See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/368840376

Understanding Discussions Around Culture Within Courses Covering Topics on

Accessibility and Disability at U.S. Universities

Conference Paper · April 2023

DOI: 10.1145/3544548.3581533

CITATIONS READS

2 453

3 authors:

Laleh Nourian Kristen Shinohara

Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester Institute of Technology
7 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS 57 PUBLICATIONS 1,729 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Garreth W. Tigwell
Rochester Institute of Technology
59 PUBLICATIONS 573 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Garreth W. Tigwell on 27 February 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Understanding Discussions Around Culture Within Courses
Covering Topics on Accessibility and Disability at U.S.
Universities
Laleh Nourian Kristen Shinohara Garreth W. Tigwell
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Department of Computing and School of Information School of Information
Information Sciences Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester, New York, USA Rochester, NY, USA
Rochester, New York, USA
ABSTRACT 1 INTRODUCTION
Teaching accessibility is essential in training technologists and Cultural background is an important part of people’s identity and
designers. However, the topics of accessibility and disability are can infuence daily experiences, including the experiences of dis-
vast and intersect with culture (social constructions). Since cultural abled people1 [51, 80], how products are designed (e.g., web inter-
background is an infuential factor in design decisions, which could face design) [13, 68], and how people interact with technology [55].
have implications for accessible design, we wanted to understand Research in the area of accessibility and Human-Computer Inter-
whether and how courses at U.S. institutions address the importance action (HCI) has generally explored teaching accessibility within
of cultural infuences when teaching accessibility and disability computing and technical courses [3, 17, 49, 62, 63]. However, it is
topics. We surveyed 72 students from U.S. institutions and ran unclear whether discussions on the infuences of cultural difer-
14 follow-up interviews with students who took technical and ences are being integrated into accessibility education. We focus on
non-technical courses. Using refexive thematic analysis, we found education because education is the essential component for training
similarities and diferences in how technical and non-technical future designers and developers to have sufcient knowledge of
courses approach accessibility teaching. We found a lack of cultural accessibility [37, 42, 83], and to apply their future design practices
focus in accessibility teaching in the technical courses, which can in a way that is inclusive to all users [65]. But little work compares
be improved by adopting teaching approaches from non-technical what is taught in technical and non-technical courses covering
courses. We also make recommendations to improve course design, accessibility and disability topics.
such as including people from diferent cultures and disabilities to Having sufcient knowledge about the experiences of disabled
help develop courses. people plays an essential role in designing accessible content [23,
39], which could be achieved by integrating disability studies into
accessibility research and education [39]. Even though there has
CCS CONCEPTS been an increase in the salience of disability studies in accessibility
• Human-centered computing → Accessibility; Survey and research in the last decade [23], there is still a gap in creating an
Interview. agenda for what “disability studies-informed accessibility research”
should be [23]. Since culture is found to be an essential component
KEYWORDS of disability studies [80], we believe that topics of culture should
be integrated into accessible design courses too.
Accessibility Education, Culture, Disability Studies We would like to defne some of the terms used in our paper to
ensure readers have a sufcient understanding of the key points
ACM Reference Format: discussed in our work:
Laleh Nourian, Kristen Shinohara, and Garreth W. Tigwell. 2023. Under- Defnition 1: Culture. In general, culture is a difcult term to
standing Discussions Around Culture Within Courses Covering Topics defne because its defnition depends on the context of its usage [67].
on Accessibility and Disability at U.S. Universities. In Proceedings of the In our study, we adopt the defnition of culture from the work
2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23), of Reinecke et al. [52]: Culture is the social norms, habits, and
April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 14 pages. preferences in a society that can be diferent in another society
https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581533
at the country level [52] such as the language that the majority
of people in a society use [35]. Thus, when we speak of culture,
we mean the social constructs (e.g., habits, preferences) users have
adopted into their everyday life that impact many things, such as
the way they use or interact with digital devices.
CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany
© 2023 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM. Defnition 2: Technical Courses. Courses that primarily focus on
This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use. Not the design and implementation of digital services (e.g., HCI courses,
for redistribution. The defnitive Version of Record was published in Proceedings of the Software Design courses).
2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23), April 23–28,
2023, Hamburg, Germany, https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581533.
1We use identity-frst language in our paper [61].
CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Nourian et al.

Defnition 3: Non-technical Courses. Courses that primarily fo- Our interview fndings, however, revealed more details on the
cus on theoretical knowledge about disability and do not mainly similarities and diferences between technical and non-technical
include technology design (e.g., Disability Studies, Disability, rights, courses. Both technical and non-technical courses discuss culture-
and culture). related topics, but non-technical courses mainly emphasize deeper
Our work focuses on understanding how accessibility education discussions around disability perception and socio-cultural aspects
incorporates discussions around topics on culture in both technical of disability or accessibility in diferent geographical regions. The
and non-technical courses, aiming to uncover useful teaching ap- results of our interviews suggested that technical courses can bene-
proaches we can transfer from one area into another. Focusing on ft from having more cross-cultural discussions around disability at
accessibility education is important because we want designers to a deeper level when teaching accessibility. These discussions will
understand and create accessible content [37, 42, 83]. Prior work help toward training more globally conscious designers.
has investigated teaching accessibility within computing and tech- In summary, we make the following contributions:
nical courses and its challenges in general [3, 17, 49, 62, 63, 73, 74],
but they did not focus on culture in accessibility education. • We present the frst survey and interview data on the inclusion
Accessibility is fundamentally determined by design, and prior of culture-related topics into teaching accessibility in university
work emphasizes the infuence culture has on design decisions. For courses in the U.S.
instance, culture and language are inseparable [35], and designing • We provide a comparison between technical and non-technical
for bidirectional languages (language that consists of both direc- courses that cover topics on accessibility and disability, and high-
tions: Right-to-left and left-to-right such as Persian and Hebrew) is light the variations in how culture is discussed within the courses
diferent from designing in only one direction (e.g., English) [18, 19]. and what approaches can be adopted from the non-technical
Furthermore, culture can infuence people’s preferences for digital courses into technical courses.
interface design aesthetics, layout, and even interaction behav- • We provide a set of recommendations to beneft accessibility
iors [28, 29, 47, 54, 58]. education in terms of the inclusion of culture into it.
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) [30] is a pri-
mary resource for accessible design, but may not support cultural 2 BACKGROUND AND RELATED WORK
design preferences well. Although WCAG was developed by ex-
perts around the world, the only mention of cultural diferences in 2.1 Accessibility and Disability Studies Research
the guidelines is brief comments about idiom translation, human The area of accessibility research mainly focuses on creating tech-
language diferences, and names [30] with no more discussions nology that is usable by people with diferent impairments, and
on cultural diferences in design. Moreover, there are indications disability studies centers around understanding and improving the
that assistive technology must be implemented diferently in some lived experiences of disabled people from a socially-constructed
countries, which requires developers to be aware of such issues. For lens [23, 39].
example, the correct pronunciation of Japanese by screen readers Even though accessibility research has grown in the past 24
is not a trivial task due to a single Kanji character having multiple years [38], studies have shown that there are gaps in accessibil-
pronunciations [79], and ruby elements in Japanese websites can ity research that are related to prejudice against disabled people,
confict with screen readers [20]. oversimplifcation of disability, and the ignorance of connections
However, the majority of research fndings at the intersection of between disabled people and their allies [23]. These existing gaps
disability and technology in HCI venues are from the countries in come from the misunderstandings towards disability among ac-
the Global North [5]. One issue resulting from this knowledge gap is cessibility researchers and designers which show the importance
that current accessible design resources may not fully support inter- of incorporating disability studies into accessibility research [23].
national designers because the cultural background of both design- Thus, increasing designers’ and developers’ knowledge about dis-
ers and users can impact design preferences [9, 12, 29, 44, 54, 58, 77], ability.
and accessibility resources should be developed to acknowledge Moreover, culture is an infuential aspect in the conception of
these diferences. Accessible design practice that is not sensitive disability and the experiences of disabled people [51] because it
to cultural diferences will likely result in design marginalization. shapes the way people think about themselves and others. Disabil-
Digital Design Marginalization (DDM) draws attention to the ex- ity is viewed diferently from culture to culture, and this fact can
acerbation of a digital divide where certain users are negatively impact various aspects of disabled people’s experiences such as
afected in wider social settings beyond the direct use of a digital education [14] Thus, disability is best understood in cultural and
system [64]. social contexts [2] and we believe that incorporating disability stud-
We ran an online survey completed by 72 students in U.S. institu- ies into accessibility research means including topics on cultural
tions along with 14 follow-up interviews to explore what topics on diferences too.
culture are discussed when teaching accessibility in courses. Our
survey fndings highlighted that both technical and non-technical
courses integrate topics on culture mostly via lectures when teach-
2.2 Accessibility and Disability Studies
ing accessibility or disability studies. However, this integration is Education
happening more often in non-technical courses, mostly focusing on Sin et al. [64] conceptualized Digital Design Marginalization (DDM),
theoretical topics on socio-cultural practices or the representation which focuses on the social consequences of digital design such as
of disability in diferent societies. excluding or pushing away certain groups of users (e.g., disabled
Culture Within Courses Covering Topics on Accessibility and Disability at U.S. Universities CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

