Accessibility Across Borders

Abstract

Since prior work has identified that cultural differences influence user design preferences and interaction methods, as well as emphasizing the need to reflect on the appropriateness of popular HCI principles, we believe that it is equally important to apply this inquiry to digital accessibility and how accessibility fits within the design process around the world.

Full text

Accessibility Across Borders
Garreth W. Tigwell
garreth.w.tigwell@rit.edu Kristen Shinohara
kristen.shinohara@rit.edu Laleh Nourian
ln2293@g.rit.edu
School of Information School of Information School of Information
Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY, USA Rochester, NY, USA Rochester, NY, USA
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for prot or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the rst page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
CHI ’21 Workshop: Decolonizing HCI Across Borders, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan,
© 2021 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
1 INTRODUCTION
Postcolonial computing emphasizes that the design, development,
and use of technology varies within dierent cultures, as well as
the need for understanding these design practices and what impli-
cations there are in a global context [
19
]. Within human-computer
interaction (HCI), there is also a concept called WEIRD (Western,
Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), which highlights a
requirement to better understand how current HCI principles t in
other countries and it emphasizes the necessity to more critically
review our processes [
46
]. A CHI 2021 paper has identied that 73%
of nearly 3,300 papers from 2016 to 2020 included Western partic-
ipants and, in general, t the WEIRD prole, calling attention to
the need for more international focus in HCI research studies [
33
].
1.1 Position Statement
Since prior work has identied that cultural dierences inuence
user design preferences and interaction methods, as well as em-
phasizing the need to reect on the appropriateness of popular
HCI principles, we believe that it is equally important to apply this
inquiry to digital accessibility and how accessibility ts within the
design process around the world.
1.2 Current Research Progress
Our
ing how digital designers in dierent parts of the world consider
accessibility and whether current accessibility resources (often de-
veloped in the west) meet or conict with their approach to design.
Acknowledging the immensity of this task, we have narrowed
our focus to a smaller project spanning just a few years that will
look at improving web and mobile accessibility resources for Iranian
designers. This work will be led by an Iranian PhD student.
We focus on Iranian web and mobile designers for several rea-
sons:
1)
Iran has a fairly recent history for establishing disability
rights (2009) vs the US (1973);
2)
There are distinct dierences
between Farsi and English (e.g., reading/writing order and gram-
matical structure), which likely inuence design layout variances
and could aect accessibility;
3)
There is scarce prior work that
compares accessibility and usability practices of Iranian designers
with reported US practices; and
4)
WCAG—the gold standard web
and mobile accessibility resource—is not available in Farsi and a
straightforward translation may not be a sucient solution.
long-term plan is to build upon work in this area by investigat-
To understand the current accessibility support available to Ira-
nian web and mobile designers, we plan to follow a contextual
design approach using established qualitative methods and con-
textual inquiry [
17
]. We can then begin to identify how best to
implement new accessibility guidelines and design tool features
that best meet the needs of Iranian designers. However, due to
COVID-19, our studies will be conducted remotely (e.g., online
questionnaires, online semi-structured interviews, remote diary
studies).
2 BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION
2.1 Digital Accessibility
Websites and mobile apps are important in society and enhance
how we communicate, learn, socialize, and work [
4
,
5
,
16
]; it is
critical to make digital spaces accessible for people with disabilities
who make up just over 1 billion people worldwide [54].
