UW CREATE

Category: inclusion

UW News: How an assistive-feeding robot went from picking up fruit salads to whole meals

November, 2023

Training a robot to feed people presents an array of challenges for researchers. Foods come in a nearly endless variety of shapes and states (liquid, solid, gelatinous), and each person has a unique set of needs and preferences. A team led by CREATE Ph.D. students Ethan K. Gordon and Amal Nanavati created a set of 11 actions a robotic arm can make to pick up nearly any food attainable by fork.

In tests with this set of actions, the robot picked up the foods more than 80% of the time, which is the user-specified benchmark for in-home use. The small set of actions allows the system to learn to pick up new foods during one meal. UW News talked with Gordon and Nanavati co-lead authors, both doctoral students in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, and with co-author Taylor Kessler Faulkner, a UW postdoctoral scholar in the Allen School, about the successes and challenges of robot-assisted feeding.

An assistive-feeding robotic arm attached to a wheelchair uses a fork to stab a piece of fruit on a plate among other fruits.

The team presented its findings Nov. 7 at the 2023 Conference on Robotic Learning in Atlanta.

UW News talked with co-lead authors Gordon and Nanavati, both doctoral students members of CREATE and in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, and with co-author Taylor Kessler Faulkner, a UW postdoctoral scholar in the Allen School, about the successes and challenges of robot-assisted feeding for 1.8 million people in the U.S. (according to data from 2010) who can’t eat on their own.

The Personal Robotics Lab has been working on robot-assisted feeding for several years. What is the advance of this paper?

Ethan K. Gordon: I joined the Personal Robotics Lab at the end of 2018 when Siddhartha Srinivasa, a professor in the Allen School and senior author of our new study, and his team had created the first iteration of its robot system for assistive applications. The system was mounted on a wheelchair and could pick up a variety of fruits and vegetables on a plate. It was designed to identify how a person was sitting and take the food straight to their mouth. Since then, there have been quite a few iterations, mostly involving identifying a wide variety of food items on the plate. Now, the user with their assistive device can click on an image in the app, a grape for example, and the system can identify and pick that up.

Taylor Kessler Faulkner: Also, we’ve expanded the interface. Whatever accessibility systems people use to interact with their phones — mostly voice or mouth control navigation — they can use to control the app.

EKG: In this paper we just presented, we’ve gotten to the point where we can pick up nearly everything a fork can handle. So we can’t pick up soup, for example. But the robot can handle everything from mashed potatoes or noodles to a fruit salad to an actual vegetable salad, as well as pre-cut pizza or a sandwich or pieces of meat.

In previous work with the fruit salad, we looked at which trajectory the robot should take if it’s given an image of the food, but the set of trajectories we gave it was pretty limited. We were just changing the pitch of the fork. If you want to pick up a grape, for example, the fork’s tines need to go straight down, but for a banana they need to be at an angle, otherwise it will slide off. Then we worked on how much force we needed to apply for different foods.

In this new paper, we looked at how people pick up food, and used that data to generate a set of trajectories. We found a small number of motions that people actually use to eat and settled on 11 trajectories. So rather than just the simple up-down or coming in at an angle, it’s using scooping motions, or it’s wiggling inside of the food item to increase the strength of the contact. This small number still had the coverage to pick up a much greater array of foods.

We think the system is now at a point where it can be deployed for testing on people outside the research group. We can invite a user to the UW, and put the robot either on a wheelchair, if they have the mounting apparatus ready, or a tripod next to their wheelchair, and run through an entire meal.

For you as researchers, what are the vital challenges ahead to make this something people could use in their homes every day?

EKG: We’ve so far been talking about the problem of picking up the food, and there are more improvements that can be made here. Then there’s the whole other problem of getting the food to a person’s mouth, as well as how the person interfaces with the robot, and how much control the person has over this at least partially autonomous system.

TKF: Over the next couple of years, we’re hoping to personalize the robot to different people. Everyone eats a little bit differently. Amal did some really cool work on social dining that highlighted how people’s preferences are based on many factors, such as their social and physical situations. So we’re asking: How can we get input from the people who are eating? And how can the robot use that input to better adapt to the way each person wants to eat?

Amal Nanavati: There are several different dimensions that we might want to personalize. One is the user’s needs: How far the user can move their neck impacts how close the fork has to get to them. Some people have differential strength on different sides of their mouth, so the robot might need to feed them from a particular side of their mouth. There’s also an aspect of the physical environment. Users already have a bunch of assistive technologies, often mounted around their face if that’s the main part of their body that’s mobile. These technologies might be used to control their wheelchair, to interact with their phone, etc. Of course, we don’t want the robot interfering with any of those assistive technologies as it approaches their mouth.

There are also social considerations. For example, if I’m having a conversation with someone or at home watching TV, I don’t want the robot arm to come right in front of my face. Finally, there are personal preferences. For example, among users who can turn their head a little bit, some prefer to have the robot come from the front so they can keep an eye on the robot as it’s coming in. Others feel like that’s scary or distracting and prefer to have the bite come at them from the side.

A key research direction is understanding how we can create intuitive and transparent ways for the user to customize the robot to their own needs. We’re considering trade-offs between customization methods where the user is doing the customization, versus more robot-centered forms where, for example, the robot tries something and says, “Did you like it? Yes or no.” The goal is to understand how users feel about these different customization methods and which ones result in more customized trajectories.

What should the public understand about robot-assisted feeding, both in general and specifically the work your lab is doing?

EKG: It’s important to look not just at the technical challenges, but at the emotional scale of the problem. It’s not a small number of people who need help eating. There are various figures out there, but it’s over a million people in the U.S. Eating has to happen every single day. And to require someone else every single time you need to do that intimate and very necessary act can make people feel like a burden or self-conscious. So the whole community working towards assistive devices is really trying to help foster a sense of independence for people who have these kinds of physical mobility limitations.

AN: Even these seven-digit numbers don’t capture everyone. There are permanent disabilities, such as a spinal cord injury, but there are also temporary disabilities such as breaking your arm. All of us might face disability at some time as we age and we want to make sure that we have the tools necessary to ensure that we can all live dignified lives and independent lives. Also, unfortunately, even though technologies like this greatly improve people’s quality of life, it’s incredibly difficult to get them covered by U.S. insurance companies. I think more people knowing about the potential quality of life improvement will hopefully open up greater access.

Additional co-authors on the paper were Ramya Challa, who completed this research as an undergraduate student in the Allen School and is now at Oregon State University, and Bernie Zhu, a UW doctoral student in the Allen School. This research was partially funded by the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research and Amazon.

For more information, contact Gordon at ekgordon@cs.uw.edu, Nanavati at amaln@cs.uw.edu and Faulkner at taylorkf@cs.washington.edu.

Excerpted and adapted from the UW News story by Stefan Milne.

