SIGCHI Equity Talks #2: Making SIGCHI Accessible
Stacy Branham, Assistant Professor, University of California Irvine
Soraia Prietch, Professor, Federal University of Mato Grosso
Kevin Storer, Graduate Researcher, University of California Irvine
Previous Equity Talk: Being Global
All Equity Talks (running March through May, 2021)
In the second of a series of roundtable dialogues on equity led by Vice President at Large Neha Kumar (she/her; Georgia Tech), we continued an ongoing dialogue in our community around the need to systematically integrate accessibility into our organizational practices.
Over the course of the hour, we collectively explored the following core topics, which we expand on in more depth below:
- What are the most pressing accessibility issues in SIGCHI today?
- Why don’t we have basic accessibility standards for all SIGCHI events?
- Can our community understand accessibility as an issue that affects us all?
Our session opened with Neha’s thoughtful words on why we chose to hold this forum, amidst the tensions between documenting accessibility needs afresh and rehashing longstanding, unfulfilled needs:
Thank you all for being here today to engage in discussions that are critical for the future of SIGCHI. I’m not an accessibility expert, but it also doesn’t need an expert to know that as an organization, we have far to go before we might be able to contribute adequately towards accessibility needs, requirements, and aspirations of our growing community.
I also realize that some or many of you have engaged in these dialogues before. And it is painful and laborious to do so again and again. Complaint, as Sara Ahmed calls it, is diversity work. And we do it because we care, and we feel that we need to. But, we also need to — and want to — find ourselves in environments where our complaints are heard without judgment, without defiance, and channeled towards actionable change, so that the same complaints are not voiced again and again.
And, that is why we’re here today with the hope that the things that we discuss in this hour are noted, recorded, reported, and referenced for accountability so that they’re not repeated again and again. (00:45)
80 participants joined our Zoom conversation, representing a wide range of disabilities, global contexts, and career stages. An American Sign Language interpreter translated the session live, and a trained stenographer was hired to provide more accurate captions (though they unfortunately got started late). Our session was expertly and compassionately moderated by Cale Passmore, to whom we are indebted for the event’s code of conduct. Upon arrival, attendees were elevated to Zoom’s co-host status, to encourage contributions from all. Attendees were requested to introduce their name, pronouns (optionally), and affiliation prior to speaking. Following our synchronous session, participants were invited to join us on Discord to continue discussions asynchronously.
Accessibility Takes a Community
Cale kicked off our discussion by reading the two top-voted comments from Sli.do, which both identify concerns around the quality of the paid-for video captioning service used for SIGCHI EC videos (08:01). These comments point to several [INAUDIBLE] names and incorrect acronyms in the Equity Talk #1 video. As one anonymous contributor noted, “U$D don’t fix INAUDIBLE captions alone, people who CARES do!” That is, manually correcting human-generated captions is still necessary, and this is a responsibility of volunteers from our community to ensure access.
We Need Education and Representation
Jen Mankoff (she/her; University of Washington) contributed to our discussion of the biggest accessibility issues facing SIGCHI (9:26), positing that education and representation are key:
If we are able to start spreading knowledge about how to do accessibility [to leadership teams across SIGCHI]… I think that we will see change, because I do believe that people care. Secondly, representation is really critical to making that kind of education happen and to ensuring that we can create policy where it is needed. While I am very grateful that the EC has added temporary accessibility positions, I think that it is really important to make those a permanent presence on the EC.…” (10:24)
Building on Jen’s comment, Lizbeth Escobedo (she/her; CETYS Universidad) expanded the conversation from education within SIGCHI to education outreach to universities (35:01). She specifically called attention to the difficulty in México to find education models that include disabled students, so they are underrepresented in the classroom as well as in industry.
Perhaps SIGCHI could create a kind of certification on accessibility [for Universities]. (36:19)
Lizbeth offered the example of holding both synchronous and asynchronous classes, which can benefit students with disabilities. SIGCHI could be doing more to educate universities of such best practices by developing and disseminating inclusive education models that can be replicated across geographic contexts.
We Are People with Disabilities
Elaine Short (she/her; Tufts University) raised concerns around the mentality within the community, such that disabled people are acted upon by the community and not as part of the community (12:18). One example she gave is that authors generally do not consider that disabled people might be reviewers of their papers, and they do not go to the trouble of making their submissions accessible. In a poignant summary, Elaine stated:
Something that I would love to see change is just this mindset…. People with disabilities are part of the “us,” not a “them.” (13:22)
Jen seconded Elaine’s point, and added that “making it safe for all of us” as people with disabilities to be visible in CHI is important (14:23). She specifically called attention to the lack of people who identify as BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People Of Color) with disabilities in the movement for increased accessibility, crediting this in part to a lack of safety for members with multiple marginalized identities.
