility technology with disabled people’s values as well as unearthing new directions for inquiry for the field: Exploring Disability Culture Through Accounts of Disabled Innovators of Accessibility Technology, by Aashaka Desai, Jennifer Mankoff, Richard E. Ladner
(ASSETS ’25)

Embroidering Tactile Graphics

Leave a comment

Beyond Beautiful: Embroidering Legible and Expressive Tactile Graphics:
Margaret Ellen Seehorn, Claris Winston, Bo Liu, Gene S-H Kim, Emily White, Nupur Gorkar, Kate S Glazko, Aashaka Desai, Jerry Cao, Megan Hofmann, Jennifer Mankoff. ASSETS 2025

Tactile graphics present visual information to blind and visually-impaired individuals in an accessible way, through touch. Current methods for producing tactile graphics, such as embossing or swell-paper printing, have limitations such as durability – and the tools required to produce them are limited in expressiveness. In this project, we explore embroidery as a medium for producing tactile graphics. Embroidery, traditionally known for its variety and visual beauty, offers not just improved durability and ease of production – but the ability to convey information through a broad range of stitch types. Following an exploration of the design space of embroidered tactile graphics, we identify key perceptual properties that impact how embroidered textures are differentiated. Based on these differences, we introduce an optimization algorithm for assigning textures to regions of tactile graphics in a way that makes them diverse and legible. We implement an end-to-end pipeline for producing embroidered tactile graphics and evaluate the comprehensibility and legibility of our design with 6 blind participants. Our findings showed that embroidered tactile graphics present information accurately and comprehensively, and that measurable properties, such as the use of spacing and distinctiveness, were an important factor of expressive and legible design.

Photograph of two embroidered graphics. On the left is a map, with filled areas for sidewalks and buildings, with different textures indicating which is which. Braille is visible along the top. On the right is a diagram of layers of Saturn, shaped like a pie slice with different textures for the central are, middle, and outer area of the slice, each labeled.

What Do We Mean by “Accessible”

Leave a comment

Lots of people have ideas about what “accessible” means — but they don’t all agree. Maybe we should ask disabled people. We could also learn a lot by asking a wide variety of disabled people, including disabled people who are gender diverse, racially diverse, have multiple disabilities, and have a wide range of disabilities.

We asked 25 disabled people about what accessibility means to them. We learned that it goes beyond typical definitions of addressing an impairment of some kind. We also learned about how people decide what accessibility technologies they want to use. Many people told us that they choose from many possible approaches in each specific situation, weighing all the available options and their priorities in a so-called “consequence calculus”.

Reference: Modeling Accessibility: Characterizing What We Mean by “Accessible” Kelly Avery Mack, Jesse J Martinez, Aaleyah Lewis, Jennifer Mankoff, James Fogarty, Leah Findlater, Heather D. Evans, Cynthia L Bennett, Emma J McDonnell. ASSETS 2025

The Everyday Politics and Power Dynamics of AT Adoption

Leave a comment

In this paper, we examine why promises of empowerment through AT continue to fall short for many underserved populations, even as new innovations emerge every day. We found that low-income, racially diverse, and disabled families usually bear higher costs of access due to bureaucratic red tape that disproportionately affects them. We argue that accessibility research needs a new framework — one that recognizes the sociopolitical realities shaping how families navigate and sustain access. To that end, we introduce the concept of minor resistance to capture the everyday strategies families devise to exercise agency within unequal power dynamics. By focusing on these grassroots practices, we show how technology can be reimagined to help communities build collective power.

Stacy Hsueh, Danielle Van Dusen, Anat Caspi, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2025. Minor Resistance: The Everyday Politics and Power Dynamics of Assistive Technology Adoption. In Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25), October 26-29, 2025, Denver, CO, USA.

MatPlotAlt

Leave a comment

MatplotAlt is an open-source Python package for easily adding alternative text to matplotlib figures. MatplotAlt equips Jupyter notebook authors to automatically generate and surface chart descriptions with a single line of code or command, and supports a range of options that allow users to customize the generation and display of captions based on their preferences and accessibility needs.

Our evaluation indicates that MatplotAlt’s heuristic and LLM-based methods to generate alt text can create accurate long-form descriptions of both simple univariate and complex Matplotlib figures. We find that state-of-the-art LLMs still struggle with factual errors when describing charts, and improve the accuracy of our descriptions by prompting GPT4-turbo with heuristic-based alt text or data tables parsed from the Matplotlib figure.

Here is some example ALT text generated for the pie chart shown below. A variety of examples can be found in the MatPlotAlt documentation.