UW News: Can AI help boost accessibility? CREATE researchers tested it for themselves

November 2, 2023 | UW News

Generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT, an AI-powered language tool, and Midjourney, an AI-powered image generator, can potentially assist people with various disabilities. They could summarize content, compose messages, or describe images. Yet they also regularly spout inaccuracies and fail at basic reasoning, perpetuating ableist biases.

This year, seven CREATE researchers conducted a three-month autoethnographic study — drawing on their own experiences as people with and without disabilities — to test AI tools’ utility for accessibility. Though researchers found cases in which the tools were helpful, they also found significant problems with AI tools in most use cases, whether they were generating images, writing Slack messages, summarizing writing or trying to improve the accessibility of documents.

Four AI-generated images show different interpretations of a doll-sized “crocheted lavender husky wearing ski goggles,” including two pictured outdoors and one against a white background.

The team presented its findings Oct. 22 at the ASSETS 2023 conference in New York.

“When technology changes rapidly, there’s always a risk that disabled people get left behind,” said senior author Jennifer Mankoff, CREATE’s director and a professor in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering. “I’m a really strong believer in the value of first-person accounts to help us understand things. Because our group had a large number of folks who could experience AI as disabled people and see what worked and what didn’t, we thought we had a unique opportunity to tell a story and learn about this.”

The group presented its research in seven vignettes, often amalgamating experiences into single accounts to preserve anonymity. For instance, in the first account, “Mia,” who has intermittent brain fog, deployed ChatPDF.com, which summarizes PDFs, to help with work. While the tool was occasionally accurate, it often gave “completely incorrect answers.” In one case, the tool was both inaccurate and ableist, changing a paper’s argument to sound like researchers should talk to caregivers instead of to chronically ill people. “Mia” was able to catch this, since the researcher knew the paper well, but Mankoff said such subtle errors are some of the “most insidious” problems with using AI, since they can easily go unnoticed.

Yet in the same vignette, “Mia” used chatbots to create and format references for a paper they were working on while experiencing brain fog. The AI models still made mistakes, but the technology proved useful in this case.

“When technology changes rapidly, there’s always a risk that disabled people get left behind.”

Jennifer Mankoff, CREATE Director, professor in the Allen School

Mankoff, who’s spoken publicly about having Lyme disease, contributed to this account. “Using AI for this task still required work, but it lessened the cognitive load. By switching from a ‘generation’ task to a ‘verification’ task, I was able to avoid some of the accessibility issues I was facing,” Mankoff said.

The results of the other tests researchers selected were equally mixed:

  • One author, who is autistic, found AI helped to write Slack messages at work without spending too much time troubling over the wording. Peers found the messages “robotic,” yet the tool still made the author feel more confident in these interactions.
  • Three authors tried using AI tools to increase the accessibility of content such as tables for a research paper or a slideshow for a class. The AI programs were able to state accessibility rules but couldn’t apply them consistently when creating content.
  • Image-generating AI tools helped an author with aphantasia (an inability to visualize) interpret imagery from books. Yet when they used the AI tool to create an illustration of “people with a variety of disabilities looking happy but not at a party,” the program could conjure only fraught images of people at a party that included ableist incongruities, such as a disembodied hand resting on a disembodied prosthetic leg.

“I was surprised at just how dramatically the results and outcomes varied, depending on the task,” said lead author Kate Glazko, a UW doctoral student in the Allen School. “”n some cases, such as creating a picture of people with disabilities looking happy, even with specific prompting — can you make it this way? — the results didn’t achieve what the authors wanted.”

The researchers note that more work is needed to develop solutions to problems the study revealed. One particularly complex problem involves developing new ways for people with disabilities to validate the products of AI tools, because in many cases when AI is used for accessibility, either the source document or the AI-generated result is inaccessible. This happened in the ableist summary ChatPDF gave “Mia” and when “Jay,” who is legally blind, used an AI tool to generate code for a data visualization. He could not verify the result himself, but a colleague said it “didn’t make any sense at all.”  The frequency of AI-caused errors, Mankoff said, “makes research into accessible validation especially important.”

Mankoff also plans to research ways to document the kinds of ableism and inaccessibility present in AI-generated content, as well as investigate problems in other areas, such as AI-written code.

“Whenever software engineering practices change, there is a risk that apps and websites become less accessible if good defaults are not in place,” Glazko said. “For example, if AI-generated code were accessible by default, this could help developers to learn about and improve the accessibility of their apps and websites.”

Co-authors on this paper are Momona Yamagami, who completed this research as a UW postdoctoral scholar in the Allen School and is now at Rice University; Aashaka Desai, Kelly Avery Mack and Venkatesh Potluri, all UW doctoral students in the Allen School; and Xuhai Xu, who completed this work as a UW doctoral student in the Information School and is now at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This research was funded by Meta, Center for Research and Education on Accessible Technology and Experiences (CREATE), Google, an NIDILRR ARRT grant and the National Science Foundation.

For more information, contact Glazko at glazko@cs.washington.edu and Mankoff at jmankoff@cs.washington.edu.

This article was adapted from the UW News article by Stefan Milne.

Recommended Reading: Parenting with a Disability

October 16, 2023

Two recent publications address unnecessary challenges faced by parents with disabilities and how those challenges are made extraordinary by a legal system that is not protecting parents or their children.

Rocking the Cradle: Ensuring the Rights of Parents with Disabilities and Their Children

The National Council on Disability report finds that roughly 4 million parents in the U.S. who are disabled (about 6% of parents) are the only distinct community that must struggle to retain custody of their children. 

While we have moved (somewhat) beyond the blatant eugenics of the 20th century, some of those tactics persist. Further, “parents with disabilities are the only distinct community of Americans who must struggle to retain custody of their children.” This is also connected to other intersectional factors. For example, “Because children from African American and Native American families are more likely to be poor, they are more likely to be exposed to mandated reporters as they turn to the public social service system for support in times of need…”

Research has shown that exposure bias is evident at each decision point in the child welfare system.

Under the Watchful Eye of All: Disabled Parents and the Family Policing System’s Web of Surveillance

Author Robyn Powel details how the child welfare system employs extensive surveillance that disproportionately targets marginalized families. Yet centers for independent living and other existing programs have the potential to support these parents. Instead, “The child welfare system, more accurately referred to as the family policing system, employs extensive surveillance that disproportionately targets marginalized families, subjecting them to relentless oversight.”

One particular story in that article highlights the role of technology in this ‘policing’: “…just as the Hackneys were preparing to bring [their 8 month old] home, the Allegheny County DHS [alleged] negligence due to [the parents’] disabilities… More than a year later, their toddler remains in the foster care system, an excruciating separation for the Hackneys. The couple is left questioning whether DHS’ use of a predictive artificial intelligence (“AI”) tool unfairly targeted them based on their disabilities.”

As technologists, we wonder whether this AI tool was tested for racial or disability bias. It is essential that the technologies we create are equitable before they are deployed. 