Although designers can make digital spaces accessible through a
combination of following guidelines, using appropriate design tools,
and conducting user evaluations [
28
], there is a signicant body of
work that continues to identify the persistence of inaccessibility
for both web and mobile technology (e.g., [
15
,
26
,
38
,
44
]). Web
accessibility-related lawsuits are also increasing [
52
], indicating
that more research is required to improve a worsening situation
by better supporting web and mobile designers. Some reasons for
inaccessibility include: a lack of sucient education on accessibility
in design, limited project time and funds, clients who prioritize
other design requests over accessibility, confusing guidelines, and
inadequate tools (see: [
9
,
31
,
37
,
47
,
49
–
51
]). Overall, inaccessibility
is never usually the result of a single issue but one that can be traced
back to several factors falling on a spectrum of intrinsic to extrinsic
causes [
43
], such as a developer’s software not warning about
accessibility violations (intrinsic) and a company adhering to a
culture where the importance of product accessibility is dismissed as
being unimportant or too costly (extrinsic). It is necessary to explore
all possible causes for the widespread issue of inaccessibility in
digital spaces and then develop solutions to address those barriers.
One under-researched area is a critical evaluation of the suitabil-
ity of established accessibility practices for international designers
who have dierent cultural norms, language systems, perspectives,
and understandings. Prior work has demonstrated that cultural
dierences can inuence design and design preferences (e.g., [
41
]),
while design can be closely linked to the accessibility of the system
because it is a signicant part of the interface we interact with (e.g.,
colors, font style, layout, navigation structure) [
39
]. Identifying
international dierences and challenges is an important rst step
toward the introduction of protocols that could result in a more
synergistic global attitude toward making digital content accessible.

CHI ’21 Workshop: Decolonizing HCI Across Borders, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan,
Tigwell et al.
2.2 Cultural and Visual Design
The aesthetic design of a digital space is often intentionally cre-
ated in a way to complement its purpose and evoke specic emo-
tions [
6
,
10
,
32
]. Yet, people from dierent cultures can vary in their
preference for use of color and amount of text [
13
], how information
is organized [
7
], and the design of icons [
22
]. Design must include
both elements that are considered universal to improve usability on
a global scale and specic localized design elements [
14
]. Websites
can be designed to represent the cultural values of the country the
designer is from and it can result in distinct design dierences [
36
].
This should motivate designers to carefully consider how content
is created to appeal to dierent audiences [21, 45].
The eect of culture runs deeper than simply visual design prefer-
ences and it can inuence how people seek information, navigation
behaviors, and decision-making outcomes when people work in
a group [
12
,
24
,
25
,
42
]. Visual and interaction design preferences
may conict with accessibility recommendations.
2.3 Cultural Diferences and Usability Testing
Chavan [
8
] argues that little work has been done to adapt design
process methods and tools for cultural dierences. Common design
methodologies used in industry include user-centered design [
34
]
and co-design [
40
], where designers consider and involve future
users in the design process, and running evaluations can help with
design renement [
48
]. User involvement may result in misunder-
standings or socio-cultural conicts without proper planning.
For example, a series of studies conducted in the Netherlands
and South Korea demonstrated that dierent factors and expecta-
tions need to be adapted to maintain similar levels of participant
engagement [
53
]. Another study on design method tasks also found
dierences in levels of engagement and forthrightness (Korean par-
ticipants were less spontaneous) due to cultural norms, but this
could be overcome when applying appropriate adjustments (e.g.,
by increasing communication to boost motivation) [29].
Evaluations may also use standardized instruments to record data
to inform the development of a design. The System Usability Scale
(SUS) is a popular evaluation metric created in English and used
within HCI since the 1980s, which takes the form of a standardized
questionnaire and allows participants to indicate their feelings
toward the usability of a system [
30
]. There have been translations
of this tool so that users who are not native speakers can use the
test. Dianat et al. [
11
] created a translated version of the SUS into
Farsi for Persian participants. In addition to the translation, the
Persian SUS was evaluated with 202 participants and 10 experts
and determined it remained reliable [
11
]. This work demonstrates
the need to adapt standardized procedures and also that it can be
achieved successfully, thus resulting in better-designed systems
because they can be evaluated more eectively.
2.4 Accessibility and Cultural Diferences
Sections 2.2 and 2.3 cover many design-related cultural dierences
studies that focus on usability. We want to build upon this and
investigate the eects on accessibility, which is unknown since it
was not the focus of prior work.