people, older adults) [64]. Studies in the Digital Design Marginal- that support accessible design, and inappropriately scoped and
ization (DDM) area have argued that there are pedagogical gaps in budgeted projects [11, 36, 49, 69, 71–73].
teaching future designers how to consider the needs of many user One of the most widely used accessibility resources is the W3C’s
groups such as older adults and disabled people [65]. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 [30], however,
Accessibility education and training are crucial if we wish de- the guidelines are not yet translated into all ofcial languages such
signers and future technology professionals to have a proper un- as the Persian and Turkish languages. The lack of all translations for
derstanding of accessible content [3, 37, 42, 83] and avoid building WCAG means international designers need to use it in a non-native
marginalizing designs [65]. However, there is a lack of proper acces- language, and research has already found designers are critical of
sibility and disability studies training in HCI and computing areas, WCAG’s current written presentation as being difcult to under-
which is considered a problem for industry [3, 49]. stand [69, 73]. This problem raises the question of whether some
Some prior studies have identifed multiple gaps in accessibility designers fnd it challenging culture-wise to use the guidelines.
education. The work of Shinohara et al. [63] explored accessibil- WCAG 2.1 [30] only mentions cultural diferences in the context of
ity education among 352 institutions in the U.S. indicating that idiom translation, human language diferences, and names. Yet, de-
the biggest gap in accessibility education was related to unclear sign preferences (e.g., color, layout, and text) [9, 12, 16, 28], informa-
teaching objectives and lack of knowledge [63]. Baker et al. [3] tion seeking and organization [9], decision-making and navigating
argued that accessibility is disproportionately covered only in a interfaces [15, 31, 32, 55], and diferent languages in design [18, 19]
small number of elective or HCI courses and highlighted the lack of are infuenced by cultural diferences.
clear research on what aspects of accessibility are currently being Multiple studies at the intersection of digital design and cul-
taught [3]. tural diferences (e.g., [29, 31, 32, 44, 54, 55, 58]) have made some
One of the integral elements for creating good accessible con- recommendations for inclusive design such as interfaces that auto-
tent is to have a proper understanding of disability, which can be matically adapt to the user’s cultural background [53]. This prior
achieved by integrating disability studies into accessibility and as- work demonstrates the infuence of cultural diferences on digital
sistive technology research [23, 39]. Yet, there is a lack of research design and more specifcally, the usability of visual design. How-
on the integration of disability studies in HCI and accessibility ever, we raised the question of how diferent cultural preferences
education among the CHI proceedings. Therefore, there are oppor- can impact the accessibility of digital design, and if courses include
tunities for us (the CHI community) to explore and expand research discussions about these issues.
on accessibility from an educational lens to identify efective ways This perspective on cultural adaptation is inspired by increasing
to integrate disability studies into accessibility teaching, thus, im- discussions around postcolonial computing [24] which focuses on
proving accessibility education in technical and computing courses design, research tactics, evaluation, and development of technology
in the most efective way. that non-Western cultures are forced to adopt. One of the impor-
We argue that the integration of disability studies in accessi- tant works relative to postcolonial studies is the recent work from
bility education can and should lead to incorporating topics on Barbareschi et al. [5], which argued that most of the fndings at the
culture into accessibility education as well. Disability and culture intersection of disability and technology in HCI venues are from
are closely linked [2], and when teaching topics on disability, the the Global North. Barbareschi et al. do not discuss the infuence of
socio-cultural aspects of disability usually is included in the course culture explicitly but highlight that there is a lack of literature on
curriculum [46], because disability is perceived and learned dif- accessibility and disability studies in the Global South, even though
ferently in diferent cultures and societies [50]. Therefore, culture, 80% of the disabled people in the world live in this region [5].
as a crucial component, needs to be embedded into accessibility Since user experiences and design preferences are diferent from
education too. culture to culture, we raise the question of whether the dominance
Non-technical courses (e.g., disability studies courses) that focus of the Global North on the established accessibility practices and
on theoretical disability topics often incorporate culture in their standards results in ignoring the cultural aspects of the societies in
curriculum [26, 46]. So we tackle the idea of how approaches that the Global South and under-represented countries, and what im-
are applied in those courses could be useful in technical courses that plications it might have for accessible design. In their recent work,
mainly focus on the technological aspect of accessibility (i.e., digital Vollenwyder et al. [78] discussed the controversial arguments on
accessibility). Our work aims to understand how well accessibility whether the established accessibility standards are helpful for im-
and disability knowledge is taught in technical and non-technical proving usability and user experience, for all user groups with or
courses. We compare whether technical courses discuss culture as without disabilities [78]. For example, there are arguments on the
a part of the course curriculum, and, if yes, how diferent topics on disconnect between design preferences (i.e., what users and design-
cultural diferences within accessibility education compared to the ers desire) and WCAG [78] such as color selection and contrast
non-technical courses are taught. preferences [40]. WCAG imposes restrictions on contrast and color
selection [40]. Meanwhile, design preferences can be impacted by
the cultural background of people [12], meaning that contrast and
color preferences can be impacted by cultural diferences as well.
2.3 Digital Accessibility, Design, and Culture Therefore design students, practitioners, and educators need to
When taking a broader look at accessibility, we fnd that inaccessible learn more about diferent cultural values and preferences to avoid
design still exists and can be rooted in diferent factors [57], which incorrect assumptions that may be obstructive for certain groups
are related to poor education settings, lack of proper design tools of people [76].
CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Nourian et al.

2.4 Summary and Research Questions LinkedIn, Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook as well as using our aca-
Studies have shown that there is a need to incorporate topics on demic network to advertise our survey. We also identifed relevant
disability studies into accessibility practices to help designers and groups and mailing lists of institutions in the U.S. and reached out
developers fully understand disability and create accessible content. to the primary contact person (e.g., dept chair or instructors) to
We argued that it is important to include discussions on cultural share our study. To identify institutions, we searched for disability
diferences in technical courses that teach accessibility since cul- studies, Computing, or Design programs in the U.S.
ture is an essential component of disability studies and because it Our survey consisted of a total of 53 questions covering three
can impact design preferences too. However, we do not know if parts: demographic questions, questions related to courses teaching
discussions on cultural diferences in technical courses are actually accessibility, and questions related to courses teaching disability
happening when accessibility is taught and how topics on culture studies. Each of the last two parts consisted of a sub-part related to
are discussed, if at all. Thus, we seek to answer: RQ1: What cul- the inclusion of culture in their courses.
tural topics are being discussed within technical and non-technical The demographic part included questions about students’ gen-
courses, if any? RQ2: How are cultural topics being taught in tech- der, age, cultural background, level of education, and major. In the
nical and non-technical courses? (what teaching methods are being second part, we focused on accessibility teaching. First, we asked
used?) a multiple-choice question about whether students have ever had
Moreover, to come up with ideas for improving accessibility courses that taught accessibility. For the students who had a course
education, we asked our participants to share their views to help us that covered accessibility, we asked these follow-up questions: the
identify potential needs or issues when including topics on culture name of those courses, how much accessibility topics were covered
in courses teaching accessibility and disability studies: RQ3: What in those courses, and how it was taught. But if students indicated
are students’ views and feedback on including cultural topics in that they never had accessibility taught in a course, they were di-
accessibility teaching? rected to the next part (Disability Studies courses). We then focused
on culture-related questions and asked students whether any of
3 ONLINE SURVEY METHOD those courses that taught accessibility covered topics on culture. We
provided a combination of open-ended and multiple-choice follow-
We ran an online survey with students from U.S. institutions to up questions for the students who said yes to these questions to
identify if there were discussions happening around cultural difer- fnd out how culture was discussed, what topics on culture were
ences in courses that cover accessibility or disability topics. In the taught, and whether they were taught in the context of design and
U.S., the number of graduated computing and information students digital accessibility.
has grown, leading to more people working in the industry who The last part of the survey was the same as the second part
build technology for the global market2 , and many of these stu- but instead of asking about accessibility, we focused on courses
dents come from diferent cultural backgrounds3 . Considering the teaching disability studies. At the end of the survey, we asked for
cultural diversity in U.S. institutions, such courses in computing participants’ emails and if they were interested in taking part in a
should be devised in a way that can beneft all students. Thus, we follow-up interview.
shared our survey among U.S. institutions, taking advantage of the
cultural diversity in U.S. society and the presence of international
students. 3.2 Survey Participants
We received 141 responses and removed duplicates, invalid, and
3.1 Survey Materials and Procedure incomplete responses. Our questionnaire was completed by 72
participants (Man=23, Woman=42, Non-binary=7) who were aged
We ran an online questionnaire among current students 18 years or
between 18-64 years old (42 of the participants were 18-24, 23 were
older at U.S. institutions, to understand if topics on cultural difer-
25-34, 2 were 35-44, 4 were 45-54, and one participant was 55-64).
ences are included in courses that teach accessibility and disability
34 participants indicated they were undergraduate students, 37
studies. We used an online survey to collect initial data to famil-
graduate students, and one participant self-described as an adult
iarize ourselves with the current pedagogical settings. We shared
student-on-the-side. Our distribution method resulted in a good
our survey among students and departments that were both tech-
variety of U.S. institutions. Our participants studied at various types
nical and non-technical. Examples include (but are not limited to)
of institutions, including public and private institutions, R1 and R2
courses related to Computer Science, Design, Disability Studies,
institutions, colleges and universities without a Carnegie research
HCI, Information Studies, Social Studies, and Software Engineering.
classifcation, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs),
We consider courses to be technical if they primarily focus on the
and Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUI). The geographical
design and implementation of digital services (e.g., HCI courses,
spread of institutions also covered diferent regions of the U.S. (Mid-
software design courses) and non-technical courses, primarily fo-
west, Northeast, Northwest, West, Mid-Atlantic, South, Southeast,
cus on theoretical knowledge about disability, and do not mainly
and Southwest).
include technology design. (e.g., Disability Studies). We used multi-
ple ways to recruit participants for our online survey. We spread
the fyer of our questionnaire on diferent online platforms such as 3.3 Survey Analysis
We read through the responses to familiarize ourselves with the
2 https://datausa.io/profle/cip/information-technology data and used an open coding analysis approach [75]. We split the
3 https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/sevisBTN2021.pdf data set into two groups based on the following: 1) Students who
Culture Within Courses Covering Topics on Accessibility and Disability at U.S. Universities CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