Continuing Elaine’s thread, Shari Trewin (she/her; IBM) noted that “we still have too many inaccessible tools and processes that people [with disabilities] are expected to use in order to participate in our community” (16:00). An anonymous commenter from Sli.do echoed this concern, honing in on accessibility challenges with PCS, and the lack of mention of accessibility in the tool’s terms of use. Similarly, in the Zoom chat, André Freire (he/him; Universidade Federal de Lavras) shared a story from a blind student who reported that “finding his way around the conference schedule using a screen reader was a big difficulty.”
Cynthia Bennett (she/her; Carnegie Mellon University, Apple) added her support for thoughts shared by Jen, Elaine, and Shari (16:24). Her added emphasis was on the need to approach accessibility as a pipeline — “from submission, to review, to publication, to participation in conferences and events” — instead of piecemeal efforts (16:41).
There Are Significant Language Barriers for d/Deaf Members
Christian Vogler (he/his; Gallaudet University) identified yet another pressing accessibility issue: there is a language barrier in relation to sign language for d/Deaf and hard of hearing people (17:17). Most SIGCHI events do not have sign language interpreting, and there is an expectation that everyone can communicate in English. However, ASL (American Sign Language) does not map to English at all. And, internationally, the standard is IS (International Sign), which is again, completely different from English. Christian ended by concluding that to take down this barrier, SIGCHI needs to provide both ASL and ISL for conferences: “The bare minimum would be two sign languages at the same time” (18:15).
Katta Spiel (they/them; TU Wein), who also shared their sign name, noted that ASL and ISL are American-centric languages (18:44). For example, they study Austrian Sign Language, which shares the ASL acronym but is very different. “We might consider reaching out to the localities that [our events] are in and not just the ones that are represented, dominant in our community” (19:20).
In the Zoom chat, Christian added:
[Deaf Interpreters are] especially valuable for two scenarios: (1) people who feel more comfortable with a sign language than the corresponding spoken/written language; and (2) even for people who feel equally comfortable with the corresponding written language, they can still reduce cognitive load. It’s complex, but in a nutshell, hearing [as opposed to Deaf] interpreters are still influenced by the spoken language constructs.
Christian and Katta illustrated how the provision of interpreting services is nuanced, with subtle yet profound implications for the inclusion of d/Deaf and hard of hearing scholars in our community. We are reminded of Jen’s opening remarks: that representation of people with disabilities, who have such expertise through their lived experience, is imperative within the ranks of SIGCHI leadership.
We Need a Basic Standard of Accessibility
Ramsay Meiklem (he/him; University of Strathclyde) brought our discussion into new territory (19:41) by drawing attention to people with invisible disabilities, who are underserved in SIGCHI:
As an autistic individual, I feel like I float between the gray area of neurotypical… and someone who would really benefit from accessibility measures. And, sometimes when you’re approached with a form that says ‘do you have a disability or additional needs?’… there is sometimes a little bit of ‘do you really need the support?’ But, also I’m entitled to it. It’s good to have … additional measures to make things easier for certain groups, but really these are all things we can do for everyone, which should make it easier for all. (20:00)
Ramsay continued with an example of how wheelchair ramps are actually useful and usable to more than just people who are wheelchair users. His comment struck a chord with the roundtable participants. Jen was the first to join the chorus, noting that she would like to see a standard set of accessibility provisions that are part of every conference (21:43). Captioning helps colleagues whose second language is English, and recordings help people who can’t attend every conference, perhaps because they have children.
With a small shift of budget and planning, [such standard accommodations] would make an enormous difference, and not just for those of us who are disabled… I would love to… move beyond ‘what we do we need most?’ to ‘what can we imagine in the future we can do best?’ (22:20)
Turning to a question on Sli.do from Cayley, participants began to consider ways that sign language services can be more seamlessly standardized: “Does a retainer model exist in the sign language interpretation industry, to stop last minute scrambling/compromises to engage with providers we *know* we need?”
Stacy Branham (she/her; University of California, Irvine) noted that she and Soraia Prietch, as SIGCHI’s ACs of Accessibility, are working to procure contracts with service providers of both ASL interpreting and CART (Communication Access Real-time Translation) live captioning (41:31). They are currently working on negotiating longer-term (one-year) contracts, to enable service provision for a wider range of events on-demand. The goal is to institutionalize these supports to make it easy to make these standards at every EC (Executive Committee) event, with hopes to expand support to conferences in the future.
