Making and Accessibility: A Systematic Literature Review on the Multilayered Dimensions of Accessible Making
Saquib Sarwar, David Wilson · 2025 · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3726530
Summary
This systematic literature review examines the intersection of making/fabrication and accessibility through analysis of 113 papers published at ACM conferences between 2010 and 2023. The authors investigate three research questions: which disability communities are represented, how accessibility issues in maker tools are addressed, and how people with disabilities are involved in developing accessible solutions. The review reveals significant growth in accessibility-making research, with publication rates increasing substantially from 2018 onward. However, research heavily favors the blind and visually impaired (BVI) community, which accounts for 53.1% of all papers. Motor/physical impairments (14.2%) and autism (7.1%) follow, while other disability communities—including deaf/hard of hearing, intellectual disabilities, and communication disabilities—remain underrepresented. The paper categorizes research into two main areas: Accessible Interventions for Making (tools that make the fabrication process itself accessible) and DIY Assistive Technologies (assistive devices created through maker tools). DIY-ATs span diverse categories including navigation aids, entertainment devices, communication tools, prosthetics, interfaces, educational materials, and social inclusion supports. The authors examine organizations like E-Nable, Makers Making Change, and AT Makers that enable volunteer creation of assistive technologies.
Key findings
Research on making and accessibility shows exponential growth, with 59 papers (52%) published between 2018-2023 compared to 54 papers in 2010-2017. CHI and ASSETS conferences dominate the publication landscape. The BVI community receives disproportionate research attention (53.1%), creating significant gaps for other disability communities. People with cognitive disabilities, chronic illness, invisible impairments, and mental health conditions are notably absent from this research. Collaborative design methodologies have gained prominence—co-design increased from 5 instances (2010-2017) to 29 (2018-2023), while participatory design rose from 5 to 10 instances. However, most accessible maker interventions remain in laboratory settings without technology transfer to commercial products. The authors propose a three-step DIY-AT development process: Initial Design (finding existing solutions or developing with volunteer makers), Personalization (incorporating individual preferences with expert input), and Post-processing (iterative refinement by users or AT makers). This framework emphasizes making "with people with disabilities" rather than "for people with disabilities."
Relevance
This review provides essential context for practitioners interested in maker technologies and DIY assistive technology development. The finding that BVI communities dominate research while other disability groups remain understudied highlights an urgent need for broader inclusion in accessibility-making research. For accessibility professionals, the proposed three-step DIY-AT development framework offers a practical model for involving people with disabilities throughout the design process. The emphasis on personalization—with input from occupational therapists and AT experts—addresses a common limitation of one-size-fits-all assistive solutions. The review also identifies critical infrastructure gaps: online AT repositories often lack instructions or user testing, accessible maker tools rarely transition from research to commercial availability, and collaboration between disabled makers and volunteer organizations needs better support platforms. Organizations planning maker programs or developing DIY-AT initiatives should consider these systemic challenges alongside the technical accessibility of individual tools.
Tags: systematic literature review · making · fabrication · DIY assistive technology · makerspaces · 3D printing · co-design · participatory design · blind and visually impaired · tactile interfaces