Research at the Intersection of Race, Disability and Accessibility

October 13, 2023

What are the opportunities for research to engage the intersection of race and disability?

What is the value of considering how constructs of race and disability work alongside each other within accessibility research studies?

Two CREATE Ph.D. students have explored these questions and found little focus on this intersection within accessibility research. In their paper, Working at the Intersection of Race, Disability and Accessibility (PDF), they observe that we’re missing out on the full nuance of marginalized and “otherized” groups. 

The Allen School Ph.D. students, Aashaka Desai and Aaleyah Lewis, and collaborators will present their findings at the ASSETS 2023 conference on Tuesday, October 24.

Spurred by the conversation at the Race, Disability & Technology research seminar earlier in the year, members of the team realized they lacked a framework for thinking about work at this intersection. In response, they assembled a larger team to conduct an analysis of existing work and research with accessibility research.

The resulting paper presents a review of considerations for engaging with race and disability in the research and education process. It offers analyses of exemplary papers, highlights opportunities for intersectional engagement, and presents a framework to explore race and disability research. Case studies exemplify engagement at this intersection throughout the course of research, in designs of socio-technical systems, and in education. 

   Case studies

  • Representation in image descriptions: How to describe appearance, factoring preferences for self-descriptions of identity, concerns around misrepresentation by others, interest in knowing others’ appearance, and guidance for AI-generated image descriptions.
  • Experiences of immigrants with disabilities: Cultural barriers that include cultural disconnects and levels of stigma about disability between refugees and host countries compound language barriers.
  • Designing for intersectional, interdependent accessibility: How access practices as well as cultural and racial practices influence every stage of research design, method, and dissemination, in the context of work with communities of translators.
Composite image of the six authors of a variety of backgrounds: Christina Harringon, Aashaka Desai, Aaleyah Lewis, Sanika Moharana, Anned Spencer Ross, and Jennifer Mankoff
Authors, left to right: Christina Harringon, Aashaka Desai, Aaleyah Lewis, Sanika Moharana, Anne Spencer Ross, and Jennifer Mankoff

Authors

CREATE’s Response to Proposed Digital Accessibility Guidelines

October 4, 2023

CREATE has submitted a response, in collaboration with colleagues within the UW and at peer institutions, to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) proposal for new digital accessibility guidelines for entities that receive federal funds (schools, universities, agencies, etc.). The DoJ proposal invited review of the proposed guidelines.

The response commends the Department of Justice for addressing the issue of inaccessible websites and mobile apps for Title II entities through the approach proposed through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). The future popularity of websites and apps was not anticipated when the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law in 1990. Since then, websites, non-web documents, mobile apps, and other software have become popular ways for Title II entities to reach out and inform the public, to offer benefits and activities, and to use as a part of their offerings to members of the public. In recent years, many entities have asked for clearer legal guidance, so we appreciate the Department’s efforts to address these issues in proposed rulemaking. 

Read more:

People with Disabilities are a Population with Health Disparities

September 29, 2023

In September 2023, the Director of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities announced the designation of people with disabilities as a population with health disparities. The designation is one of several steps National Institutes of Health (NIH) is taking to address health disparities faced by people with disabilities and ensure their representation in NIH research.

Dr. Eliseo J. Pérez-Stable, in consultation with Dr. Robert Otto Valdez, the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality cited careful consideration of the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities final report, input from the disability community, and a review of the science and evidence.

As part of the effort to support research in this area, NIMHD also announced a funding opportunity to advance the science of disabilities research.

Read more

Your Review & Comments Wanted: Proposed Federal Accessibility Standards

August 11, 2023

A proposal for new digital accessibility guidelines for entities receiving federal funds was released for review by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on August 4, 2023.  Anyone affected by these guidelines has 60 days — through Tuesday, October 3, 2023 — to comment.

The DOJ is still trying to decide exactly what the rule should say, how quickly public entities should improve digital accessibility, and what exceptions to allow. For example, the current rule states that course content posted on a password-protected website (such as a learning management system (LMS) like Canvas) does not have to be made accessible until a student with a disability needs access to that content. If a student registers for the course, or transfers into it, then the course content has to be made fully accessible to all disabilities by the start of the term or within 5 days (if the term has already started). In addition, the course needs to stay accessible over time.

CREATE Director Jennifer Mankoff summarizes some of the most important aspects of the proposed rule in a Guide to Reviewing and Commenting that includes many of the the questions posed by the DOJ, with additional questions to consider from Mankoff. This guide is not meant to direct your comments, rather to facilitate and encourage your review. Whatever your viewpoint on the questions raised, the DOJ should hear from you. 

We strongly urge you to review the guidelines and submit your comments. If you have any questions, reach out to CREATE at create-contact@uw.edu.

Proposed Federal Accessibility Standards: CREATE’s Guide to Reviewing and Commenting

A proposal for new digital accessibility guidelines for entities receiving federal funds was released for review by the U.S. Department of Justice on August 4, 2023. Anyone affected by these guidelines had until October 3, 2023 to comment.

  • CREATE’s official response, in collaboration with colleagues within the UW and at peer institutions, is posted on the DOJ site temporarily.
  • The response is available as an accessible and tagged PDF document (53 pages).
  • If you have any questions, reach out to CREATE at create-contact@uw.edu.

August 2023 announcement

Note that the comment period has ended.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) is proposing new requirements for digital accessibility for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Their goal is to provide public entities with clear and concrete standards for how to fulfill their obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Regulations. The goal of these new standards is to ensure public entities provide equal access to all services, programs, and activities that are provided via the web and mobile apps. 

These standards impact mobile apps, websites, and course materials created by and for government bodies, including public schools (K-12 and universities), and public services of all kinds.

Below, we have tried to summarize some of the most important aspects of the proposed rule and to explain them. However, in summarizing we have naturally emphasized things we think are important. Some of the topics the rule touches on that we summarize below include the proposed timeline for making digital content accessible; the proposed rules impacting K-12 and college/university course content; what standards should be met for digital content to be accessible for websites, apps, and live audio captioning; and how compliance should be assessed. 

Note that submitted comments are publicly available online at: DOJ-CRT-2023-0007 on www.regulations.gov.

roposed rule, but the DOJ has asked a number of very specific questions that you might want to comment on.

Notable questions, highlighted

We highlight several of the DOJ questions below, labeled with the Question # that the DOJ uses for them. You will see that we present these questions out of order – we present them in the order that made sense to us when we summarized this proposed rule. You can read the whole proposed rule and all the questions, in order, on the posting of Docket (DOJ-CRT-2023-0007) on www.regulations.gov. Sometimes we write Question to Consider before a question; these are questions we think you might want to comment on even though the DOJ did not ask about them.

Why submit comments?

