I tried everything. Nothing works: Challenges and Creative Processes from Digital Artists with Upper Limb Motor Impairments
Rodolfo Cossovich, Shanel Wu, Audrey Girouard · 2024 · ASSETS 2024: 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3663548.3675654
Summary
This study investigates the complex relationship between accessibility challenges and creative processes for digital artists with upper limb motor impairments. Through 15 semi-structured interviews with artists who regularly use graphic input devices (mice, digital pads, trackballs, touchscreens, and custom assistive devices) to produce digital art at least three hours per week, the researchers conducted behavioral observations alongside in-depth conversations. Participants ranged from ages 22 to 55, from North America and China, with conditions including cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury, stroke, chronic pain, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, multiple sclerosis, muscle weakness, and arthrogryposis. Thematic analysis yielded 42 codes grouped into eight subthemes across three main themes: challenges in artistic production (managing pain, discomfort, and injuries; workarounds; unhelpful or unavailable solutions), managing perceptions (internal and external perceptions of being both an artist and disabled), and the impact on creative processes (disrupted inspiration and flow, artistic ownership tensions, and the relationship between frustration and motivation). The study reveals how artists develop elaborate workarounds—from painting pixel by pixel with a mouse after a stroke, to placing a mouse on top of a laptop keyboard to simultaneously press keys and move the pointer, to using knuckles on a touchscreen—each adding time and complexity while reshaping creative practice.
Key findings
Nine of 15 participants reported that accessibility challenges diminished their motivation to produce artwork, with frustrating experiences disrupting the creative flow essential to artistic practice. Artists faced a painful tension around artistic ownership: using templates and automated tools helped overcome physical limitations but made them feel less like the "real author" of their work, with the tool itself becoming an implicit metric of artistic value. Seven participants had tried multiple assistive solutions but found few helpful, with cost being a major barrier—participants described expensive software becoming subscription-based and specialized devices being prohibitively priced. Seven participants did not know their computer had accessibility features, highlighting a critical discoverability gap. The study identified an "expectations mismatch" where artists who knew what technology they needed—often describing straightforward solutions—could not find commercial products that matched. Participants minimized their use of visible assistive technology to avoid attracting attention, with some avoiding voice control or head pointers in shared spaces due to social stigma. The financial burden of being a disabled digital artist was a recurring theme, with equipment, software, and specialized devices creating barriers to entering the professional art world. Artists envisioned AI-powered tools that could assist with specific tasks while preserving creative agency—correction suggestions they could accept or reject rather than automatic changes.
Relevance
This research fills an important gap by examining not just the usability of input devices but how accessibility challenges fundamentally reshape creative processes, artistic identity, and motivation. For designers of creative software, the findings point to concrete improvements: customizable pressure sensitivity curves, simplified menu navigation, toggle-based drag functions, discoverability of existing accessibility features, and AI assistance that preserves artistic ownership. The tension between automation and agency is particularly relevant as AI art tools proliferate—disabled artists want tools that augment rather than replace their creative decisions. The study challenges accessibility researchers to consider creative workflows holistically rather than optimizing individual interactions, and to address the economic barriers that compound physical ones. The cross-cultural sample (North America and China) adds breadth, though limitations include remote interviews via Zoom, self-reported data, and detection of two potentially fraudulent participants whose data was retained to avoid excluding vulnerable populations.
Tags: motor impairment · digital art · creative processes · graphic input devices · disability art · assistive technology · upper limb impairment · artistic ownership