Usability is often determined by a person’s expertise and prior
experiences, whereas accessibility depends on whether a user can
complete tasks regardless of their abilities [
20
]. To expand on this
distinction with some examples, a system that is designed to be
more usable will cater to not only expert users, but also novice
users, thus making it easy to complete tasks (e.g., designers add
clear labeling to buttons and menus to support new users). A system
that is designed to be accessible provides alternative access and
avoids creating barriers for users (e.g., designers avoid assigning
meaning to colors and will use high contrasting colors to improve
color distinction for color blind users). However, these two dimen-
sions can be in conict. For example, if a designer uses colors with
culturally assigned meaning to improve usability (e.g., green = good,
red = bad), then it will be inaccessible for people with red-green
color blindness. Similarly, research in the previous section discussed
cultural preferences for layout and amount of text, which could
conict with Western-dened accessibility guidelines.
Since 1999, WCAG [
23
] has become the gold standard for en-
suring the accessibility of websites and mobile apps (e.g., iOS [
2
]),
but it has not always been clearly implemented within law and
policy, thus challenging the implementation of accessible digital
spaces [
27
]. A simple translation of WCAG may also be ineective,
since, as an accessibility resource, WCAG is already often criticized
by designers for being dicult to use [
47
]. Instead, there may be
an opportunity to work closely with international designers to
establish a more culturally sensitive set of accessibility guidelines.
A collection of research has investigated the accessibility of
dierent government websites – examples include India [
38
], Pak-
istan [
3
], Saudi Arabia and Oman [
1
], South America [
35
], Tai-
wan [
18
], UK [
26
]. The research suggests that reasons for these
accessibility violations may be caused by a lack of laws and poli-
cies [
3
,
35
], but it is unknown whether those designers are ade-
quately supported in meeting accessibility guidelines because the
work primarily took a quantitative methods approach. We can lever-
age the advantages of qualitative methods to better understand the
needs and concerns of international designers.
3 OUR WORKSHOP GOALS
We have several reasons for wanting to attend the CHI 2021 Work-
shop: Decolonizing HCI Across Borders. We would like to:
• Get feedback on our project to rene the research plan.
•
Receive guidance on how to navigate through this work
in a culturally sensitive way. Although our PhD student is
Iranian, we will likely look at dierent cultures so that we
can understand similarities and dierences.
•
Understand how best to conduct remote work across borders
(e.g., what are the common challenges to consider? and how
do researchers in this area overcome those challenges?).
•
Learn about the most up-to-date work that is being led by
experts in this research area.
•
Network with other researchers who are passionate about
‘decolonial’ thinking within HCI.
In addition to our own needs, we also want to contribute to
the success of the workshop through active participation and of-
fer feedback on other work that is presented. We can share with
the attendees our knowledge on web and mobile design, digital
designer’s work practices, and accessibility, in addition to our ex-
pertise in qualitative data collection methods.

CHI ’21 Workshop: Decolonizing HCI Across Borders, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan,
Accessibility Across Borders
REFERENCES
[1]
Abdulmohsen Abanumy, Ali Al-Badi, and Pam Mayhew. 2005. e-Government
Website accessibility: in-depth evaluation of Saudi Arabia and Oman. The Elec-
tronic Journal of e-government 3, 3 (2005), 99–106.
[2]
Apple. n.d.. Human Interface Guidelines: Visual Design. https://developer.
apple.com/design/human-interface- guidelines/ios/overview/themes/. Accessed:
2020-07-18.
[3]
Muhammad Bakhsh and Amjad Mehmood. 2012. Web accessibility for disabled:
a case study of government websites in Pakistan. In 2012 10th International
Conference on Frontiers of Information Technology. IEEE, 342–347. https://doi.
org/10.1109/FIT.2012.68
[4]
Pernille Bjørn, Morten Esbensen, Rasmus Eskild Jensen, and Stina Matthiesen.