A pie chart titled ’percentage of annual sunshine’. There are 12 slices: jan (3.19%), feb (4.993%), mar (8.229%), apr (9.57%), may (11.7%), june (12.39%), july (14.42%), aug (12.99%), sep (10.22%), oct (6.565%), nov (3.329%), and dec (2.404%). The data has a standard deviation of x=4.006, an average of x=8.333, a maximum value of x=14.42, and a minimum value of x=2.404. The data strictly increase up to their max at x=14.42, then strictly decrease.

A pie chart titled ’percentage of annual sunshine’. There are 12 slices: jan (3.19%), feb (4.993%), mar (8.229%), apr (9.57%), may (11.7%), june (12.39%), july (14.42%), aug (12.99%), sep (10.22%), oct (6.565%), nov (3.329%), and dec (2.404%). The data has a standard deviation of x=4.006, an average of x=8.333, a maximum value of x=14.42, and a minimum value of x=2.404. The data strictly increase up to their max at x=14.42, then strictly decrease.

Kai Nylund, Jennifer Mankoff, Venkatesh Potluri: MatplotAlt: A Python Library for Adding Alt Text to Matplotlib Figures in Computational Notebooks. Comput. Graph. Forum 44(3) (2025)

Telehealth and Digital Health Innovations

Leave a comment

Telehealth and digital health innovations: A mixed landscape of access Phuong J, Ordóñez P, Cao J, Moukheiber M, Moukheiber L, et al. (2023) Telehealth and digital health innovations: A mixed landscape of access. PLOS Digital Health 2(12): e0000401. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000401

In the wake of emergent natural and anthropogenic disasters, telehealth presents opportunities to improve access to healthcare when physical access is not possible. Yet, since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, lessons learned reveal that various populations in the United States do not or cannot adopt telehealth due to inequitable access. We explored the Digital Determinants of Health (DDoHs) for telehealth, characterizing the role of accessibility, broadband connectivity and electrical grids, and patient intersectionality. In addition to its role as an existing Social Determinant of Health, Policies and Laws directly and indirectly affect these DDoHs, making access more complex for marginalized populations. Digital systems lack the flexibility, accessibility, and usability to inclusively provide the essential services patients need in telehealth. We propose the following recommendations: (1) design technology and systems using accessibility and value sensitive design principles; (2) support a range of technologies and settings; (3) support multiple and diverse users; and (4) support clear paths for repair when technical systems fail to meet users’ needs. Addressing these requires change not only from providers but also from the institutions providing these systems.

What Counts as ‘Creative’ Work?

Leave a comment

Stacy Hsueh, Marianela Ciolf Felice, Sarah Fdili Alaoui, and Wendy E. Mackay. 2024. What Counts as‘Creative’ Work? Articulating Four Epistemic Positions in Creativity-Oriented HCI Research. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24), May 11– 16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 15 pages. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642854

This paper examines prevailing understandings of creativity in creative computing research through the lens of feminist epistemology. We analyze “creativity support” as a construct that encodes diferent defnitions of creative work. Drawing on existing literature and practices, the paper surfaces four views about creative work that underpin current creative technologies and HCI research: problemsolving, cognitive emergence, embodied action, and tool-mediated expert activity. Each view makes diferent claims about the role of computing in creative work and the creative subject assumed. We articulate the attendant politics of each view and illustrate how critical feminist epistemology can serve as an analytical tool to reason about the trade-ofs of various creativity defnitions. The paper concludes with recommendations for integrating feminist values into creativity-oriented HCI research.

“A Tool for Freedom”

Leave a comment

Jerry Cao, Krish Jain, Julie Zhang, Yuecheng Peng, Shwetak Patel, and Jennifer Mankof. 2025. “A Tool for Freedom”: Co-Designing Mobility Aid Improvements Using Personal Fabrication and Physical Interface Modules with Primarily Young Adults. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25), April 26–May 01, 2025, Yokohama, Japan. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 16 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713366

Mobility aids (e.g., canes, crutches, and wheelchairs) are crucial for people with mobility disabilities; however, pervasive dissatisfaction with these aids keeps usage rates low. Through semi-structured interviews with 17 mobility aid users, mostly under the age of 30, we identified specific sources of dissatisfaction among younger users of mobility aids, uncovered community-based solutions for these dissatisfactions, and explored ways these younger users wanted to improve mobility aids. We found that users sought customizable, reconfigurable, multifunctional, and more aesthetically pleasing mobility aids. Participants’ feedback guided our prototyping of tools/accessories, such as laser cut decorative sleeves, hot-swappable physical interface modules, and modular canes with custom 3D-printed handles. These prototypes were then the focus of additional co-design sessions where six returning participants offered suggestions for improvements and provided feedback on their usefulness and usability. Our findings highlight that many mobility aid users have the desire, ability, and need to customize and improve their aids in different ways compared to older adults. We propose various solutions and design guidelines to facilitate the modifications of mobility aids.