Christian tackled Cayley’s question head-on, by confirming that interpreting services do not run on a retainer model, but a contract of the sort mentioned by Stacy can make the process a lot smoother. He also warned against seeking an interpreter last-minute; there simply aren’t enough interpreters in the world. He then returned to a recurring theme throughout the discussion, the need to engage people with lived experience of disability:
I strongly suggest what you do is get involved people with disabilities on the accessibility committees. All of us are aware of how to handle it and all of us can handle it and we all have our own experiences with our own disabilities. If you’re stuck and don’t know what to do, contact somebody on the committee and we’re happy to help you get resources. (49:56)
Cayley MacArthur (she/her; University of Waterloo) added that she welcomes standard contracts for interpreting and CART, because it always feels like a scramble to procure services [for conferences], despite knowing that we will need them every time (43:20). Ramsay added that making these services more commonplace is an important way for our community members — especially those who are unfamiliar with or who do not use them personally — to be educated about normative practices of accessibility (51:37).
We Should Attend to Global Intersections with Accessibility
Sara Nabil (Queen’s University) amplified Ramsay’s point about universal design and accessibility supports that may benefit people who are not disabled, or are not part of the disabled group that the supports are designed for (25:26). For example, she was pleased about the reduction of CHI travel fees for certain parts of the world; we can infer that this is beneficial for people with and without disabilities globally:
Reducing registration fees is not just nice or good, it’s actually something that is crucial and helped bring a lot of people that wouldn’t have otherwise been able to attend at all. (27:05)
Sara continued, observing that many SIGCHI conferences are scheduled around culturally significant events like Ramadan and Eid, shutting out a large portion of the world, in particular citizens of African countries. Sara’s comments inspired a lively discussion around global intersections with accessibility.
Neha drew our attention to her recent blog post about SIGCHI’s community calendar (30:01). The goal of the calendar is to include “community-sourced events from different cultures and geographies” so that conference steering committees and chairs can plan two to three years in advance and make adjustments accordingly. In chat, Julie Williamson (she/her; University of Glasgow) shared that she is already making use of the calendar: “as Papers Chair for CHI2022 — I’ve used Neha’s multi-faith calendar to set the dates. There will not be conflicts with submission/review and religious holidays.”
Adding to Sara’s thoughts about cost reduction for conferences, Michael Muller (he/him; IBM) noted that “some of us fall on hard times and wind up at universities or colleges that don’t support our travel;” we’re also benefitting early career people by lowering costs of travel (30:59). In addition to Muslim holidays being neglected, orthodox Jews cannot work on Saturdays and so we might consider that conferences should not take place on Saturdays. To drive home this last point, Michael provided an example of a colleague who was unable to participate in a two-day conference held over the weekend, because he would be unable to attend 50% of the conference.
Comments from Sara and Michael intersect with those contributed anonymously on Sli.do: “One thing to consider as our profession is growing older, how can we integrate our ‘elders’ — who may not have funds to attend in person (or even remotely)? Also — about elders — likely to be more in need of accommodation.” We see how an issue like conference registration fees can be cross-cutting, supporting access for not only people with disabilities, but also students, people from the Global South, older adults, those whose institutions do not provide financial support, those who fall on hard times, and certainly those who sit at the intersection of one or more of these categories.
Dhruv Jain (“DJ”) (he/him; University of Washington) shared his own multiple marginalized identities (37:10) to amplify a comment from an anonymous poster on Sli.do: “What resources are available to authors who speak English as a 2nd language? Volunteers to proof-read or a shepherding process? How can this be more equitable?” In response, DJ shared that, as a person who is hard of hearing, a person with a disability, a person from India, and a person of color, whose second language is English, reviewing can be inaccessible. He believes there should be support for ESL (English as a Second Language) authors to receive language and writing shepherding. He also notes that ASSETS, the premiere conference on Accessibility in the ACM, has a paper mentoring program that provides a model for how SIGCHI can provide better support.
Nic Bidwell (she/her; International University of Management, Namibia) shared a comment in the chat, which built on the thread of conversation about language barriers initiated by Christian and Katta, and continued by DJ:
An ongoing discussion from the start of AfriCHI in 2016 is how written media excludes a wide range of knowledge practices, to the detriment of the discipline. While our discipline does embrace various modes of communication, we still promote a ‘deficit approach’ to people whose literacies are not written ones. I suspect we have an opportunity in HCI, perhaps more than any discipline, to liberate academic paradigms that constrain how knowledge can be expressed.
Nic’s comment begs us to ponder a SIGCHI where demoes, pictorials, interactive experiences, oral histories, sign languages, non-English written languages, and many other forms of knowledge sharing are considered robust, translatable, archival scientific contributions.