2014. Does Distance Still Matter? Revisiting the CSCW Fundamentals on Dis-
tributed Collaboration. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 21, 5, Article 27 (Nov.
2014), 26 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2670534
[5]
Matthias Böhmer, Brent Hecht, Johannes Schöning, Antonio Krüger, and Gernot
Bauer. 2011. Falling Asleep with Angry Birds, Facebook and Kindle: A Large
Scale Study on Mobile Application Usage. In Proceedings of the 13th International
Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services
(Stockholm, Sweden) (MobileHCI ’11). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/2037373.2037383
[6]
Nathalie Bonnardel, Annie Piolat, and Ludovic Le Bigot. 2011. The impact of
colour on Website appeal and users’ cognitive processes. Displays 32, 2 (2011),
69–80.
[7]
Ewa Callahan. 2005. Cultural Similarities and Dierences in the Design of
University Web sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11, 1 (07
2005), 239–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00312.x
[8]
Apala Lahiri Chavan. 2005. Another culture, another method. In Proceedings of
the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 21.
[9]
Michael Crabb, Michael Heron, Rhianne Jones, Mike Armstrong, Hayley Reid,
and Amy Wilson. 2019. Developing Accessible Services: Understanding Cur-
rent Knowledge and Areas for Future Support. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk)
(CHI ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300446
[10]
Dianne Cyr, Milena Head, and Hector Larios. 2010. Colour appeal in website
design within and across cultures: A multi-method evaluation. International
journal of human-computer studies 68, 1 (2010), 1–21.
[11]
Iman Dianat, Zahra Ghanbari, and Mohammad AsghariJafarabadi. 2014. Psycho-
metric Properties of the Persian Language Version of the System Usability Scale.
Health Promot Perspect 4, 1 (2014), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.5681/hpp.2014.011
[12]
Maha El-Shinnawy and Ajay S Vinze. 1997. Technology, culture and persuasive-
ness: a study of choice-shifts in group settings. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies 47, 3 (1997), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1997.0138
[13]
Vanessa Evers and Donald Day. 1997. The Role of Culture in Interface Acceptance.
Springer US, Boston, MA, 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0- 387-35175-
9_44
[14]
Baotong Gu. 2016. East Meets West on Flat Design: Convergence and Divergence
in Chinese and American User Interface Design. Technical Communication
63, 3 (2016), 231–247. https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/stc/tc/2016/
00000063/00000003/art00005
[15]
Vicki L. Hanson and John T. Richards. 2013. Progress on Website Accessibility?
ACM Trans. Web 7, 1, Article 2 (March 2013), 30 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2435215.2435217
[16]
Janette R Hill and Michael J Hannan. 2001. Teaching and learning in digital
environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational technology
research and development 49, 3 (2001), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504914
[17]
Karen Holtzblatt and Hugh Beyer. 2014. Contextual design: evolved. Synthesis
Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 7, 4 (2014), 1–91.
[18]
Chaomeng James Huang. 2003. Usability of e-government web-sites for people
with disabilities. In 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sci-
ences, 2003. Proceedings of the. IEEE, 11–pp. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2003.
1174330
[19]
Lilly Irani, Janet Vertesi, Paul Dourish, Kavita Philip, and Rebecca E. Grinter.
2010. Postcolonial Computing: A Lens on Design and Development. Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1311–1320. https://doi.org/10.
