Co-Designing Accessible Computer and Smartphone Input Using Physical Computing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant obstacles persist in meeting the accessibility needs of computer and smartphone users with mild-to-moderate upper limb motor impairments as they use their devices at work and home. Multimodal input can help, but has not been widely adopted. We build on existing literature with a discovery survey and semistructured follow-up interviews in which we identify common themes related to the limitations of today’s solutions and the ad hoc workarounds which are adopted. We ran a series of co-design workshop sessions to understand the potential of modern “physical computing” electronic device prototyping technologies to provide new and effective input options for our target user base. We present the resulting prototype solutions and describe the technology choices made. Finally, we discuss how the co-design process, in conjunction with access to suitable physical prototyping technologies, can be a powerful approach for designing accessibility-focused input systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it