had at least one technical course covering accessibility or topics on 4.1.1 Topics on Culture in Accessibility or Disability Studies Teach-
disability studies and 2) Students who had at least one non-technical ing. In this part of our survey, we asked questions about how topics
course covering Accessibility or topics on disability studies. on culture were taught, what culture-related topics were taught,
We assigned initial codes to the responses to the open-ended and whether those topics were discussed in the context of digital
questions and created themes by collapsing the codes to provide a design and accessibility.
concise understanding of the data. Moreover, survey participants How were topics on culture discussed in the course? Among 10
were given the ID letter P e.g., P1, P2, and so on. students who had technical courses that covered topics on culture,
the most repeated response to the question about how topics were
4 SURVEY FINDINGS covered was “Lectures” (eight students). Similarly, in non-technical
In the following subsections, we focus on the survey responses courses, the majority of students mentioned they had class lectures
from students who indicated that they had at least one course that that discussed topics on culture (51 students). The second most
taught accessibility or disability studies and wrote the name of their repeated response for both technical and non-technical courses was
courses in the survey. To begin the data analysis, we split the survey “Reading academic papers” (34 students in non-technical courses
data into two groups: students who had technical courses (e.g., HCI, and six students in technical courses)
computing, design courses) and students who had non-technical What topics on culture were discussed? In an open-ended ques-
courses (e.g., Disability Studies, Pathology courses). Among the 72 tion, we asked students to write the culture-related topics that were
survey participants, 38 of them had at least one technical course taught in their courses. The total responses to this question were
and 71 students had at least one non-technical course that covered in three themes: topics related to the 1) “Intersection of disabil-
accessibility or topics on disability studies. We note that some ity/accessibility and culture” such as multicultural issues within
students had both technical and non-technical courses so we put disability studies, diferent views of disability outside of the West,
them in both groups. disability rights in the U.S., and across diferent world cultures, and
history of disabilities around the world. 2) “Cultural/societal topics”
4.1 Technical and Non-technical Courses such as topics related to specifc cultural or societal practices such
as collectivism vs. individualism culture, intersectionality, and im-
Covering Accessibility or Topics on pact of multi-generational living on disability in diferent cultures.
Disability Studies 3) “Miscellaneous” which includes responses that did not directly
To get a good understanding of the courses and their structure, frst, or clearly indicate culture. Almost all responses were related to
we asked our participants how the lecturers taught the topics on the intersection of disability and culture except for one that men-
accessibility and disability in the courses. Then, we narrowed our tioned a topic related to accessibility and culture (P37: “Various
focus down to discussions on culture. Our survey aimed to collect cultural considerations regarding accessibility, and how other coun-
data on what culture-related topics were taught and how they were tries handle accessibility”). In addition, a total of eight students in
taught (i.e., teaching approaches such as lectures, projects , etc.). non-technical courses provided unclear responses (e.g., some stu-
Finally, we wanted to know whether those topics on culture were dents only wrote “race” or “gender” with no more clarifcation) or
discussed in the context of design and digital accessibility or not. they were not directly related to “disability and culture, accessibility
How much of the courses covered topics on accessibility or disability and culture” (e.g., LGBTQ disability). The survey data were mostly
studies? We asked a multiple-choice question about how much ac- general responses with little details provided, for more information,
cessibility was covered in students’ courses (e.g., as the main topic we conducted follow-up interviews.
of the whole course, in one or two lectures) [3]. More than half of
the students (18 out of 38 students) in technical courses mentioned 4.1.2 Were the topics on culture discussed in the context of digital
that accessibility was covered in their course “as a theme” (i.e., the design and accessibility? Out of 38 students from technical courses,
primary learning objectives of the course was not accessibility, but only one of them indicated that the topics on culture were taught
it included some activities or topics focused on users with disabil- in the context of accessible design, and among the 71 students
ities) and only six students mentioned that their courses covered from non-technical courses, 17 students (23.94%) mentioned that
accessibility as the main topic of the course. On the contrary, for culture was taught in the context of design and accessibility. These
the non-technical courses, the majority of students mentioned that responses suggest that in both types of courses, culture is not taken
accessibility and disability topics were covered as the main topic of into account in terms of accessible design to a good extent. How-
their courses (42 out of 71 students). ever, to get a better understanding of why this is happening and
How were the topics on accessibility or disability studies taught? what participants exactly meant when they responded yes to the
In a multiple-choice question, we asked about how accessibility question, we conducted follow-up interviews with the participants
and disability studies were taught to learn about the adopted ap- that volunteered to take part in the interviews. We also recruited
proaches or activities. We also provided the students with an open participants for our interviews from outside the survey responses.
box to write any other activities that were used in their course.
The most mentioned approach in the technical courses was “Lec- 4.2 Summary on Survey Findings
tures” as indicated previously [3, 63]. Similarly, lectures was the Prior studies emphasized the importance of including non-technical
most mentioned technique for the non-technical courses too, and topics in technical courses (e.g., cultural and social topics) [6, 56].
in the provided open box, few students indicated they had class However, we needed to have a more granular understanding of
discussions and guest speakers. the inclusion of topics on culture into technical courses that teach
CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Nourian et al.

accessibility while also learning from non-technical courses. In Non-binary=2). We used data from the remaining 14 students (tech-
summary, as we anticipated according to the prior fndings, our nical courses=6 and non-technical courses=8) with the age range
survey results had shown that technical courses that teach accessi- of 18-64 (8 participants were 18-24, 5 were 25-34, and one partic-
bility or disability topics discuss topics on culture less often than ipant was 55-64) who were from diferent cultural backgrounds
non-technical courses. Moreover, the primary fnding of our on- such as North American, African, and South Asian. Four of the
line survey is that topics on culture that were discussed in both students were additional (new) participants that we identifed via
types of courses were theoretical topics usually in the context of our screener questionnaire, and 10 students were from the survey
socio-cultural practices, the representation of disability in diferent volunteers. Our interview participants were located in diferent
societies, and rarely in the context of digital accessibility and design. regions of the U.S.: four students studied in the Midwest, one stu-
In addition, our survey fndings showed that the most common dent in the Southwest, two students in the Southeast, two students
teaching approach that is used to cover topics on culture in both in the West, two students in the South region, and three students
types of courses was class lectures. in the Northeast. Our participants studied at various types of in-
stitutions, which covered both public and private, including R1,
5 INTERVIEW METHOD and R2. (undergraduate=8, graduate=6). Unfortunately, we did not
Our survey responses provided us with a broad understanding of the receive responses for participants interested in interviewing who
courses, but we also planned follow-up interviews to further explore were from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
the initial insights we had gained. We drew on prior research and and Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) (see Table 1)
our survey fndings to facilitate a detailed interview discussion to
investigate our research questions in more depth. 5.3 Interview Analysis
For the interview data analysis, we used Braun and Clarke’s re-
5.1 Interview Materials and Procedure fexive thematic analysis approach [7, 8]. We analyzed our data
5.1.1 Recruitment. Our interview participants were both some of according to each research question. Using refexive thematic anal-
our survey volunteers and new participants who did not fll out our ysis, we identifed patterns for the topics that were taught in courses
questionnaire (28.5% of the interview participants were additional (RQ1). Along the way, we also considered interesting responses
participants). We screened to ensure the new participants had taken from the participants that did not quite ft within the research ques-
accessibility or disability studies courses that covered discussions tion but counted as useful, such as students’ personal opinions
on cultural diferences. Our screener questionnaire collected data on the topics that were taught. Then, we identifed teaching ap-
on student demographics such as age, gender, and other questions proaches that were used in those courses (RQ2) to see what were
about their major, the courses they have had, and the topics of the most common or interesting approaches that were adopted
culture that were discussed within their courses if any. To advertise in courses for discussing topics on culture. Finally, we analyzed
our interview, we spread our short screener questionnaire using our participants’ responses and suggestions about the inclusion of
our academic network as well as sharing it on diferent online plat- culture into accessibility teaching and aimed to fnd patterns for
forms such as LinkedIn and Twitter. We also searched for Disability them. We also extracted insightful responses. Moreover, interview
Studies, Computing, or Design programs in the U.S. and reached participants were given the ID letter I e.g., I1, I2, and so on.
out to the primary contact person (e.g., dept chair or instructors)
to share our study.
6 INTERVIEW FINDINGS
5.1.2 Interview Guide. We conducted online interviews via Zoom. We identifed four fnal themes that encompass the topics and con-
Our interviews were semi-structured and consisted of three parts: cepts that were covered in all the courses (RQ1). These themes
Part 1: The interview had a brief introduction for the participants (i.e., topics) were mostly delivered in the form of lectures and class
about the study and the interview procedure. Part 2: We asked activities (e.g., class discussions, projects, and reading sessions) in
detailed questions about their responses (e.g., asking them to elabo- both technical and non-technical courses (RQ2). In both types of
rate on a response or provide examples for clarifcation). Part 3: We courses, some students mentioned that they had invited speakers
asked participants to provide their insights about the inclusion of and some design projects. However, the main common pedagogy to
topics on culture in accessibility teaching and their suggestions for discuss culture within accessibility or disability topics was through
improving accessibility education. Part 3 helped us identify how class activities or lectures by the instructors.
students think and feel about the inclusion of culture in accessibility We refected on both types of courses that we considered in our
regardless of their own cultural background, as well as their per- study: technical courses and non-technical courses. Our data analy-
spectives on the improvement of accessibility education in terms sis for the last research question (RQ3) revealed fve themes that
of cultural inclusion. encompass students’ recommendations for improving accessibility
education by embedding culture into it. The student’s suggestions
5.2 Interview Participants were: 1) Culture and disability inclusion in course syllabus design, 2)
We recruited a total of 15 students across both technical (six) and Culture and disability inclusion when teaching courses (e.g., having
non-technical (nine) areas. However, we had to eliminate one of a class full of culturally diverse students), 3) Being specifc on the
the students from a non-technical course due to the lack of suf- target culture and covering anthropological views too, 4) Covering
fcient data that was caused by poor internet connection during accessibility fundamentals in all design courses, and 5) Including
the interview resulting in 14 fnal participants (Female=8, Male=4, interactive class activities on culture.
Culture Within Courses Covering Topics on Accessibility and Disability at U.S. Universities CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