Referring back to Lizbeth’s call for educational outreach in México, André raised two key challenges for global accessibility and education (44:45):
- wide disparities exist in accessibility education for people with disabilities in developing countries. As someone who is has worked in both developed and developing countries, and who is currently laboring to enhance inclusion policies at universities in Brazil, André is aware of the disproportionate barriers that face disabled students in developing countries. André cited the example of the historically prohibitive cost of fully-featured screen readers (e.g., JAWS) for Brazilians who are blind. Although open-source solutions like NVDA are starting to close the gap, many blind Brazilians never learned how to use features like navigation by heading. These navigation skills are essential for completing any higher degree, not to mention the intensive reading, authoring, and reviewing of academic articles at the graduate level.
- global conferences hosted as “in-cooperation” with SIGCHI exclude many ESL students, particularly students with disabilities. André pointed out that these national and regional conferences play a big role in including people, and they may be the first opportunity for students with disabilities from around the globe to attend an HCI conference. Yet, “in many cases, say students who had unfortunately, a very poor education would not be able to attend the conference in which the official language is English.” Moreover, André looked at several such conferences––the German HCI conference, the French HCI conference, the Italian HCI conference, the Indian HCI conference––and he currently sits on the committee for this year’s Brazilian HCI conference, yet he consistently does not see the presence of an accessibility chair or accessibility education for those events.
Notably, André calls for our community to expand our focus to include our global in-cooperation conferences as we seek higher standards of accessibility:
Even though CHI has had a lot of challenges––and I do acknowledge that––but if you compare to the situation in many other countries, they are much behind. So I think sharing those practices, working more closely with those conferences, would be a big addition. (48:22)
Perhaps a way to address many of these equity disparities and global intersections with accessibility is to consider advice shared by Manohar Swaminathan (he/him; MSR India). Early in our conversation, he drew our attention to the “huge community of people working in the global south that are working with disabled people and they may not even know that there is a CHI community” (23:10). He went on to acknowledge that, while CHI publications are the currency for academic career progression in many Western contexts, this is not necessarily true more globally where scholars may be driven by different motivations. He urged us to reach out to and engage global experts on accessibility, particularly citing conference workshops (e.g., this workshop on Disability Design and Innovation in Low-Resource Settings: Addressing Inequity in HCI at CHI 2021) as one potential venue.
Accessibility is a Benefit to All, a Responsibility of All
As this summary of Equity Talk #2 comes to a close, we would like to revisit two themes that ran throughout our discussion: that accessibility improves the experience of disabled and non-disabled people alike, and we all have a role to play in creating access for our community. From stage ramps, to lower conference fees, to inclusive language practices, to live captioning and video recording––we see how our SIGCHI community members are bound by often invisible access needs. As we collectively explore the question, in Jen’s words, “what can we imagine in the future we can do best?,” participants in our dialogue urged us not to revert to simplistic models that pit “us” against “them.”
Cynthia observed that justice and human rights needs are often considered in terms of “tradeoffs” (33:17). For example, when organizing conference venues and dates, we might think “this year, let’s attend to religion,” and “this [next] year, let’s attend to geographical region.” She continued:
It’s quite frustrating when accessibility and religious observances and racial justice are pitted as ‘we can take turns.’ No, we actually need to be thinking of things together. (34:10)
In the chat, Jen enthusiastically agreed, sharing that she had “been told that we can only afford accessibility if we reduce scholarships for African students before. Such a wrong way to frame things.” Ramsay concurred: “its often phrased as though someone else needs to be stepped over to raise someone else up.” On a hopeful note, Stacy responded that “at our last SIGCHI EC meeting, we raised the budget for accessibility, without the budget for equity or global development being reduced. So, it can be done, and we need to keep pushing against that narrative.”
As the Equity Talks series lead, Neha, intimated from the start, this conversation is one of many past and many future that the SIGCHI EC hopes will build community understanding and capacity to act. In the spirit of convening volunteers to build a more accessible SIGCHI, Jen welcomed new members to her advocacy group, Access SIGCHI; Stacy and Soraia also welcome accessibility inquiries and volunteers via contacting sigchi-access@acm.org. In the spirit of continuing the dialogue and accountability checks, Cale concluded the session by inviting participants to move to an asynchronous discussion medium, our new SIGCHI Equity Talks Discord server, where all SIGCHI members (paid or not) who care about equity are encouraged to participate. If you could not attend the Equity Talks but would like to join Discord, please simply contact the Discord admins at sigchi-4all@acm.org.