The DOJ is still trying to decide exactly what the rule should say, how quickly public entities should improve digital accessibility, and what exceptions to allow. For example, the current rule states that course content posted on a password-protected website (such as a learning management system (LMS) like Canvas) does not have to be made accessible until a student with a disability needs access to that content. If a student registers for the course, or transfers into it, then the course content has to be made fully accessible to all disabilities by the start of the term or within 5 days (if the term has already started). In addition, the course needs to stay accessible over time.

If you agree with this, you might want to say so in your comments, because someone else might think this is unreasonable, and the DOJ should hear from both sides. But you might disagree, in which case you should also comment.  

What are the new standards about?

These standards affect web content and mobile apps. These are very broadly defined and include almost any digital content that is important to interacting with public entities. 

Web content is defined as “information or sensory experience that is communicated to the user by a web browser or other software. This includes text, images, sounds, videos, controls, animations, navigation menus, and documents.” It also includes things like web content posted on social media apps, to the extent possible (for example, if the app supports it, the public entity should add image descriptions to images it posts).

Question 1: The DOJ’s definition of “conventional electronic documents” consists of an exhaustive list of specific file types. Should the DOJ instead craft a more flexible definition that generally describes the types of documents that are covered or otherwise change the proposed definition, such as by including other file types (e.g., images or movies), or removing some of the listed file types?

Mobile applications, or “apps,” are defined as “software applications that are designed to be downloaded and run on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets.” A public entity may use a mobile app that someone else designed and built (an “external mobile app”); in this case it still needs to be accessible. 

Question 25: What types of external mobile apps, if any, do public entities use to offer their services, programs, and activities to members of the public, and how accessible are these apps? … should [these apps be exempt]? If so, should this exception expire after a certain time, and how would this exception impact persons with disabilities.

Timeline for making web content and mobile apps accessible

Almost any content or app that is important to interacting with a public entity has to be made accessible within 2 years of the date when the rule becomes official, regardless of whether a disabled person asks for it or is known to be using that content or app. For public entities that serve a small number of people (<50,000), the proposed deadline is 3 years. For example, a small county police department in a county with <50,000 people would have 3 years. However only truly independent entities qualify for this exception. For example, the same policy department in a county with >50,000 people would only have two years; similarly a small public school in a large county would only have two years.

If a public entity feels this would be too costly, under the proposed rule they must prove this and they still have to do as much as possible, “to the maximum extent possible” to support their disabled constituents.

Question 4: What compliance costs and challenges might small public entities face in conforming with this rule? … [do they have internal staff for addressing accessibility? If they have recently addressed accessibility, how much did that cost?]

Question 5: Should the DOJ adopt a different WCAG version or conformance level for small entities or a subset of small entities?

Exemptions

The new rule does include some exceptions, meaning it allows some content to be inaccessible. However, when a disabled person needs the inaccessible content, existing regulations implementing title II of the ADA may come into effect, typically requiring the content to be made accessible.

Exemptions

The new rule does include some exceptions, meaning it allows some content to be inaccessible. However, when a disabled person needs the inaccessible content, existing regulations implementing title II of the ADA may come into effect, typically requiring the content to be made accessible.

Archived and pre-existing non-web documents

The following exemptions are intended to reduce the burden of the new rule for large collections of rarely used documents:

  • Archived content not in active use
  • Pre-existing non-web documents

The DOJ has several questions about these exemptions (see Questions 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20) which relate to how such content is currently used, where it is posted, and how these exemptions would impact people with disabilities.

Course content

Generally speaking, course content (such as a public syllabus or handout) has to be made accessible. However, course content inside a password protected website such as a learning management system (for both K-12 schools and colleges/universities) is exempted if the content is only available specifically to admitted students enrolled in the relevant course (and disabled parents, in the case of K-12 materials). 

Once an institution knows, or should have known that a student (or, for K-12 courses, parent) with a disability is enrolled in the course, “all existing course content must be made fully accessible by the [start of the academic term] for that course… New content added throughout the term for the course must also comply… at the time it is added to the website.”

Under today’s interpretation of the ADA, transferring to a course during the add/drop period or from a waitlist often means that the course is less accessible. The DOJ guidelines address this, requiring in these cases that course material is made accessible within five business days of the student’s enrollment. The DOJ also requires “auxiliary aids and services… that enable the student with a disability to participate” while a course is being made accessible. Notably, the relevant material would need to be fully accessible to all disabilities, “not merely the criteria related to that student or parent’s disability.“

Importantly, the obligation to make the course content accessible is “ongoing for the duration of the course” and “as long as that content is available to students on the password-protected course website.” It is not clear whether this applies to future offerings of the same course, as typically use of an LMS involves creating a “new” password-protected site for each offering.

The DOJ has a lengthy analysis of tangible and intangible benefits of this ruling, as well as expected costs. They estimate that “By the end of year four (two years after postsecondary schools begin to remediate course content), 96 percent of courses offered by public four-year and postgraduate institutions and 90 percent of courses offered by community colleges will have been remediated. They further estimate that postsecondary institutions will finish remediation on their own to preempt requests in the following year.” They have similar estimates about K-12 education.

Question to consider: Should the “the duration of a course” apply to a single offering of a course for a single term, or all offerings of that course in all terms (even if a separate LMS site, with a separate password, was created for each offering)? How might this impact the likelihood that most courses are fully accessible within four years?

Question to Consider: Do  you agree that the proposed rule will increase course accessibility to include 96% of courses? How might the variable representation of people with disabilities across fields impact this? For example, people with disabilities are particularly under-represented in STEM fields, where diagrams and math equations are often particularly inaccessible. What could be changed about the proposed rule to make this prediction more likely to come true?

The DOJ also has several questions; we highlight some of them below. We have combined the questions for K-12 and post-secondary educational institutions by referring to [public educational institutions] since the primary difference is that parents with disabilities trigger the need to make documents in the case of K-12 education only. 

Question 27 & 36: How difficult would it be for [public educational institutions] to comply with this rule in the absence of this exception?

Question 28 & 37: What would the impact of this exception be on people with disabilities?

Question 33 & 42: How long would it take to make course content available on a public entity’s password-protected or otherwise secured website for a particular course accessible, and does this vary based on the type of course? Do students need access to course content before the first day of class? How much delay in accessing online course content can a student reasonably overcome in order to have an equal opportunity to succeed in a course, and does the answer change depending on the point in the academic term that the delay occurs?

Question 35 & 44: Should the DOJ consider an alternative approach, such as requiring that all newly posted course content be made accessible on an expedited time frame, while adopting a later compliance date for remediating existing content?

This includes third party content. For example, a website for practicing math problems provided, if required to complete coursework, would need to be accessible. The rules do not specifically mention textbooks. However the DOJ asks:

Question 26: Are there particular issues relating to the accessibility of digital books and textbooks that the DOJ should consider in finalizing this rule? Are there particular issues that the DOJ should consider regarding the impact of this rule on libraries?

Question to Consider: Has textbook accessibility been a barrier to accessing courses? What are some examples of problems you’ve encountered? How common are these problems? What could help?