Table 1: Interview participants information

ID Education Level Age Gender Institution Type Institution Region

I1 Undergraduate 18-24 Non-binary Public, R1 midwest
I2 Graduate 25-34 Woman Public, R1 southwest
I3 Graduate 25-34 Man Public, R1 southeast
I4 Undergraduate 18-24 Non-binary Private, R1 west
I5 Undergraduate 18-24 Woman Public, R1 south
I6 Graduate 55-64 Woman Public, R1 northeast
I7 Undergraduate 25-34 Man Private, R1 southeast
I8 Undergraduate 25-34 Man Public, R2 west
I9 Undergraduate 18-24 Woman Public, R1 midwest
I10 Undergraduate 18-24 Man Public, R1 south
I11 Undergraduate 18-24 Woman Private, R1 northeast
I12 Graduate 25-34 Woman Public, R1 midwest
I13 Graduate 18-24 Woman Private, R1 northeast
I14 Graduate 18-24 Woman Public, R1 midwest

Next, we discuss our participants’ suggestions and describe the disability rights, and it was [like...] Oh defnitely eye-opening.”
fnal themes that we generated based on RQ1. (I9, non-technical course)
Some of the other students had discussions about how resources or
6.1 Learning about disability representation research are being dedicated to disability support in some countries
and consideration in diferent countries and what the factors are that afect disability support. Students’
Our participants mentioned that there were some discussions in the responses revealed that the culture, language, and beliefs of people
courses around topics of disability in diferent countries, races, or in a society can infuence disability support in that country. For
cultures. Disability and culture are two inseparable components be- example, I14 talked about the invited speaker they had in class,
cause disability is best understood in cultural and social context [2]. who was from Argentina, and who discussed the lack of resources
The class discussions were usually centered around the social for disability research in Argentina because of the negative views
model of disability (disability from a social lens which focuses on towards motor disability:
the experiences of disabled people in societies) and how disability “A) [...] from her experience, people don’t want to study motor
is being represented in some other countries (e.g., Nigeria, Eastern issues as heavily where she lives and then B) the idea that
Asia), diferent cultures (e.g., indigenous culture, Hispanic culture), someone with motor issues is going to be out there, like you
and diferent races (e.g., Black people). Discussing the social model know, giving like, giving talks and doing you know kind of these
of disability is usually in conjunction with the socio-cultural aspects more social oriented things, that was kind of frowned upon.”
of disability [46] and our fndings, so far, are in-line with that. (I14, technical course)
However, even though courses talked about countries other than Likewise, I7 pointed out class discussions on disability in African
the U.S., most discussions were U.S.-centered or Western-centered countries:
with a focus on the sub-cultures of the U.S.:
“In Africa, most of the people with disability are always, You
“So it was [like] Eurocentric in the sense of [like] it was very know, are looked down upon and they may end up receiving
white focused. It wasn’t very international or it wasn’t even very poor services in terms of health and education and also normal
[like like] on the global experience and none of these classes tend relationship with people.” (I7, non-technical course)
to go global ever because the US is always American-centric or In addition to talking about the class discussion, I7, who was orig-
Eurocentric.” (I5, non-technical course) inally from an African country, used the opportunity in class to
However, besides the social model of disability and diferent views highlight their own clarifcation, knowledge, and perspective since
towards disability in other locations or races, some students men- they had lived experiences to share. Moreover, I5 mentioned culture
tioned there were few discussions about how disability is being and language in disability support:
addressed and how disability rights work in other countries. Having “I did another project for my language and identity class where
those discussions appeared to be useful. For example, I9 believed I talked about how the language and culture that we associate
that having discussions about disability rights in other countries with disability afects the way that we are able to give resources,
was really eye-opening: help, and also be inclusive as a society.” (I5, non-technical
“I remember, they had us like watch a few videos just about course)
how disability rights movements that were happening in other After comparing technical and non-technical courses, we found
places [...] I remember, there was one [like] documentary in that the discussions around disability representation and address-
particular that we’ve watched where they have [like] really bad ing diferent cultures, races, or countries are mostly happening
CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Nourian et al.

in non-technical courses, while only two students from techni- Even though these topics are not directly about digital accessibility,
cal courses talked about disability representation and resources in they might be good background knowledge to impart in techni-
other countries. Our participants’ responses and feedback showed cal and design courses [34]; for students preparing for careers in
that learning about disabilities beyond cultures or races can be design, learning the non-technical side of technology, the human
eye-opening and useful for their future careers. For example, I2, side, can be useful to cover important aspects of design that do not
a student who studies speech pathology (non-technical course), come across in courses that emphasize technology implementation
mentioned the lack of cultural considerations in their courses: only [6]. Including the non-technical topics (e.g., cultural factors in
design) in technical courses help students understand the link be-
“I really wish we were given a few more [like] concrete resources
tween technology and society, thus, increasing their responsiveness
and tools to use [...] We should have practiced it hands-on [...]
and empathy [6, 56].
Like, see, I’m a speech pathologist and I get a family in from
Another student mentioned discussing the diversity of technol-
some country that I’ve never even heard of before. And I’m like
ogy usage in other countries through a disability lens:
you know! I need to learn about what to expect, how I should
talk to them.” (I2, non-technical course) “There were a lot of diferent products that we just did discuss.
I2 expressed concerns about the challenges they might face in Diversity was mentioned in terms of folks with disabilities but
the future when working as a pathologist because they are not in terms of culture, There was some stark diferences that we
receiving proper education in regard to culture and its importance. mentioned comes with geographies [...] We defnitely compared
Thus, even though discussions around cultural topics are happening some Southeast Asian countries vs the Western countries in
more often in non-technical courses than in technical courses, there terms of how products are used and utilized.” (I4, technical
is still a need to embed more of these discussions when teaching course)
about disability topics or accessibility. Drawing on our fndings and These topics suggest that there are discussions around the im-
prior work, we believe that having the knowledge about disability pact of socio-cultural components on technology usage and design
representation in diferent geographic locations and cultures can be which are happening more often in the technical courses. Besides
helpful when learning about disability or accessibility (i.e., because delivering these topics through class lectures and class activities,
disability is best understood in socio-cultural context [2] and it is some of the topics were emphasized through class discussions in
closely linked to accessibility [39]). which all students provided introductions about themselves and
talked about their cultural background, how technology is used in
6.2 Discussions around interconnections their country, or maybe how disability is viewed in their cultures,
between tech and society in diferent etc. We found this approach interesting because it gave the instruc-
communities tor and students an initial idea of other countries and the cultural
diversity of the class. Some students pointed out having more cultur-
When discussing the topics on cultural diferences some students ally diverse classes as a benefcial way to embed cultural discussions
(mostly from technical courses) mentioned that their courses cov- when accessibility is being taught. This suggestion, besides being
ered topics around the interconnections between culture and tech- interesting, however, comes with its challenges; having a class full
nology design or technology usage in diferent cultures. This theme of international students from diverse cultures can be a source of
encompasses discussed topics on social aspects of technology such challenges to academic staf, lecturers, and instructors since they
as how culture infuences technology usage in some other countries are expected to meet the learning needs of these students [59].
(e.g., East Asian countries), how technology impacts traditional and
cultural beliefs, the history of technology usage, the history of how
technology impacts disability, how religion can impact technology
6.3 Class discussions around socio-cultural
design/usage, or how some technologies (e.g., AI) discriminate some diferences and their infuence on design
communities (e.g., lower strata). Based on our participants’ responses, both types of courses (techni-
Students mentioned that some topics were brought up in class cal and non-technical courses) had discussions on cultural difer-
that was not directly about accessibility but made a good point ences in diferent regions and how they can infuence technology
about how technology and society can be linked in diferent ways. and product design. Discussions around culture in design were
For example, I3 talked about some class discussions about topics mainly in the context of language in design (I14), one student men-
on diferent technology usage in diferent countries, and the discus- tioned color and diferent cultural perceptions in design (I11), choice
sions were led by the students: of food in food app design (I8), religion and design (I7, I15), and race
in design (I2, I13). For example, I2 mentioned what they discussed
“So we have people from diferent countries in the class and then
when they were considering challenges related to race and skin
we discussed certain technologies, we would say how things are
color in augmentative and alternative communication devices:
diferent in our country and how people might use technology,
like a certain device can do one thing in the US, we might “We’ve talked about, broadly speaking, skin color and how
use it for something else in the diferent in another country there’s their skin color options, but sometimes even that is a
[...] We came to the conclusion that not all technology can little bit simplistic like what if you’re a mixed-race family. And
be transplanted as it is in diferent places, they have to be what color do you pick? What if your mom is white and your
adjusted and tweaked to suit the requirements of the people of dad is black, do you pick the black icons or do you pick the
that particular region.” (I3, technical course) white icon? Can you make a mom icon white and the dad icon
Culture Within Courses Covering Topics on Accessibility and Disability at U.S. Universities CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

