From Independence to Interdependence: A Social Narrative of Assistive Technology

from Independenceto InterdependenceA Social Narrative of Assistive Technology

+

+

Stacy Branham

@branhammertim

e

Virginia Tech - BS in CS

Virginia Tech - PhD in HCI

UMBC - Lecturer in Info. Sys. & CSEE

where I’m coming from

COMP

101

what I do there

teaching, service research

Assistive Technology (AT) research and design

is universally motivated by independence

My research on everyday experiences of blind

people reveals misconceptions and limitations

of the independence frame in computing

I propose interdependence as a complementary

frame for AT research and design

the Independent Living Movement

civil rights violations,

e.g., US eugenics movement

calls from disabilities activists:

(1) for self-determination

(2) for end to institutionalization

the independence frame grew out of denial of basic civil rights to people with disabilities

protesting forced sterilization Ed Roberts, father ILM

V-Braille (Jayant et al., 2010)

Slide rule (Kane et al., 2008)

(McDonald et al., 2014)

independence tools,

aka Assistive Technology (AT)the 20th century saw development of AT that supports independence

the adoption of “independence” in HCI

“

(Wobbrock et al., 2011)

All accessible computing

approaches share a

common goal of improving

independence…”

in SIGCHI and particularly SIGACCESS, we agree that independence is a fundamental goal

the implicit interpretation of independence in HCIthe products of AT research and design suggest independence is interpreted narrowly

assumptions:

(1) this task is best donesolo, w/ tech.

(2) social context does NOT affect adoption / use

an exemplar of AT research & design in HCImany AT prototypes are meant for one user, studied in isolated / laboratory settings

(Oh, Branham, Findlater, Kane, 2015)

assumptions:

(1) this task is best donesolo, w/ tech.

(2) social context does NOT affect adoption / use

mobile AT in the wild(Kane et al., 2009)

stigma and AT adoption(Shinohara & Wobbrock, 2011)

collaboration on navigation tasks(Williams et al., 2014)

the beginnings of an “Assistive-CSCW”the products of AT research and design suggest independence is interpreted narrowly

Kenneth Jernigan’s “independence”a prominent blind individual explains independence is about self-determination

“

(Jernigan, 1993)

There are times when refusing

to take an arm that is offered

may constitute the very

opposite of independence.”

Assistive Technology (AT) research and design

is universally motivated by independence

collaborative accessibility, exhibit Aaccessibility is co-produced with others

(Branham & Kane, CHI 2015)

accessibility is co-produced with others

collaborative accessibility, exhibit B

(Branham & Kane, CHI 2015)

collaborative accessibility, exhibit Caccessibility is co-produced with others

(Branham & Kane, CHI 2015)

collaborative accessibility, exhibit D

“ In some cases, the social solution––as opposed

to a technical solution––is not only as adequate,

it can sometimes be better. It can be more

enjoyable to do something socially.”

social / collaborative solutions are sometimes preferable (if not unavoidable)

(Branham & Kane, CHI 2015)

assumption:

(1) this task is best accomplished solo, w/ tech

Participants regularly and naturally

practiced collaborative

accessibility with family and

friends. Often, that was preferred.

study finding:

invisible work, exhibit Ait can be challenging to practice collaborative accessibility with colleagues

(Branham & Kane, ASSETS 2015)(Branham & Kane, CHI 2015)

invisible work, exhibit Bit can be challenging to practice collaborative accessibility with colleagues

“ It’s interruptive [for sighted

colleagues] … to keep the

VoiceOver on … so I’ll turn it off.”(Branham & Kane, ASSETS 2015)

invisible work, exhibit Csighted colleagues are relatively unaware of challenges faced by blind colleagues

(Branham & Kane, ASSETS 2015)

X

25%

invisible work, exhibit Csighted colleagues are relatively unaware of challenges faced by blind colleagues

(Branham & Kane, ASSETS 2015)

47%

?

invisible work, exhibit Csighted colleagues are relatively unaware of challenges faced by blind colleagues

(Branham & Kane, ASSETS 2015)

9%

invisible work, exhibit Csighted colleagues are relatively unaware of challenges faced by blind colleagues

(Branham & Kane, ASSETS 2015)

invisible work, exhibit Dworkplace access issues were resolved by reaching out to the blind community

“ Social networking offers one

kind of answer to [sharing tips and

tricks with other blind people].”(Branham & Kane, ASSETS 2015)(Branham & Kane, ASSETS 2015)

(Branham, Abdolrahmani, Easley, Scheuerman, Ronquillo, & Hurst, ASSETS 2017)

(Abdolrahmani, Easley, Williams, Branham, & Hurst, CHI 2017)

(Scheuerman, Easley, Abdolrahmani, Hurt, Branham, CHI EA 2017)

(Abdolrahmani, Easley, Williams, Ronquillo, Branham, Chen, Hurst, ASSETS EA 2016)

(Easley, Williams, Abdolrahmani, Galbraith, Branham, Hurst, Kane, CHI EA 2016)

(Abdolrahmani, Easley, Williams, Branham, & Hurst, CHI 2017)

device errors, exhibit Awhen AT devices make errors, users were surprisingly accepting

“ [The device error] would call

attention to myself.