Other exemptions

The DOJ also exempts linked 3rd party information (if it is not providing a direct service) and individualized, password-protected documents (such as personal utility bills). However it specifies that if these documents have deadlines associated with them, and are not accessible, they need to adjust their deadlines “to ensure that a person with a disability has equal access to its services, programs, or activities.” The DOJ asks about whether proper processes are in place:

Question to Consider: How might a delay in receiving an accessible document affect you? For example, could it affect whether you receive care services, money for food, or healthcare services that could cause harm if delayed? If you think this is a concern, what would be a reasonable deadline for receiving these documents?

Question 46: Do public entities have adequate systems for receiving notification that an individual with a disability requires access to an individualized, password-protected conventional electronic document? What kinds of burdens do these notification systems place on individuals with disabilities and how easy are these systems to access? Should the DOJ consider requiring a particular system for notification or a particular process or timeline that entities must follow when they are on notice that an individual with a disability requires access to such a document?

How is “accessible” defined?

The ADA has always included digital accessibility. However, a lack of specific standards in the past has left public entities to define for themselves what compliance looks like. The result has been a lack of consistent attention to accessibility. According to the DOJ, “voluntary compliance … has been insufficient in providing access.”

Now, the DOJ is requiring public entities to follow the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)version 2.1, at the AA level. This is a carefully tested web standard which has recently been expanded to touch on mobile accessibility needs as well. 

Question 3: Are there technical standards or performance standards other than WCAG 2.1 that the Department should consider? … If so, what is a reasonable time frame for State and local compliance with WCAG 2.2 and why? Is there any other standard that the Department should consider, especially in light of the rapid pace at which technology changes?

The DOJ notes that “the Access Board’s section 508 standards include additional requirements applicable to mobile apps that are not in WCAG 2.1 [including]: interoperability requirements to ensure that a mobile app does not disrupt a device’s assistive technology for persons with disabilities (e.g., screen readers for persons who are blind or have low vision); requirements for mobile apps to follow preferences on a user’s phone such as settings for color, contrast, and font size; and requirements for caption controls and audio description controls that enable users to adjust caption and audio description functions.“

Question 8: Is WCAG 2.1 Level AA the appropriate accessibility standard for mobile apps? Should the Department instead adopt another accessibility standard or alternative for mobile apps, such as the requirements from section 508 discussed above?

The DOJ also notes that this includes captioning of “live audio,” such as in real-time presentations. They note that many meetings have moved online since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, making live audio captioning “even more critical for individuals with certain types of disabilities to participate fully in civic life.” Proper live audio captioning includes speaker identification as well as accurate transcription of spoken text, sound effects, and other significant audio. Live audio captioning of this sort cannot be automated, and the DOJ is concerned about costs. They ask:

Question 13: Should the Department consider a different compliance date for the captioning of live-audio content in synchronized media or exclude some public entities from the requirement?

Question 14: What types of live-audio content do public entities and small public entities post? What has been the cost for providing live-audio captioning?

Finally, the DOJ notes that “WCAG 2.1 can be interpreted to permit the development of two separate websites—one for individuals with relevant disabilities and another for individuals without relevant disabilities—even when doing so is unnecessary and when users with disabilities would have a better experience using the main web page.” They rightly point out that this raises “concerns about user experience, segregation of users with disabilities, unequal access to information, and maintenance”. Thus the proposed rule explicitly states that parallel development of a separate website, document or app is “permissible only where it is not possible to make websites and web content directly accessible due to technical limitations (e.g., technology is not yet capable of being made accessible) or legal limitations (e.g., web content is protected by copyright).”  They go on to ask:

Question 49: Would allowing [a separate alternate version of a website, document, or app] due to technical or legal limitations result in individuals with disabilities receiving unequal access to a public entity’s services, programs, and activities?

How will compliance be measured?

The DOJ has many questions about the best way to measure compliance. The DOJ acknowledges that a public entity might reasonably not be in full compliance with all of WCAG 2.1’s AA standards at all times. This is because web content changes frequently, assessments may not always agree, and may include thousands of pages of content, making compliance more difficult than ensuring access to, say, “a town hall that is renovated once a decade…. The Department also believes that slight deviations from WCAG 2.1 Level AA may be more likely to occur without having a detrimental impact on access than is the case with the ADA Standards. Additionally, it may be easier for an aggrieved individual to find evidence of noncompliance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA than noncompliance with the ADA Standards, given the availability of many free testing tools and the fact that public entities’ websites can be accessed from almost anywhere.” 

They discuss several alternatives that could allow for the necessity of slight deviations and short periods of noncompliance while still promoting high compliance overall, including a percentage-based standard (which may be difficult to implement, and may need to weight different aspects of WCAG 2.1 differently to achieve equity); a standard based on policies for feedback, testing and remediation (which may be inconsistently applied); or “organizational maturity” meaning the organization can show it has a robust accessibility program in place (which may not translate to full accessibility or compliance). They solicit commentary on compliance: 

The DOJ asks what evidence an allegation of noncompliance requires (Question 50); Whether organizational feedback practices, testing policies, remediation practices, or organizational maturity should matter in assessing compliance (Questions 51, 55, 58). The DOJ also asks about what specific feedback practices, testing policies, remediation policies, and level of organizational maturity are needed (Questions 52, 53, 54, 59). They also ask:

Question 62: Should the Department address the different level of impact that different instances of nonconformance with a technical standard might have on the ability of people with disabilities to access the services, programs, and activities that a public entity offers via the web or a mobile app? If so, how?

To conclude, the DOJ’s proposed rule covers a number of topics that are of great importance to people with disabilities. We strongly urge you to comment on the rule.

If you have any questions, reach out to CREATE at create-contact@uw.edu.

CSE course sequence designed with “accessibility from the start”

The CSE 121, 122, and 123 introductory course sequence lets students choose their entry point into computer science and engineering studies, whatever their background, experience, or confidence level. And, as part of the effort to improve diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA), the courses were designed with “accessibility from the start.”

A member of the course development team was a dedicated accessibility expert, tasked with developing guidelines for producing accessible materials: using HTML tags correctly, providing alt text for all images, and ensuring accurate captions on all videos. The team audited both content and platforms — including the course website — for accessibility concerns.

In CSE’s DEIA Newsletter article, author Brett Wortzman, Associate Teaching Faculty, points out that “many of the guidelines followed are good universal design, helping all students, not just those with disabilities, and at the same time reducing the work for instructors needing to comply with many DRS [Disability Resources for Students] accommodations.”

Excerpted from article by Brett Wortzman, Associate Teaching Faculty, in CSE’s DEIA Newsletter.

Honoring Judy Heumann’s outsized impact

Judy Heumann — disability activist and leader, presidential advisor to two administrations, polio survivor and quadriplegic — passed away on Saturday, March 4. Heumann’s family invited the community to honor her life at a memorial service and burial that is now available on video with ASL, captioning, and English interpretation of Yiddish included.

Who was Judy Heumann?

Judy Heumann fought for disabled rights and against segregation. She led the “longest nonviolent occupation of a federal building in American history,” according to the New York Times. When communications were cut off by the government, she passed messages to supporters using sign language and received support from the Black Panthers and the Mayor of San Francisco. The protest led to successful action on section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Heumann did not stop there. According to President Biden, “Her courage and fierce advocacy resulted in the Rehabilitation Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act – landmark achievements that increased access to education, the workplace, housing, and more for people with disabilities.” Heumann talked in a 2020 article in Ability Magazine about the importance of “helping people to identify and understand the scope of disability that the ADA and other laws cover.” She believed in an expansive view of disability, and wanted to see more people included in the disability rights movement, stating “… I think it’s a combination of shame and fear that we may not be talking about if we have diabetes or epilepsy or cancer or anxiety or depression or bipolar or whatever. …I think expanding our circle is one of the big issues that we need to be dealing with over the next five to ten years.” Heumann went on to talk about the power of knowing that you have rights under the law, recognizing and fighting discrimination, and the importance of diversifying the disability movement by race, religion and sexual orientation: “We need to have an understanding, for example, of the fact that [disparities] may exist in various communities based on race and socio-economic status, how there are people within the U.S. who are not benefiting from laws because they don’t have the resources to hire an attorney or an advocate. The government, in my view, is not always enforcing laws as they should be.”

Heumann’s auto-biography, Being Heumann came out in 2020 (co-authored with Kristen Joiner). Crip Camp documents the 1970s birth of Heumann’s and other activists’ advocacy for people with disabilities. Ability Magazine inter-view touching on the ADA, the increasing diversity of the disability community, and the pandemic.

CREATE Co-director Jennifer Mankoff noted that, “Personally speaking, her influence on my career has been indirect but important. In my first years as a faculty member, at UC Berkeley, the Center for Independent Living (which Heumann founded and called “the first organization in the world to be run for and by the disabled” according to the NY Times) reached out to educate me about disability activism, through another leader, Scott Leubking. At the same time, I began to learn about disability studies work with the help of Berkeley’s nascent disability studies program and specifically academic and activist Devva Kasnitz. These early encounters directly influenced the direction of my research and advocacy and are visible today in CREATE’s emphasis on disability studies and disability justice and entwining them in its accessibility work.”

Learn more about Judy Heumann

Heumann’s auto-biography, Being Heumann: An Unrepentant Memoir of a Disability Rights Activist, published in 2020 and co-authored with Kristen Joiner. 
Crip Camp documents the 1970s birth of Heumann’s and other activists’ advocacy for people with disabilities.
Ability Magazine interview touching on the ADA, the increasing diversity of the disability community, and the pandemic.

Increasing Data Equity Through Accessibility

Data equity can level the playing field for people with disabilities both in opening new employment opportunities and through access to information, while data inequity may amplify disability by disenfranchising people with disabilities.

In response to the U.S. Science and Technology Policy Office’s request for information (RFI) better supporting intra- and extra-governmental collaboration around the production and use of equitable data, CREATE Co-director, Jennifer Mankoff co-authored a position statement with Frank Elavsky, Carnegie Mellon University and Arvind Satyanarayan, MIT Visualization Group. The authors address the three questions most pertinent to the needs of disabled people.

They highlight the opportunity to expand upon the government’s use of accessible tools to produce accessible visualizations through broad-based worker training. “From the CDC to the Census Bureau, critical data that is highly important to all historically underrepresented peoples and should be available to underrepresented scholars and research institutions to access and use, must be accessible to fully include everyone.”

Reiterating “Nothing about us without us,” the statement notes that when authoring policies that involve data, access, and equitable technology, people with disabilities must be consulted. “Calls for information, involvement, and action should explicitly invite and encourage participation of those most affected.” In addition to process notes, the response addresses roles, education, laws, and tools.

Just having access to data is not enough, or just, when power, understanding and action are in the hands of government agents, computer scientists, business people and the many other stakeholders implementing data systems who do not themselves have disabilities.

The statement identifies access to the tools for producing accessible data, such as data visualizations, as low-hanging fruit and concludes with a call for funding of forward-thinking research that investigates structural and strategic limitations to equitable data access. More research is needed to investigate the ways that various cultural and socio-economic factors intersect with disability and access to technology.

Read the details in the full response on arxiv.org (PDF).

CREATE + I-LABS: focus on access, mobility, and the brain

We are excited to celebrate the launch of a new research and innovation partnership between CREATE and the UW Institute of Learning and Brain Sciences (I-LABS) focusing on access, mobility, and the brain.

Mobility technology such as manual and powered wheelchairs, scooters, and modified ride-on toy cars, are essential tools for young children with physical disabilities to self-initiate exploration, make choices, and learn about the world. In essence, these devices are mobile learning environments.

Collage of several toddlers playing, learning and laughing on modified ride-on toys

The collaboration, led by Heather Feldner and Kat Steele from CREATE, and Pat Kuhl and Andy Meltzoff from I-LABS, brings together expertise from fields of rehabilitation medicine and disability studies, engineering, language development, psychology, and learning. The team will address several critical knowledge gaps, starting with, How do early experiences with mobility technology impact brain development and learning outcomes? What are critical periods for mobility?

Read the full Research Highlight.

CREATE Submits RFI on Disability Bias in Biometrics

CREATE, in collaboration with representatives of the Trace Center people with backgrounds in computer science policy and disability studies, submitted a response to the Science and Technology Policy Office‘s request for “Information on Public and Private Sector Uses of Biometric Technologies“. See our full response on Arxiv. We summarize the request for information, and our response, below.

What are biometric technologies?

Biometric technologies are computer programs that try to guess something about you. Sensors today can capture your heart rate, fingerprint, face. They can watch you walk, and even find identifying information in your typing style and speed. Initially, biometrics were designed to identify people. This has expanded to include emotion, intent, disability status, and much more.

What does the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) want to know?

The OSTP wants to hear from many different types of people who may have very different wishes for, and worries about, biometric technology. For example, their Request for Information mentions industry, advocacy groups, tribal governments, academic researchers, and the general public.

They are interested in how biometrics may be used and what their benefits are. But they also want to know how to use them well. For example, they ask how biometrics can be more likely to correctly identify a person, or their emotion, intent and so on. They also ask about security concerns — could one person using a biometric system pretend to be someone they are not, for example. They ask about other possible harms such as whether biometrics work equally well for all people, or whether they might be used for surveillance, harassment, or other worrisome activities.

They finally ask about appropriate governance. Governance refers to rules that might increase the value and safety of biometrics. An example is who should be included in ethical decisions about biometric use. Rules about how it is ok to use biometrics, or ways of preventing problematic use are also on this list. Transparency and whether biometrics can be used in court are also mentioned.

What did CREATE have to say about this?

CREATE led a discussion of disability bias and risk in the use of biometric technology.