1145/1753326.1753522
[20]
S. Keates and P. J. Clarkson. 2003. Countering design exclusion: bridging the gap
between usability and accessibility. Universal Access in the Information Society 2,
3 (2003), 215–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-003- 0059-5
[21]
Julie Khaslavsky. 1998. Integrating Culture into Interface Design. In CHI 98
Conference Summary on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Los Angeles,
California, USA) (CHI ’98). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 365–366. https://doi.org/10.1145/286498.286830
[22]
Ji Hye Kim and Kun Pyo Lee. 2005. Cultural Dierence and Mobile Phone Interface
Design: Icon Recognition According to Level of Abstraction. In Proceedings of the
7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices
& Services (Salzburg, Austria) (MobileHCI ’05). Association for Computing Ma-
chinery, New York, NY, USA, 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1145/1085777.1085841
[23]
Andrew Kirkpatrick, Joshue O’Connor, Alastair Campbell, and Michael
Cooper. 2018. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1.
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/ Accessed: 2018-12-11.
[24]
Anett Kralisch and Bettina Berendt. 2004. Cultural Determinants of Search
Behaviour on Websites.. In IWIPS. 61–75.
[25]
Anett Kralisch, Martin Eisend, and Bettina Berendt. 2005. Impact of culture on
website navigation behaviour. In Proc. HCI-International. 1–9.
[26]
Joanne M Kuzma. 2010. Accessibility design issues with UK e-government sites.
Government Information Quarterly 27, 2 (2010), 141–146.
[27]
Jonathan Lazar. 2019. Web Accessibility Policy and Law. In Web Accessibility.
Springer, 247–261.
[28]
Jonathan Lazar, Daniel F Goldstein, and Anne Taylor. 2015. Ensuring digital
accessibility through process and policy. Morgan Kaufmann.
[29]
Jung-Joo Lee and Kun-Pyo Lee. 2007. Cultural Dierences and Design Methods
for User Experience Research: Dutch and Korean Participants Compared. In
Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces
(Helsinki, Finland) (DPPI ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York,
NY, USA, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/1314161.1314164
[30]
James R. Lewis. 2018. The System Usability Scale: Past, Present, and Future.
International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 34, 7 (2018), 577–590. https:
//doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307
[31]
Junchen Li, Garreth W. Tigwell, and Kristen Shinohara. 2021. Accessibility of
High-Fidelity Prototyping Tools. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com-
puting Systems (CHI ’21) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 13 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445520
[32]
Jonathan Ling and Paul Van Schaik. 2002. The eect of text and background
colour on visual search of Web pages. Displays 23, 5 (2002), 223–230.
[33]
Sebastian Linxen, Christian Sturm, Florian Brühlmann, Vincent Cassau, Klaus
Opwis, and Katharina Reinecke. 2021. How WEIRD is CHI?. In CHI Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21) (CHI ’21). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3411764.3445488
[34] Travis Lowdermilk. 2013. User-Centered Design. OReilly Media.
[35]
Sergio Luján-Mora, Rosa Navarrete, and Myriam Peñael. 2014. Egovernment
and web accessibility in South America. In 2014 First International Conference
on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG). IEEE, 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICEDEG.2014.6819953
[36]
Singh Nitish, Zhao Hongxin, and Hu Xiaorui. 2005. Analyzing the cultural
content of web sites: A cross-national comparision of China, India, Japan, and
US. 22, 2 (2005), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330510593241
[37]
Rohan Patel, Pedro Breton, Catherine M. Baker, Yasmine N. El-Glaly, and Kris-
ten Shinohara. 2020. Why Software is Not Accessible: Technology Profession-
als’ Perspectives and Challenges. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Con-
ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA
’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3383103
[38]
Manas Ranjan Patra, Amar Ranjan Dash, and Prasanna Kumar Mishra. 2014. A
Quantitative Analysis of WCAG 2.0 Compliance for some Indian Web Portals.
International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and Applications 4, 1 (2014),
9.
[39]
Helen Petrie, Fraser Hamilton, and Neil King. 2004. Tension, What Tension?