Friends or family … won’t judge.

[In other settings]––like school or

working or on a date––you don't

want to embarrass yourself....

“

”

”

(Abdolrahmani, Easley, Williams, Branham, & Hurst, CHI 2017)

device errors, exhibit A, (cont’d)users indicated lower acceptance when device errors made them conspicuous or projected disability

assumption:

(2) social context doesn’t affect adoption/use

Participants regularly had to stop

using assistive devices and

techniques that work in other

social settings.

study finding:

My research on everyday experiences of blind

people reveals misconceptions and limitations

of the independence frame in computing

This growing body of work shows that

accessibility is not embedded in the

device or even in the user’s interaction

with the device. It is produced socially.

independence inter

what about interdependence?how might an interdependence frame push to the center and the margins of AT design?

claim 1:

In HCI, independence is construed as “doing by oneself”, not as

“self-determination.” The term “independence” has baggage:

“Western industrial societies’ … understanding of

independence is influenced by views of …

personal autonomy stemming from the

Enlightenment philosophy… a reformulation of

the subject as both embedded and embodied,

bears better to a sociology of disablement.”

(Goggin & Newell, 2006; Carnaby, 1998; Reindal, 1999;

White et al., 2010)

claim 2:

No one is independent in the strict sense of the word:

“[There’s this] false idea that the 'able-

bodied' person is somehow radically self-

sufficient … we're all interdependent in all

sorts of ways” - Judith Butler

“Interdependency is not just me ‘dependent

on you.’ It is not you, the benevolent

oppressor, deciding to ‘help’ me. …

Interdependency is both “you and I” and

“we.” It is solidarity, in the best sense of

the word. … Because the truth is: we need

each other.” - Mia Mingus

claim 3:

The independence frame can reify isolating, disempowering

narratives, while interdependence can integrate and empower:

claim 4:

independence will not help us invent all the (assistive)

technologies we need:

claim 4:

independence will not help us invent all the (assistive)

technologies we need:

AT that

empowers

personal safety

management

AT that supports

protestors who

engage with law

enforcement

AT that

negatively

affects other

marginalized

groups

e.g., (Zolyomi et al., 2017)

e.g., (Branham & Kane, 2015) e.g., (Rector et al., 2015)

e.g., (Abdolrahmani et al., 2016)

Env. Safety &

Obstacle

AvoidanceEmergency

Services & Alarms

Health-Risk

Mediation

Device-Oriented

Safety

Interpersonal

Safety

overlooked opportunity A:

AT for Personal Safety Managementwhat opportunities are there to support physical interpersonal safety (for people with disabilities)?

(Branham, Abdolrahmani, Easley, Scheuerman, Ronquillo, & Hurst, ASSETS 2017)

overlooked opportunity A:

AT for Personal Safety Management (cont’d)what opportunities are there to support physical interpersonal safety (for people with disabilities)?

(Branham, Abdolrahmani, Easley, Scheuerman, Ronquillo, & Hurst, ASSETS 2017)

overlooked opportunity B:

AT for Engaging with Law Enforcementwhat opportunities are there to support safe, effective interactions with police (for activists with disabilities)?

overlooked opportunity C:

AT that oppresses other marginalized groups how do needs of, e.g., blind and gender-nonconforming communities overlap and conflict?

(Hamidi, Scheuerman, & Branham, CHI 2018)

Assistive Technology (AT) research and design

is universally motivated by independence

My research on everyday experiences of blind

people reveals misconceptions and limitations

of the independence frame in computing

I propose interdependence as a complementary

frame for AT research and design

"You all are only just temporarily

abled. You become us in the end."

thank you

+

+

Stacy Branham

@branhammertime

Amy

Hurst

Morgan

Scheuerman

William

Easley

Ali

AbdolrahmaniErick

RonquilloStacy

BranhamShaun

Kane

fear and insecurity

rebellious independence

normal independence

a prominent blind individual’s take on independence

Kenneth Jernigan’s “stages of independence”

Amélie - “Helping A Blind Man”

but, “independence” doesn’t account for:

social solutions are OK sometimes

far less than 100% error-free solutions may be OK

consider how to facilitate (mixed-ability) collaboration

be aware of how your preconceptions, devices, andtesting methods impact the narratives people withdisabilities can tell with their assistive devices

for the builders: