Self-Conscious or Self-Confident? A Diary Study Conceptualizing the Social Accessibility of Assistive Technology
Kristen Shinohara, Jacob O. Wobbrock · 2016 · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS) · doi:10.1145/2827857
Summary
This landmark study introduces the concept of "social accessibility" as a complement to functional accessibility in assistive technology design. The authors argue that ATs have traditionally been defined purely in functional terms—the Technical Assistance to the States Act defines them as technologies that "increase, maintain or improve functional capabilities"—while ignoring how AT use in social and public spaces affects users' self-perception and how others perceive them. The researchers conducted a 4-week diary study with two groups: 14 participants with sensory disabilities (blind, low vision, deaf, hard of hearing) who wrote 69 diary entries about feeling self-conscious or self-confident when using AT, and 11 participants without disabilities who recorded 47 entries about their reactions to seeing AT used in public. Follow-up interviews clarified themes and experiences. Using Goffman's theory of social encounters and Hall's proxemics framework, the researchers analyzed interactions across intimate, personal, social, and public spaces. They found that both functional breakdowns (technology failing) and social breakdowns (technology drawing unwanted attention) negatively impact AT users, while successful AT use—particularly with mainstream devices like iPhones with VoiceOver—promotes feelings of competence and social inclusion.
Key findings
The study revealed five key findings: (1) Technology breakdowns are both functional AND social, and both negatively affect social interactions. (2) The opposite of breakdown—successful technology use—manifests as self-efficacy and self-confidence, leading to positive social interactions. (3) Both groups exhibited "socially recursive inference": disabled participants were influenced by what they thought non-disabled people thought, while non-disabled participants were guided by what they thought disabled people thought. (4) Functional and social design considerations can affect social participation. (5) AT is noticed and contributes to misperceptions of people with disabilities. Participants with disabilities reported that mainstream technologies with built-in accessibility (e.g., MacBook with VoiceOver, iPhone) allowed them to feel "just like everyone else"—using the same device as peers shifted conversations away from disability toward shared technology interests. One blind participant noted that conversations "centered on the mainstream computer, nothing more, nothing less." Conversely, functional breakdowns had profound social implications. Participants described feeling responsible for AT failures even when beyond their control, worrying that malfunctioning technology reflected poorly on their professional competence. Non-disabled observers often felt self-conscious about whether to offer help, fearing they might offend. Social breakdowns occurred even when AT functioned correctly: a participant's cochlear implant worked perfectly, yet seeing it caused a waiter to treat her differently—speaking slowly and loudly despite her ability to hear normally. The visible form factor alone "outed" her disability in ways she didn't want.
Relevance
This research fundamentally challenges the accessibility field's exclusive focus on functional capability. The concept of "sociotechnical identity"—how AT becomes a vehicle conveying both ability and social identity—has profound implications for AT design, procurement, and abandonment research. For practitioners, the key insight is that AT form factor matters as much as function. Designs that visually mark users as "disabled" may be abandoned not because they don't work, but because they conflict with users' desired self-presentation. The preference for mainstream devices with accessibility features over purpose-built AT suggests that universal design and built-in accessibility features have social benefits beyond mere availability. The paper introduces Design for Social Accessibility (DSA) as a reflective design stance with key questions: How can AT designs reinforce notions of ability and self-confidence rather than limitation? How can form factor translate into a confident sense of self? What are the implications of adding disability constraints early versus late in design? For organizations selecting AT, this research suggests evaluating social acceptability alongside functional capability. A device that works perfectly but marks users as "different" may see lower adoption than a mainstream device with modest accessibility features that allows users to participate as equals.
Tags: assistive technology · social accessibility · AT abandonment · stigma · disability identity · inclusive design · user research · diary study · self-efficacy · design methodology