Website Accessibility and Visual Design. In Proceedings of the 2004 International
Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A) (New York City, New
York, USA) (W4A ’04). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/990657.990660
[40]
Coimbatore K Prahalad and Venkat Ramaswamy. 2004. Co-creation
experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Inter-
active Marketing 18, 3 (2004), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
arXiv:https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/dir.20015
[41]
Katharina Reinecke and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2014. Quantifying Visual Preferences
around the World. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/
2556288.2557052
[42]
Katharina Reinecke, Minh Khoa Nguyen, Abraham Bernstein, Michael Näf, and
Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2013. Doodle around the World: Online Scheduling Behavior
Reects Cultural Dierences in Time Perception and Group Decision-Making. In
Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (San
Antonio, Texas, USA) (CSCW ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441784
[43]
Anne Spencer Ross, Xiaoyi Zhang, James Fogarty, and Jacob O. Wobbrock.
2017. Epidemiology as a Framework for Large-Scale Mobile Application Ac-
cessibility Assessment. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGAC-
CESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Baltimore, Maryland, USA)
(ASSETS ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2–11.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3132547

CHI ’21 Workshop: Decolonizing HCI Across Borders, May 8–13, 2021, Yokohama, Japan,
[44]
Anne Spencer Ross, Xiaoyi Zhang, James Fogarty, and Jacob O. Wobbrock.
2018. Examining Image-Based Button Labeling for Accessibility in Android
Apps through Large-Scale Analysis. In Proceedings of the 20th International ACM
SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Galway, Ireland) (AS-
SETS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 119–130.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3234695.3236364
[45]
Patricia Russo and Stephen Boor. 1993. How Fluent is Your Interface? Designing
for International Users. In Proceedings of the INTERACT ’93 and CHI ’93 Conference
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (CHI
’93). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 342–347. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/169059.169274
[46]
Christian Sturm, Alice Oh, Sebastian Linxen, Jose Abdelnour Nocera, Susan Dray,
and Katharina Reinecke. 2015. How WEIRD is HCI? Extending HCI Principles to
Other Countries and Cultures. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of
Korea) (CHI EA ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
2425–2428. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2702656
[47]
David Swallow, Christopher Power, Helen Petrie, Anna Bramwell-Dicks, Lucy
Buykx, Carlos A Velasco, Aidan Parr, and Joshue O Connor. 2014. Speaking the
Language of Web Developers: Evaluation of a Web Accessibility Information
Resource (WebAIR). In International Conference on Computers for Handicapped
Persons. Springer, 348–355.
Tigwell et al.
[48]
Wei-siong Tan, Dahai Liu, and Ram Bishu. 2009. Web evaluation: Heuristic
evaluation vs. user testing. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39, 4
(2009), 621–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.02.012
[49]
Garreth W. Tigwell. 2021. Nuanced Perspectives Toward Disability Simula-
tions from Digital Designers, Blind, Low Vision, and Color Blind People. In
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21) (CHI ’21).
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 13 pages. https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445620
[50]
Garreth W. Tigwell, David R. Flatla, and Neil D. Archibald. 2017. ACE: A Colour
Palette Design Tool for Balancing Aesthetics and Accessibility. ACM Trans. Access.
Comput. 9, 2, Article 5 (Jan. 2017), 32 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3014588
[51]
Garreth W. Tigwell, Rachel Menzies, and David R. Flatla. 2018. Designing for
Situational Visual Impairments: Supporting Early-Career Designers of Mobile
Content. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference (Hong
Kong, China) (DIS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,
USA, 387–399. https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196760
[52]
UsableNet. 2018. 2018 ADA Web Accessibility Recap: Lawsuit Report. https://
blog.usablenet.com/2018-ada- web-accessibility- lawsuit-recap- report. Accessed:
2020-03-11.
[53]
Helma Van Rijn, Yoonnyong Bahk, Pieter Jan Stappers, and Kun-Pyo Lee. 2006.
Three factors for contextmapping in East Asia: Trust, control and nunchi. CoDe-
sign 2, 3 (2006), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880600900561
[54]
World Health Organisation (WHO). 2011. Summary World Report on Disability.