Ableist assumptions

The benefits of such technologies are similar for people with and without impairments, however access to such technologies is important for equitable use. Ableist assumptions built into an application can make it inaccessible even if it meets legal standards. For example, an automatic door may close too fast for some users, or a voice menu may time out. These inaccessibilities are avoidable if systems are designed with disabled users in mind.

Biased data

Biometric systems require data (many examples of whatever information they are using, to guess things about people). If that data is biased (for example, lacks examples from people with disabilities), biometrics are likely to be far less accurate in their guesses for those populations. A person might have unusual or missing  limbs and not have a fingerprint, or walk differently, or speak differently than the system expects, and thus be unable to access services tied to recognition of fingerprints, gait, or voice. This can also make biometrics inaccessible. The CREATE response discusses several examples of how these biases can creep into data sets.

Lack of personal agency and privacy

Next, the risks of biometric failures can be higher for people with disabilities. For example, if a disability is rare, this can make data security more difficult, or make it more likely that different people with similar impairments are confused for each other. In addition, it is possible that biometrics might be used to label someone as disabled without their permission, an abuse of personal agency and privacy. Also, a biometric system may implicitly enforce what it means to be “human” when they fail to recognize a disabled body and then deny access to services as a result.

What solutions did CREATE recommend?

These problems are difficult, but not impossible, to solve.

Include people with disabilities in the design

CREATE’s first recommendation is to ensure that people with disabilities are given the chance to help in the design and assessment of biometric systems. Participatory design, which includes people with disabilities as important stakeholders in the design process, is a good first step. However true equity will require that people with disabilities can enter the technology workforce so that they can directly build and innovate such systems. This requires access to higher education programs; access to conferences and events where research and products are discussed, presented and shared; and accessible tools for programming biometrics. In addition, the disability community needs to get involved in policy and decision making around biometrics.

Set standards for algorithm accessibility

Next, we need new standards for algorithm accessibility, just as we have standards for web page accessibility. These should include expectations about testing with disabled populations, and collecting unbiased data.

Ensure transparency, responsiveness and permission

Additionally, there should be rules about transparency, the ability to override or replace biometric systems when they fail to correctly understand a disabled person’s actions or input, and rules about not abusing biometrics by, for example, detecting disability without permission.

Reimagining Mobility: Inclusive Architecture

Karen Braitmayer, seated in her wheelchair on the observation deck of the Space Needle, with full view of Seattle because obstructive walls were removed in a remodel
Click to view the captioned and transcribed video on YouTube

On October 13, 2021 Karen Braitmayer shared images from her experience of— and critical goals for— inclusive architecture. Noting that the best and brightest designers might come in bodies that are different than employers expect, she called for design schools to welcome students with disabilities and for design firms to hire and support the careers of designers with disabilities.

First steps for designers:

  • Provide options: wider seats, different height soap dispensers, etc.
  • Learn about building codes and regulations.
  • Talk to folks who have already figured out how to accommodate for their own disabilities and hack for accessibility.

Sign up for the Conversations

Karen Braitmayer using a wheelchair in a modern building with stairs and ramps

Architect Karen L. Braitmayer, FAIA, is the founding principal of Studio Pacifica, an accessibility consulting firm based in Seattle, Washington. Her “good fight” has consistently focused on supporting equity and full inclusion for persons with disabilities.

In 2019, she was chosen as the national winner of the AIA Whitney M. Young, Jr. award—a prestigious award given to an architect who “embodies social responsibility and actively addresses a relevant issue”. In the award’s 48-year history, she was the first recipient honored for their work in the area of civil rights for persons with disabilities. Braitmayer was also appointed by President Barack Obama to the United States Access Board, a position she retains today.

Join the Reimagining Mobility conversation

Join us for a series of conversations imagining the future of mobility. Hosted by CREATE Associate Directors Kat Steele and Heather Feldner, we connect and learn from guests who are engaged in critical mobility work – ranging from researchers to small business owners to self-advocates. We will dive deeply into conversations about mobility as a multifaceted concept, and explore how it intersects with other dimensions of access across contexts of research, education, and public policy. 

Sign up for the Conversations

Upcoming conversations

Stay tuned. 2022 series to be announced.

Past conversations

Flyer summarizing the information on Conversation Hub topics for Fall 2021
Download the Fall 2021 flyer (PDF)

Reimagining Mobility: Inclusive Living and Home Design

This UW CREATE event has passed. Continue to read a summary and watch a recording of the session. Sign up for future Reimagining Mobility Conversations.

You are looking for your first home – you’d like an open layout, 3 bedrooms, a big garage, lots of light, and easy access for your wheelchair. How many homes fit your criteria? Do the listings consider manual wheelchairs or bulkier powered wheelchairs with larger turning radii? These are just the start of the questions Barry Long would ask when viewing homes.

Barry Long is an advocate for people with disabilities who is helping to make real estate more accessible. In our third Conversation Hub session, Long shared how his passion for relationship building and helping others–combined with experiences as a manual wheelchair user, Dad and real estate broker–evolved into becoming a voting member of the Washington Building Code Council and advocating for standards for real estate listings.

Watch the conversation with Long about opening the door to accessible real estate and get a virtual look inside homes reimagined for inclusive living.

Research Workshop for Undergraduates with Disabilities

CREATE and UW AccessComputing co-sponsored a 3-day research-focused workshop for undergraduates in computing fields who have disabilities. The OurCS@AccessComputing+CREATE workshop was held virtually on January 13 – 15, 2021.

Forty-six undergraduate students from around the nation participated in the workshop along with 10 faculty mentors who work in various research areas. The keynote speakers were Dr. Elaine Short from Tufts University, Dr. Nicholas Giudice from the University of Maine, and Dr. Jeanine Cook from Sandia National Laboratory.

Participants also heard a panel of senior students and recently finished graduate students with disabilities talk about their own experiences in graduate school. Each of the mentors led a short course on research in their area of expertise and were available to network with students.

Two student participants at the 2019 OurCS workshop use virtual reality goggles and hand controllers
Participants use VR at the 2019 OurCS workshop.

Eddith Figueroa, a student at the University of Texas at Austin appreciated hearing about the panelists’ experiences. “I really enjoyed the panel of people who were in grad school. It gave me a lot of perspective into what it would be like to try and go to grad school with a disability,” Figueroa said. Cameron Cassidy from Texas A&M University highlighted the information about graduate school, saying, “Professors Milne and Ladner shared a lot of good information about graduate school, which made me more comfortable in my decision to pursue an advanced degree.”

And Nayha Auradkar of the University of Washington found the networking opportunities valuable. “I learned a lot through networking with research leaders and engaging in the interactive research workshops,” Auradkar said.

“I really enjoyed the panel of people who were in grad school. It gave me a lot of perspective into what it would be like to try and go to grad school with a disability,”

Eddith Figueroa, University of Texas at Austin student

Funding for this workshop was provided by Google Explore CSR with additional support from AccessComputing and the UW Center for Research and Education on Accessible Technology and Experiences (CREATE).

AccessComputing is a valued partner of CREATE, helping CREATE in its objective to help “create pathways for more individuals with disabilities to
pursue careers in technology innovation.”

Education: Accessibility and Race

Our Fall CREATE Accessibility Seminar focused on the intersection of Race and Accessibility. This topic was chosen both for its timeliness and also as part of CREATE’s commitment to ensure that our work is inclusive, starting with educating ourselves about the role of race in disability research and the gaps that exist in the field.

  • A search of the ACM digital library for papers that used words like “race” “disability” and “Black” turned up extremely few results. Even when papers talk about both disability and race, they are often treated separately. For example, some provide information on what percentage of a certain group is in various categories without considering their intersection. A rare exception is author Dr. Christina Harrington, who has directly spoken to this intersection and was kind enough to make a guest appearance at our seminar.

Although we know this is only the first step in our journey toward racial justice, we learned some important things along the way.

“By the end of the seminar, we were sure of one thing only: This is a topic we could not do justice to in a single quarter. There is much more to uncover here, and much work to be done.”

student Momona Yamagami

  • The research topics we found, which included work on both disability and race-related factors, were more wide-ranging than disability alone, including transportation, e-government access, hate speech, policing, surveillance, and institutionalization.
  • Guest researchers joined in to share their expertise including Dr. Christina N. Harrington, from DePaul University, on community-based approaches to reconsidering design for marginalized populations; Dr. Karin D. Martin from UW’s Evans School of Public Policy and Governance, a crime policy specialist whose areas of expertise are monetary sanctions, racial disparities in the criminal justice system, and decision-making in the criminal justice context; and Dr. Shari Trewin, IBM Accessibility Manager and Research Lead, on bias in artificial intelligence.

There is an important and growing body of critical literature on the topic. To touch on just a few of the books we read when preparing for the seminar, see DisCrit: Critical conversations across race, class, & dis/ability (Connor et al, 2016), Disability incarcerated (Moshe et al, 2014), and Disability Visibility (Wong, 2020).

“I appreciated the opportunity to talk about the intersection of accessibility and race because although we talk a lot about accessibility in this research area, we don’t really talk about how race and its intersection with other minority identities plays a huge role in who gets access and for whom technologies are made,” said student Momona Yamagami. “By the end of the seminar, we were sure of one thing only: This is a topic we could not do justice to in a single quarter. There is much more to uncover here, and much work to be done.”

Learn more about the accessibility seminar

Selected readings

Highlights from the full reading list:

Reimagining Mobility: Smart tech for mobility, health and agency

This UW CREATE event has passed. Sign up for future Reimagining Mobility Conversations.

Brothers Barry and Jered Dean set about to design and engineer an addition for the powered wheelchair experience for Barry’s daughter, Katherine. In the process they discovered tensions between what has been defined as smart technology and what users want to support their mobility, health, agency, and privacy. In our second Conversation Hub, they shared lessons learned and entertaining anecdotes in their journey from tinkerers to founders of LUCI,  a powered wheelchair add-on accessory that supports greater independence and safe navigation with features like collision avoidance and tip/drop off warnings that can be tuned to the driver’s preferences.

Captioned video of our online event

Favorite quotes from our discussion

“We have to realize there’s a dignity in risk. It’s okay that somebody’s gonna do something that maybe I wouldn’t do, or the technology doesn’t agree with.”

Jered Dean

“I understand the logic of having a large sample size and sometimes that gives you great clarity, but sometimes it gives you great mediocrity or great generalization. In songwriting we’re taught as professionals, the more connected you want to be with your audience, the more specific you will need to be. So especially in country music, you use incredibly detailed things.”

Barry Dean

Event description

The CREATE Conversation Hub hosted a live discussion with LUCI co-founders and brothers, Barry & Jered Dean. LUCI was founded after the brothers began designing and engineering an addition for the motorized wheelchair used by Barry’s daughter, Katherine. The changes were meant to make it safer and “smart,” connecting it to the internet so she can interact with the same up-to-date technology a lot of people use.

Through this process they found tensions in what was defined as smart technology to support mobility, health, agency, and privacy. We read and discussed Judging Smart, a guide the Dean brothers developed that offers initial ideas and questions around the concept of smart technology in power mobility.

The cover of the PDF Judging Smart: A framework for assessing "smart" technology in power mobility today by Jered Dean. Features a person wearing a pair of stylish boots on a power wheelchair.

Jered Dean is co-founder and Chief Technology Officer (CTO) at LUCI, where he brings his decade-long experience in new product development to life, including acting as the former director of Capstone Design at the Colorado School of Mines. Jered founded LUCI in 2017 with his brother, Barry, in hopes of creating a technology that could improve life in a power wheelchair for his niece, Katherine.

Barry Dean is an award-winning songwriter turned wheelchair technology founder. As CEO of LUCI, Barry seeks to provide security, stability and connectivity for power wheelchairs. He founded the company with hopes of building a smarter solution for his daughter Katherine and all power wheelchair riders. He is a founding writer at Creative Nation Music, Recording Academy (GRAMMY) Nashville Chapter Governor, and has previously served two terms as a board member of the Nashville Songwriters Association International.

Mankoff wins AccessComputing Capacity Building award

Jennifer Mankoff, CREATE Director and co-founder and Professor at the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering

Congratulations to Jennifer Mankoff on receiving the AccessComputing Capacity Building Award! She was honored for her leadership in helping make all Special Interest Group on Computer–Human Interaction (SIGCHI) conferences accessible to attendees with disabilities. 

Through her leadership, the SIGCHI Executive Committee now has adjunct chairs for accessibility, which institutionalizes accessibility as an important facet of SIGCHI activities. Jen holds monthly online meetings of the AccessSIGCHI leadership team to help set and execute its agenda. 

Every year AccessComputing honors someone with the AccessComputing Capacity Building Award for their work and accomplishments that have changed the way the world views people with disabilities and their potential to succeed in challenging computing careers and activities. 

Excerpted from an article by Richard Ladner on the AccessComputing website. Read the full article.

An app for everything, but can everyone use it?

Medium | May 26, 2020

For most of us, the day seems to revolve around our phones: check email, read the news, pay bills, and get directions to the store. Mobile apps are essential in day-to-day life.

Unfortunately, many apps fail to be fully accessible to people with disabilities or those who rely on assistive technologies. As one blind app user noted, using an inaccessible app is “a constant feeling of being devalued. It doesn’t matter about the stupid button that I can’t press in that moment. It’s that it keeps happening. … And the message that I keep receiving is that the world just doesn’t value me.”

Anne Spencer Ross is a UW Ph.D. candidate in computer science, working on accessibility.  She wrote about the state of app accessibility and shared ways that app users and developers can help make apps work for everyone. 

Read more of Ross’ article