Modeling Accessibility: Characterizing What We Mean by “Accessible”

Accessibility research has a broad mandate: use technology to make the world more accessible to disabled people. Yet, as a field, accessibility research lacks a clear characterization of what "accessibility" is. Furthermore, it has been historically limited in who is designed for, focusing on specific types of disability and often failing to consider how disability intersects with other identities. We set out to explicate what it means to make something accessible, grounded in the lived experiences of a diverse group of 25 disabled people. From our empirical findings, we develop a process for modeling accessibility. First, an individual assesses their experience of inaccess, specifically, the type of barrier they face, the technology repertoire they possess, and the contextual factors that shape how they address accessibility barriers. Then, having assessed an access barrier, they perform consequence calculus, weighing all available options to achieve access and deciding upon the option that best matches their priorities. We highlight the situated nature of access; people's identities, contextual factors, repertoires, and priorities all dictate their experience of accessibility.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Published
2025-10-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3663547.3746344
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
22.64

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Modeling Accessibility: Characterizing What We Mean by “Accessible”

Cynthia L. Bennett, Emma J. McDonnell, Leah Findlater, Jennifer Mankoff et al.
2 citations
Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
22.64
article

Modeling Accessibility: Characterizing What We Mean by “Accessible”

Cynthia L. Bennett, Emma J. McDonnell, Leah Findlater, Jennifer Mankoff, Kelly Mack, Aaleyah Lewis, James Fogarty, Jesse J. Martinez, Heather Evans
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Accessibility research has a broad mandate: use technology to make the world more accessible to disabled people. Yet, as a field, accessibility research lacks a clear characterization of what "accessibility" is. Furthermore, it has been historically limited in who is designed for, focusing on specific types of disability and often failing to consider how disability intersects with other identities. We set out to explicate what it means to make something accessible, grounded in the lived experiences of a diverse group of 25 disabled people. From our empirical findings, we develop a process for modeling accessibility. First, an individual assesses their experience of inaccess, specifically, the type of barrier they face, the technology repertoire they possess, and the contextual factors that shape how they address accessibility barriers. Then, having assessed an access barrier, they perform consequence calculus, weighing all available options to achieve access and deciding upon the option that best matches their priorities. We highlight the situated nature of access; people's identities, contextual factors, repertoires, and priorities all dictate their experience of accessibility.

Vol. 2025
Google (United States) (US), University of Washington (US)
National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, University of Washington, Australian Government, Administration for Community Living, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
22.64
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.