black or do you have to pick one of them.” (I2, non-technical 6.4 Discussions on accessibility in diferent
course) geographic locations
Another interesting thing was the importance of language align- This theme is made of the topics on culture that were mentioned by
ment in design which was mentioned by I14: students from both technical and non-technical courses. Students
in both types of courses highlighted that they had lectures, discus-
“We want everything to be standardly aligned, so for English, sions, or activities around accessibility either in physical spaces
you know that means left aligned, but if you are using align- or digital spaces. We wanted to inquire about any discussions on
ment as kind of a design pillar, it means that if you’re writing culture, other countries, other races, etc. when accessibility was
something in Hebrew you actually have to fip a lot of your taught. In addition to the topics around disability in other coun-
[like] design thinking because you want to control the reading tries, or communities (subsection 6.1), there were some similar
speed of people and direct their kind of like hierarchical view.” topics for accessibility such as a political aspect of accessibility
(I14, technical course.) (e.g., governments’ support for accessibility) or diferent accessibil-
I14 discusses how some other languages that have diferent read- ity considerations in diferent countries due to language barriers.
ing/writing alignment than English need diferent design consid- Two students mentioned that their technical courses had a few
erations. This matter was also argued and explored by the recent discussions on how accessibility is diferent in other countries:
work of Goldenberg and Tractinsky [18, 19] which suggests that “I think, the accessibility functionality is more prominent in the
languages with more than one alignment (bidirectional languages) West than in South Asia, like in Asia in general [...] so that is
need specifc design elements and variances. what some of the studies signifed, [showed] that there was a lot
However, the responses from our participants indicated that they of you know [like] infrastructure built for them, for example,
did not have deeper discussions around the impact of culture on simple things like ramps were very prominent.” (I4, technical
technology design except for some passing class discussions. Some course)
students suggested that topics on culture need to be embedded I4 also mentioned the language barrier and how it can impact
into education and they argued diferent ways that this approach accessibility:
can be applied. For example, I14 emphasized the benefts of includ-
“I think it wasn’t way deep into it (culture and accessibility),
ing anthropological perspectives in accessibility teaching. I14 also
but as far as I think some of these elements that [are] defnitely
added that to talk about cultural topics, the courses need to have a
introspective more in terms of how do you build products where
narrow focus on particular cultures and go deep into details such
the language is not a barrier [...] Then, there were discussions
as people’s opinions towards a particular topic or the history of
around how we can break that barrier by using other forms of
that culture. For example, I14 shared how they discussed Brazilian
mediums like Google translate [...] If you have captioning in
culture in particular:
one service, how can they be translated on other languages.” (I4,
“So basically to learn about diferent cultures, we pick kind of a technical course)
particular narrow topic so, for example, in Brazil, we looked at In addition, I11 mentioned that accessibility was discussed in a
transgender communities, and this, it was interesting because global aspect very briefy (i.e., availability of accessible software
the way that we looked at it is was very anecdotal so we read a in diferent countries), but the class did not go any deeper into the
bunch of stories from a bunch of people who are transgender topic of how each country deals with accessibility, or how designs
in Brazil and then people who have opinions about people who can be exactly diferent for each culture.
are transgender in Brazil.” (I14, technical course) Among the students from non-technical courses, there were
Moreover, other students suggested that their courses should dedi- few mentions of discussions on accessibility in other countries as
cate more time and resources to the topics on cultural diferences well. Those discussions were in the context of accessibility support
and have more interactive activities and class projects that embed from the government and the impact that culture can have on
culture as a component into it. For example, I11 argued that projects accessibility. I7 mentioned that they discussed how disability is
and hands-on activities can help students to learn class topics better treated diferently in diferent cultures, which might lead to diferent
and avoid forgetting: accessibility needs for people in that culture:
“I also did some of social studies and under [under] social studies
“Just more time on it like I feel like if we had like two solid we covered much on to do with culture. How diferent cultures,
lectures, or I don’t know, maybe a project on it. I think a project you know, [it] may afect people with disability. And this may
would be good because for me that’s how I like remember stuf hence, afect you know, various needs, for you know, accessibil-
more like I don’t remember that much [...] I remember something ity.” (I7, non-technical course)
like sure! if I take notes on it, but I remember more on projects.
Knowing the importance of culture in accessibility education is
So if we have anything simulated... like oh you’re designing for
only one part of the problem. There is a need for a better-designed
this culture like you design for these people now I think that
accessibility course curriculum that has fundamental disability stud-
would be good.” (I11, technical course)
ies embedded into it before jumping into accessibility topics [82].
We believe that these suggestions could lead to some improve- We need to know how culture can be embedded into accessibility
ments in accessible design education because design and culture education, what approaches need to be followed, and what things
are linked in many ways [18, 29, 52]. need to be put frst as the highest priorities.
CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Nourian et al.

7 DISCUSSION technology (e.g., how technology has impacted disability over the
Our main contribution is insights into the inclusion of culture years). Some of these discussions happened through informal class
within accessibility education. We ran an online survey and follow- orientations in which students talked about their background such
up interviews with students in U.S. institutions who were from both as how disability is represented in their culture, how technology
technical and non-technical backgrounds to see how those areas is being used and viewed in their country, etc. Forming these dis-
were teaching accessibility or disability studies in their courses. cussions as a planned activity in the course curriculum could be
Moreover, the other contributions of our work are recommenda- benefcial for increasing students’ fundamental disability knowl-
tions on how to build accessibility courses that can embed topics edge before exploring technical and complex topics. We found these
on cultural diferences into their curriculum. discussions interesting since they can reduce inaccurate assump-
The fndings from our survey data indicated that in contrast to tions and familiarize students with the important role of culture
non-technical courses discussions around topics on culture are not in diferent aspects [21, 76] including disability and, consequently,
happening in technical courses very often when accessibility is accessibility. This process could provide an improved reframing of
taught. This fnding was aligned with prior works [6, 56], which disability perceptions as also one of the students mentioned. Apply-
showed that technical courses rarely discuss non-technical topics. ing the same approach in technical courses teaching accessibility
However, our survey fndings also extend prior work to reveal would enhance disability understanding and awareness towards
that cultural discussions in each of the technical and non-technical cultural infuences in accessible design.
courses mostly happened in the context of socio-cultural practices So far, diferent approaches have been devised and recommended
and representation of disability in diferent societies, and rarely for teaching technical courses [33, 34]. Walker argued the impor-
in the context of digital accessibility and design. In addition, class tance of theoretical foundations in web design courses [81]. Two
lectures were the most common activities that were used to cover theories were argued in Walker’s work: genre theory and activity
topics on culture in both types of courses. theory. Genre theory focuses on demystifcation to provide better
The fndings from our interviews extended our initial under- communications by understanding audience expectations, social
standing developed from our survey responses. The interviews context, etc [81]. Activity theory argues that activities are informed
with our participants revealed a slight diference from the survey by the specifc systems and motives of people involved in them
data, highlighting that topics on culture were discussed in both who share a common object, as well as the wide range of tools
course types, in contrast to our survey fndings, but still those dis- they use [25]. Moreover, based on the results of a workshop led by
cussions happen more often in the non-technical courses at a deeper Krupczak et al. [34], every technical course that centers around tech-
level. Thus, the interviews were great opportunities to have deeper nological literacy (i.e., the broad understanding of technology and
discussions with participants who could elaborate more on their all types of technological devices and process [34]), should be deliv-
responses. Our interview fndings suggest that technical courses ered in some determined standard modes [34]. One of these course
could beneft from more cross-cultural discussions on disability modes, “Technological Impacts, Assessment, and History Courses”,
when teaching accessibility, thus, helping educate more culturally aims to focus on the relations between technology and culture,
informed designers and developers. society, and history [34].
Thus, having discussions around culture in technical courses is
7.1 Refecting on how to build accessibility benefcial way in computing and technical areas and more specif-
cally, in the case of our study, accessible design as well. Even though
courses that embed culture into the there have been diverse theoretical approaches and discussions
curriculum around cultural diferences in design, disability understanding, or
(RQ1) What cultural topics are being discussed within technical social interactions, none specifcally focused on the infuence of
and non-technical courses if any? (RQ2) How are those topics being cultural diferences on accessible design. It is also important to
taught? note that one of the key challenges in incorporating inclusive de-
Our fndings from the interviews showed that technical and sign practices and cultural topics in a course, is the time constraint
non-technical courses are similar in some cases (e.g., both discuss throughout a semester [65]. In their study, Sin et al. [65] argue that
accessibility and disability in other countries, both include topics course duration and limited time are systemic institutional issues
on culture in the course) but there were some stark diferences that can lead to non-inclusive teaching. Therefore, to achieve prac-
too. Non-technical courses that teach topics on disability, use some tical ways for building better inclusive materials in accessibility
approaches that we believe could be useful in the technical courses. courses, time constraints, and limited time resources must be taken
According to our interview fndings, most non-technical courses into account.
provided a platform (opportunity) for students to understand dis-
ability correctly at the beginning of education and build up on
that. Comparing the courses, non-technical courses (e.g., feminist
disability studies, disability, and world cultures, disability in U.S.
7.2 Recommendations on Embedding Culture
history) dedicate more of the course materials and resources to into Accessibility Teaching
the discussions around disability understanding from a global and (RQ3) What are students’ views and feedback on including cultural
personal perspective, by defning and clarifying the cultural percep- topics in accessibility teaching?
tions towards disability. Some technical courses have also focused Our participants’ insights and positive feedback towards the
on the history of disability with a view of its interconnections with inclusion of cultural topics in accessibility education, showed the
Culture Within Courses Covering Topics on Accessibility and Disability at U.S. Universities CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

importance of having more culture-related discussions when acces- 7.2.3 Ask disabled people from diferent cultures to take part in
sibility is taught in the courses, mostly by incorporating cultural devising courses that mainly focus on advanced accessible design with
topics in the course syllabus, having a narrow focus on a specifc cul- disability and cultural topics integrated into it. Besides including
ture, and teaching accessibility fundamentals in the design courses. foundations of accessible design in the design courses, in separate
Drawing on the suggestions from our student participants, along courses, accessibility can be taught as the main focus of the course
with prior work and our fndings, helped us come up with rec- in which disability studies are discussed as background knowledge
ommendations on how to incorporate culture into accessibility and accessibility topics are taught and implemented in more detail
education in a way that will not lead to more complexity and even- along with the integration of topics on culture.
tually, ignorance. Moreover, since this work is a new area that has As mentioned in the previous sections, incorporating disabil-
never been explored before, we need to come up with modifca- ity studies into accessibility teaching is essential [39] and as we
tions and recommendations in a way that can be helpful instead of found in our analysis, one of the benefts could be to re-frame stu-
confusing. Thus, it is best to prioritize the solutions and start from dents’ perceptions towards disability and lead the focus slightly
a place that is the most crucial or the most fundamental, similar to the factors that can potentially impact disability. These factors
to the approach Goldenberg and Tractinsky [19] applied to their can be extracted and clarifed by going through the history of dis-
new research study when they explored bidirectional design for ability [43], maybe from diferent social or cultural perspectives
the frst time. We suggest the following hierarchical approaches for in diferent countries, similar to the approach from non-technical
embedding topics on culture in accessibility teaching: courses. We suggest that while building up on these discussions,
culture as a component of the target society can be incorporated
7.2.1 Institutions can seek help from or hire cultural studies, dis-
into the course.
ability studies, and accessibility researchers. To embed culture into
Therefore, we suggest that when focusing particularly on ac-
accessibility teaching the frst thing to do is to have sufcient re-
cessible design, culture should be embedded as an important as-
sources and knowledgeable instructors. The same approach has
pect of design and accessibility. To develop a good curriculum
been recommended by Shinohara et al. [63] but for incorporating
for such courses we recommend involving disabled people from
accessibility into computing courses. Just as culture can infuence
other cultures to devise the milestones of the course curriculum.
design, we believe that accessibility, as an important component
User/research subject involvement has been shown to be benef-
of design, can also be impacted by diferent cultural preferences.
cial [10] because to explore a target group and fnd a solution for
Since we could not fnd any research or adequate resources on
it, researchers need to be familiar with that topic and one proper
cultural diferences and accessible design, there are opportunities
way is to involve people who are connected to that particular topic
to investigate diferent teaching approaches. We suggest that as a
into the study [22]. The importance of having disabled people in
beginning, HCI and accessible researchers dedicate more studies
the process of curriculum devising has been pointed out but previ-
to this area with the help of researchers from cultural and disabil-
ous studies too [43]. Following such a procedure can help create
ity studies areas, thus, benefting from diferent perspectives to
a course curriculum that can utilize the insights and feedback of
increase awareness. Such research studies can focus on identifying
disabled people who are from diferent cultural backgrounds.
what cultural topics need to be taught and start with topics that
have the highest priorities in accessible design. Doing so can help
7.2.4 Have people with diferent disabilities and cultural backgrounds
to avoid confusion for both instructors and students.
when teaching accessibility in courses. To embed culture into acces-
7.2.2 Dedicate part of design and development courses to the topics sibility teaching, certain considerations and procedures need to
on culture and foundations of accessibility. Discussions or activities be taken into account. According to the discussions we had with
on cultural diferences are not inclusively considered in courses students and the recommendations they provided, we argue that
that have design focuses [48, 70] which was also shown by our it will be helpful to ask disabled people from another culture to
fndings. In general, there is still a lack of cross-cultural design take part in the course, share their insights, and have interactive
projects in education [70] and we believe that it can be helpful for discussions with students about diferent cultures and disability
design and development education to embed culture in courses that representations in other geographic locations. It is generally ex-
are primarily focusing on digital technology creation (e.g., interface pected in accessibility research that participants are themselves
design) in order to familiarize the students with the area of cross- representative users (i.e., people who have a disability or impair-
cultural design and postcolonial computing. Course instructors ment) [60], and disabled people fnd it important to take part in
can introduce prior work as a starting point for discussing the research or development processes since it is an opportunity to
importance of considering the relationship between culture and help others [41]. Including representative people within classes will
design (e.g., color, layout, and text preferences [9, 12, 16, 28]). provide a more valid experience. However, a concern to address
Moreover, design courses should include foundations of acces- would be to ensure people invited to contribute to those courses
sible design and the key concepts in the curriculum so that more are properly reimbursed for their time, efort, and expertise.
students become familiar with accessibility [63]. It has been pointed Some prior studies have also emphasized the importance of stu-
out by some students from technical courses that accessibility was dents’ connection to disability communities during the educational
mentioned as passing and not sufcient resources or time was dedi- experience [66]. It has been pointed out by some students that hav-
cated to it. This issue was argued in many prior works [27, 63] and ing guest speakers from a diferent culture or a type of disability
also some of our interview participants expressed their concern was defnitely eye-opening and insightful. Some students also dis-
towards a lack of proper courses on digital accessibility. cussed the beneft of having a diverse class with guest speakers
CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Nourian et al.

or instructors from diferent geographic locations and disabilities. can lead to a lack of sufcient disability understanding. Conse-
Thus, bringing diferent people with various perspectives into the quently, leading to a lack of accessibility knowledge and cultural
class can help the students beneft from new cultural perspectives. infuences on accessibility as well. We make several recommen-
However, it might be best to focus on one or a couple of cultures to dations such as including disabled people from diferent cultures
avoid complexity. in accessibility course development and teaching to support more
cultural sensitivity in accessibility course delivery.
7.3 Limitation and Future Work
Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, we conducted our inter- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
views online which was benefcial in some ways such as being able
to talk to our participants in diferent parts of the country without We thank the participants of our study.
requiring them to show up in person. However, we faced some
issues due to poor internet connections where some of the partici- REFERENCES
pant’s voices or videos cut out. We had to remove one participant [1] Sarah Andrew and Garreth W Tigwell. 2022. Accessible Design is Mediated by
because of an extremely unreliable internet connection. Job Support Structures and Knowledge Gained Through Design Career Pathways.
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–24.
Our work only focuses on courses within U.S. institutions. We https://doi.org/10.1145/3555588
benefted from the perspectives of international students in U.S. [2] Susan Baglieri, Jan W Valle, David J Connor, and Deborah J Gallagher. 2011. Dis-
education settings since U.S. institutions are culturally diverse4 . ability studies in education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability.
Remedial and special education 32, 4 (2011), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/
For example, six of our interview participants were from other 0741932510362200
countries (e.g., South Asian countries, and African countries), and [3] Catherine M Baker, Yasmine N El-Glaly, and Kristen Shinohara. 2020. A sys-
courses are training students to be future designers or researchers tematic analysis of accessibility in computing education research. In Proceedings
of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 107–113.
in a global market. However, there is still an opportunity in future https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366843
work to investigate course structures in other countries, mainly in [4] Giulia Barbareschi, Norah Shitawa Kopi, Ben Oldfrey, and Catherine Holloway.
2021. What Diference Does Tech Make? Conceptualizations of Disability and
the Global South (i.e., the lead author is from an under-represented Assistive Technology among Kenyan Youth: Conceptualizations of Disability
country in the Global South), and expand on prior works (e.g., [1, and AT. In Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference
4, 5, 45]) on Computers and Accessibility (Virtual Event, USA) (ASSETS ’21). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 18, 13 pages. https:
In addition, while valuable, our work only benefts from the //doi.org/10.1145/3441852.3471226
perspectives of the students while there is a chance to get more [5] Giulia Barbareschi, Manohar Swaminathan, Andre Pimenta Freire, and Catherine
detailed information by conducting research with course instructors Holloway. 2021. Challenges and Strategies for Accessibility Research in the
Global South: A Panel Discussion. In X Latin American Conference on Human
and lecturers, who can be better sources. However, the data that we Computer Interaction (Valparaiso, Chile) (CLIHC 2021). Association for Computing
collected provided the perspectives of students which resulted in Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 20, 5 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/
3488392.3488412
useful fndings that can help improve teaching accessibility topics. [6] John W Blake. 2019. Using Stories of Technology to Teach Technological and
We discuss how accessibility teaching can beneft from diferent Engineering Literacy in Courses for Majors. In 2019 ASEE Annual Conference &
approaches but we do not know what the best way of devising Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--33518
[7] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2019. Refecting on refexive thematic analysis.
a course would be unless we have professional opinions of the Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health 11, 4 (2019), 589–597. https:
course creators as well. Thus, for future work, to take any actions //doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
toward our recommendations, we need to talk to the course creators, [8] Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2021. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should
I not use TA? Comparing refexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based
instructors, or lecturers to learn from their side too. qualitative analytic approaches. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research 21, 1
(2021), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
[9] Ewa Callahan. 2005. Cultural Similarities and Diferences in the Design of
8 CONCLUSION University Web sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11, 1 (07
We conducted a survey among 72 students in U.S. institutions with 2005), 239–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00312.x
[10] Apala Lahiri Chavan. 2005. Another culture, another method. In Proceedings of
14 follow-up interviews to understand the inclusion of topics on the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 21. Erl-
culture into technical and non-technical courses that teach acces- baum Mahwah, NJ. https://humanfactors.com/downloads/whitepapers/another-
sibility or disability topics. We sought to fnd what cultural topics culture-another-method.pdf
[11] Michael Crabb, Michael Heron, Rhianne Jones, Mike Armstrong, Hayley Reid,
are being discussed within technical and non-technical courses if and Amy Wilson. 2019. Developing Accessible Services: Understanding Current
any (RQ1), how cultural topics are being taught in technical and Knowledge and Areas for Future Support. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Confer-
ence on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19). Association for Computing
non-technical courses (RQ2), and what are students’ suggestions for Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300446
including cultural topics in accessibility teaching (RQ3). Our fnd- [12] Dianne Cyr, Milena Head, and Hector Larios. 2010. Colour appeal in website
ings revealed that even though both technical and non-technical design within and across cultures: A multi-method evaluation. International
journal of human-computer studies 68, 1 (2010), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
courses discuss culture, there is still a lack of nuanced cultural ijhcs.2009.08.005
focus in accessibility teaching in technical areas. To increase the [13] Dianne Cyr and Haizley Trevor-Smith. 2004. Localization of Web design: An
discussions around culture in accessibility education in the tech- empirical comparison of German, Japanese, and United States Web site charac-
teristics. Journal of the American society for information science and technology
nical courses, we can beneft from some useful approaches from 55, 13 (2004), 1199–1208. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20075
the non-technical courses. In contrast to the non-technical courses, [14] Dana Donohue and Juan Bornman. 2014. The challenges of realising inclusive
education in South Africa. South African journal of education 34, 2 (2014). https:
technical courses do not usually discuss topics on culture, disability //www.ajol.info/index.php/saje/article/view/105550
history, or disability perception from a global perspective, which [15] 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-
4 https://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/sevisBTN2021.pdf Computer Studies 47, 3 (1997), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1997.0138
Culture Within Courses Covering Topics on Accessibility and Disability at U.S. Universities CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany

[16] Vanessa Evers and Donald Day. 1997. The Role of Culture in Interface Acceptance. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED496079
In Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 Interantional Conference on Human-Computer [36] Junchen Li, Garreth W. Tigwell, and Kristen Shinohara. 2021. Accessibility of
Interaction (INTERACT ’97). Chapman & amp; Hall, Ltd., GBR, 260–267. High-Fidelity Prototyping Tools. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com-
[17] Mexhid Ferati and Bahtijar Vogel. 2020. Accessibility in Web Development puting Systems (CHI ’21) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New
Courses: A Case Study. Informatics 7, 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/ York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445520
informatics7010008 [37] Stephanie Ludi, Matt Huenerfauth, Vicki Hanson, Nidhi Rajendra Palan, and
[18] Yulia Goldenberg and Noam Tractinsky. 2021. Towards the Right Direction Paula Conn. 2018. Teaching Inclusive Thinking to Undergraduate Students in
in BiDirectional User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Computing Programs. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association Computer Science Education (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (SIGCSE ’18). Association
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 149, 13 pages. https: for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 717–722. https://doi.org/10.
//doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445461 1145/3159450.3159512
[19] Yulia Goldenberg and Noam Tractinsky. 2022. Prioritizing UI Items for Bidirec- [38] Kelly Mack, Emma McDonnell, Dhruv Jain, Lucy Lu Wang, Jon E. Froehlich, and
tional Design System Development: A Suggested Set of Criteria and Its Imple- Leah Findlater. 2021. What Do We Mean by “Accessibility Research”? A Literature
mentation (CHI EA ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, Survey of Accessibility Papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019. Association
USA, Article 340, 8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519868 for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.
[20] Wakaba Hamamatsu, Maimi Hoshi, Mieko Nakagawa, and Kuniomi Shibata. 2020. 3445412
Improving Web accessibility on a website for screen reader users and people who [39] Jennifer Mankof, Gillian R. Hayes, and Devva Kasnitz. 2010. Disability Studies as
need the ruby element on each Kanji–. IEICE Technical Report; IEICE Tech. Rep. a Source of Critical Inquiry for the Field of Assistive Technology. In Proceedings of
120, 198 (2020), 1–6. https://ken.ieice.org/ken/paper/20201022JCAy/eng/ the 12th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
[21] Chen Hao, Annemiek van Boeijen, and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2019. Cultura: A (Orlando, Florida, USA) (ASSETS ’10). Association for Computing Machinery,
communication toolkit for designers to gain empathic insights across cultural New York, NY, USA, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/1878803.1878807
boundaries. Design Discourse on Culture and Society: Re: Research, Volume 5 5 [40] Grace Mbipom and Simon Harper. 2011. The Interplay between Web Aesthetics
(2019), 3. https://doi.org/10.7945/C2SD5J and Accessibility. In The Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS
[22] Pamela Hinds and Katharina Reinecke. 2014. Advancing Methodologies for Conference on Computers and Accessibility (Dundee, Scotland, UK) (ASSETS ’11).
Cross- Cultural Studies of Collaborative Systems. In Proceedings of the Com- Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 147–154. https:
panion Publication of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooper- //doi.org/10.1145/2049536.2049564
ative Work & Social Computing (Baltimore, Maryland, USA) (CSCW Compan- [41] Catherine Jane McAllister, Claire Louise Kelly, Katherine Elizabeth Manning,
ion ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 323–326. and Anthony John Holland. 2013. Participant experience of invasive research in
https://doi.org/10.1145/2556420.2558856 adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Medical Ethics 39, 9 (2013), 594–597.
[23] Megan Hofmann, Devva Kasnitz, Jennifer Mankof, and Cynthia L Bennett. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-101077
2020. Living Disability Theory: Refections on Access, Research, and De- [42] Rachel Menzies, Garreth W. Tigwell, Mandar Tamhane, and Annalu Waller.
sign. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on 2019. Weaving Accessibility Through an Undergraduate Degree. In The 21st
Computers and Accessibility (Virtual Event, Greece) (ASSETS ’20). Association International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (AS-
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 4, 13 pages. https: SETS ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 526–529.
//doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3416996 https://doi.org/10.1145/3308561.3354611
[24] Lilly Irani, Janet Vertesi, Paul Dourish, Kavita Philip, and Rebecca E. Grinter. [43] Carlyn O Mueller. 2021. “I Didn’t Know People With Disabilities Could Grow Up
2010. Postcolonial Computing: A Lens on Design and Development. Association to Be Adults”: Disability History, Curriculum, and Identity in Special Education.
for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1311–1320. https://doi.org/10. Teacher Education and Special Education 44, 3 (2021), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.
1145/1753326.1753522 1177/0888406421996069
[25] Donna Kain and Elizabeth Wardle. 2005. Building context: Using activity theory [44] Singh Nitish, Zhao Hongxin, and Hu Xiaorui. 2005. Analyzing the cultural
to teach about genre in multi-major professional communication courses. Tech- content of web sites: A cross-national comparision of China, India, Japan, and
nical Communication Quarterly 14, 2 (2005), 113–139. https://doi.org/10.1207/ US. 22, 2 (2005), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330510593241
s15427625tcq1402_1 [45] Laleh Nourian, Kristen Shinohara, and Garreth Tigwell. 2022. Digital Accessibility
[26] Devva Kasnitz and Russell P Shuttleworth. 2001. Anthropology and disability in Iran: An Investigation Focusing on Iran’s National Policies on Accessibility
studies. Semiotics and dis/ability: Interrogating categories of diference (2001), and Disability Support. In The 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference
19–41. https://dsq-sds.org/article/view/289/327 on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’22), October 23–26, 2022, Athens, Greece.
[27] Saba Kawas, Laura Vonessen, and Amy J. Ko. 2019. Teaching Accessibility: A New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3517428.3550385
Design Exploration of Faculty Professional Development at Scale. In Proceedings [46] Chioma Ohajunwa, Judith Mckenzie, and Theresa Lorenzo. 2015. Enabling
of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE disability inclusive practices within the University of Cape Town curriculum: A
’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 983–989. https: case study. African Journal of Disability 4, 1 (2015). https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.
//doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287399 v4i1.157
[28] Julie Khaslavsky. 1998. Integrating Culture into Interface Design. In CHI 98 [47] Helina Oladapo, Eric Owusu, and Joyram Chakraborty. 2021. Efects of culturally
Conference Summary on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’98). As- tailored user interface design. In International Conference on Applied Human
sociation for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 365–366. https: Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, 845–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
//doi.org/10.1145/286498.286830 80091-8_100
[29] Ji Hye Kim and Kun Pyo Lee. 2005. Cultural Diference and Mobile Phone Interface [48] Patrick Parrish and Jennifer Linder-VanBerschot. 2010. Cultural Dimensions of
Design: Icon Recognition According to Level of Abstraction. In Proceedings of the Learning: Addressing the Challenges of Multicultural Instruction. International
7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 11 (05 2010). https://doi.org/
& Services (MobileHCI ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 10.19173/irrodl.v11i2.809
USA, 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1145/1085777.1085841 [49] Rohan Patel, Pedro Breton, Catherine M. Baker, Yasmine N. El-Glaly, and Kris-
[30] Andrew Kirkpatrick, Joshue O’Connor, Alastair Campbell, and Michael Cooper. ten Shinohara. 2020. Why Software is Not Accessible: Technology Profession-
2018. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. https://www.w3.org/ als’ Perspectives and Challenges. In Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Con-
TR/WCAG21/. Accessed: 2022-12-08. ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI EA
[31] Anett Kralisch and Bettina Berendt. 2004. Cultural Determinants of Search ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–9. https:
Behaviour on Websites.. In IWIPS 2004 Conference on Culture, Trust, and Design //doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3383103
Innovation. Vancouver. 61–75. https://usj.edu.lb/moodle/stephane.bazan/obs_ [50] Neeraja Ravindran and Barbara J Myers. 2012. Cultural infuences on perceptions
interculturelle/kralisch_berendt_IWIPS2004_to_appear.pdf of health, illness, and disability: A review and focus on autism. Journal of child and
[32] Anett Kralisch, Martin Eisend, and Bettina Berendt. 2005. The impact of culture family studies 21, 2 (2012), 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9477-9
on website navigation behaviour. In Proc. HCI-International. 1–9. https://people. [51] Allison Ruby Reid-Cunningham. 2009. Anthropological theories of disability.
cs.kuleuven.be/~bettina.berendt/Papers/kralisch_berendt_eisend_2005.pdf Journal of human behavior in the social environment 19, 1 (2009), 99–111. https:
[33] John Krupczak and David Ollis. 2006. Technological Literacy And Engineering //doi.org/10.1080/10911350802631644
For Non Engineers: Lessons From Successful Courses.. In 2006 Annual Conference [52] Katharina Reinecke and Abraham Bernstein. 2011. Improving Performance,
& Exposition. ASEE Conferences, Chicago, Illinois. https://strategy.asee.org/422 Perceived Usability, and Aesthetics with Culturally Adaptive User Interfaces.
[34] John Krupczak and David Ollis. 2008. Technology Courses for Undergraduates: ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 18, 2 (July 2011). https://doi.org/10.1145/
Developing Standard Models. In 2008 Annual Conference & Exposition. 13–1188. 1970378.1970382
https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--3507 [53] Katharina Reinecke and Abraham Bernstein. 2013. Knowing What a User Likes:
[35] Ming-Mu Kuo and Cheng-Chieh Lai. 2006. Linguistics across Cultures: The A Design Science Approach to Interfaces that Automatically Adapt to Culture.
Impact of Culture on Second Language Learning. Online Submission 1, 1 (2006). MIS Quarterly 37, 2 (2013), 427–453. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43825917
 CHI ’23, April 23–28, 2023, Hamburg, Germany Nourian et al.

[54] Katharina Reinecke and Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2014. Quantifying Visual Preferences [71] Garreth W. Tigwell. 2021. Nuanced Perspectives Toward Disability Simulations
around the World. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in from Digital Designers, Blind, Low Vision, and Color Blind People. In CHI Con-
Computing Systems (CHI ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, ference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’21) (CHI ’21). Association
NY, USA, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557052 for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.
[55] Katharina Reinecke, Minh Khoa Nguyen, Abraham Bernstein, Michael Näf, and 3445620
Krzysztof Z. Gajos. 2013. Doodle around the World: Online Scheduling Behavior [72] Garreth W. Tigwell, David R. Flatla, and Neil D. Archibald. 2017. ACE: A Colour
Refects Cultural Diferences in Time Perception and Group Decision-Making. Palette Design Tool for Balancing Aesthetics and Accessibility. ACM Trans. Access.
In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work Comput. 9, 2 (Jan. 2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3014588
(CSCW ’13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 45–54. [73] Garreth W. Tigwell, Rachel Menzies, and David R. Flatla. 2018. Designing for
https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441784 Situational Visual Impairments: Supporting Early-Career Designers of Mobile
[56] John Reisel. 2022. An Approach for Engineering Curriculum Revision to Increase Content. In Proceedings of the 2018 Designing Interactive Systems Conference
Coverage of Non-Technical Subjects. In 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. (DIS ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 387–399.
https://strategy.asee.org/40518 https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196760
[57] Anne Spencer Ross, Xiaoyi Zhang, James Fogarty, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2017. [74] Garreth W. Tigwell, Kristen Shinohara, and Michael McQuaid. 2021.
Epidemiology as a Framework for Large-Scale Mobile Application Accessibility If You Don’t Build It, They Won’t Come: HCI has an Inaccessibility
Assessment. In Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Confer- Problem. In Human Computer Interaction Consortium (HCIC) (HCIC ’21).
ence on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’17). Association for Computing 5. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352262053_If_You_Don%27t_Build_
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3132525.3132547 It_They_Won%27t_Come_HCI_has_an_Inaccessibility_Problem
[58] Patricia Russo and Stephen Boor. 1993. How Fluent is Your Interface? Designing [75] Sarah J. Tracy. 2013. Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting
for International Users. In Proceedings of the INTERACT ’93 and CHI ’93 Conference Analysis, Communicating Impact. Wiley-Blackwell.
on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’93). Association for Computing [76] AGC Van Boeijen and ISJ Zijlstra. 2020. Culture Sensitive Design: A guide to culture
Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 342–347. https://doi.org/10.1145/169059.169274 in practice. BIS Publishers. https://research.tudelft.nl/en/publications/culture-
[59] Janette Ryan. 2005. Improving teaching and learning practices for international sensitive-design-a-guide-to-culture-in-practice-2
students. Teaching international students: Improving learning for all (2005), 92–100. [77] Gregg Vanderheiden. 2000. Fundamental Principles and Priority Setting for
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203696132 Universal Usability. In Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability
[60] Andrew Sears and Vicki Hanson. 2011. Representing Users in Accessibility Re- (CUU ’00). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/355460.
search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing 355469
Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). Association for Computing Machin- [78] Beat Vollenwyder, Serge Petralito, Glena H Iten, Florian Brühlmann, Klaus Opwis,
ery, New York, NY, USA, 2235–2238. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979268 and Elisa D Mekler. 2022. How compliance with web accessibility standards
[61] Ather Sharif, Aedan Liam McCall, and Kianna Roces Bolante. 2022. Should I shapes the experiences of users with and without disabilities. International
Say “Disabled People” or “People with Disabilities”? Language Preferences of Journal of Human-Computer Studies (2022), 102956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Disabled People Between Identity- and Person-First Language. In Proceedings of ijhcs.2022.102956
the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility [79] Cynthia D. Waddell. 2006. Worldwide Accessibility Laws and Policies. Apress,
(Athens, Greece) (ASSETS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, Berkeley, CA, 547–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4302-0188-5_17
NY, USA, Article 10, 18 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3517428.3544813 [80] Anne Waldschmidt. 2018. Disability–Culture–Society: Strengths and weaknesses
[62] Kristen Shinohara, Cynthia L Bennett, Jacob O Wobbrock, and Wanda Pratt. 2017. of a cultural model of dis/ability. Alter 12, 2 (2018), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.
Teaching accessibility in a technology design course. In Making a Diference: 1016/j.alter.2018.04.003
Prioritizing Equity and Access in CSCL, 12th International Conference on Computer [81] Kristin Walker. 2002. Theoretical foundations for website design courses. Tech-
Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2017, Vol. 1. Philadelphia, PA: Interna- nical communication quarterly 11, 1 (2002), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1207/
tional Society of the Learning Sciences. https://repository.isls.org//handle/1/237 s15427625tcq1101_3
[63] Kristen Shinohara, Saba Kawas, Amy J. Ko, and Richard E. Ladner. 2018. Who [82] Marcelo Worsley and David Bar-El. 2022. Inclusive Making: designing tools and
Teaches Accessibility? A Survey of U.S. Computing Faculty. In Proceedings of experiences to promote accessibility and redefne making. Computer Science
the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’18). Education 32, 2 (2022), 155–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1863705
Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 197–202. https: [83] Qiwen Zhao, Vaishnavi Mande, Paula Conn, Sedeeq Al-khazraji, Kristen Shi-
//doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159484 nohara, Stephanie Ludi, and Matt Huenerfauth. 2020. Comparison of Meth-
[64] Jaisie Sin, Rachel L. Franz, Cosmin Munteanu, and Barbara Barbosa Neves. 2021. ods for Teaching Accessibility in University Computing Courses. In The 22nd
Digital Design Marginalization: New Perspectives on Designing Inclusive Inter- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (AS-
faces. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SETS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https:
Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New //doi.org/10.1145/3373625.3417013
York, NY, USA, Article 380, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445180
[65] Jaisie Sin, Cosmin Munteanu, Michael Nixon, Velian Pandeliev, Garreth Tigwell,
Kristen Shinohara, Anthony Tang, and Steve Szigeti. 2022. Uncovering inclusivity
gaps in design pedagogy through the digital design marginalization framework.
Frontiers in Computer Science (2022), 91. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2022.
822090
[66] Robin M Smith, Deborah Gallagher, Valerie Owen, and Thomas M Skrtic. 2009.
Disability studies in education: Guidelines and ethical practice for educators. In
Social justice, peace, and environmental education. Routledge, 247–263. https:
//doi.org/10.4324/9780203879429
[67] Helen Spencer-Oatey and Peter Franklin. 2012. What is culture.
A compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core Concepts 1 (2012), 22.
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/al/globalpad-rip/openhouse/interculturalskills_
old/core_concept_compilations/global_pad_-_what_is_culture.pdf
[68] Huatong Sun. 2001. Building a Culturally-Competent Corporate Web Site: An
Exploratory Study of Cultural Markers in Multilingual Web Design. In Proceedings
of the 19th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation (Sante Fe,
New Mexico, USA) (SIGDOC ’01). Association for Computing Machinery, New
York, NY, USA, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1145/501516.501536
[69] 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08596-8_54
[70] Pinyan Tang, Glyn Lawson, Xu Sun, and Sarah Sharples. 2022. Probing cultural
diferences in product design and consumer evaluation using repertory grid
analysis. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 32, 3 (2022),
1875–1894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09663-9

View publication stats