People who are blind face accessibility and usability barriers every time a digital image author omits or creates uninformative alternative or “alt” text. Often, content creators are simply unaware of screen reader users’ experience and accessibility best practices; there is also a lack of research knowledge about how to design accessible image-dense media, like pictorials. We present (1) a content analysis of 149 pictorials, (2) a thematic analysis of three think-aloud sessions with an expert screen reader user, and (3) practical lessons learned from a co-design workshop with three blind scholars. Our research finds that pictorials are increasingly accessible, but they are still far from providing a usable experience. We identify nine “malicious” alt text patterns that riddle pictorials and three novel accessible alt text patterns to guide authors of image-dense media.

Variable font file technology enables adjusting fonts on scaled axes that can include weight, and grade. While making text bold increases the character width, grade achieves boldness without increasing character width or causing text reflow. Through two studies with a total of 459 participants, we examined the effect of varying grade levels on both glancing and paragraph reading tasks in light and dark modes. We show that dark text on a light background (Light Mode) is read reliably faster than its polar opposite (Dark Mode). We found an effect of mode for both glance and paragraph reading and an effect of grade for LM with heavier, increased grade levels. Paragraph readers are not choosing, or preferring, LM over DM despite fluency benefits and reported visual clarity. Software designers can vary grade across the tested font formats to influence design aesthetics and user preferences without worrying about reducing reading fluency.

Image accessibility is an established research area in Accessible Computing and a key area of digital accessibility for blind and low vision (BLV) people worldwide. Recent work has delved deeper into the question of how image descriptions should properly reflect the complexities of marginalized identity. However, when real subjects are not available to consult on their preferred identity terminology, as is the case with fictional representations of disability, the issue arises again of how to create accurate and sensitive image descriptions. We worked with 25 participants to assess and iteratively co-design image descriptions for nine fictional representations of people with disabilities. Through nine focus groups and nineteen interviews, we discovered five key themes which we present here along with an analysis of the layers of interpretation at work in the production and consumption of image descriptions for fictional representations.

Multi-device product designers need tools to better address ecologically valid constraints in naturalistic settings early in their design process. To address this need, we created a reusable design kit of scenarios, "hint" cards, and a framework that codifies insights from prior work and our own field study. We named the kit the Moving Context Kit, or McKit for short, because it helps designers focus on context shifts that we found to be highly influential in everyday multi-device use. Specifically, we distilled the following findings from our field study in the McKit: (1) devices are typically specialized into one of six roles during parallel use notifier, broadcaster, collector, gamer, remote, and hub, and (2) device roles are influenced by context shifts between private and shared situations. Through a workshop, we validated that the McKit enables designers to engage with complex user needs, situations, and relationships when incorporating novel multi-device techniques into the products they envision.

Support for coordination in online spaces, specifically in peer production systems, has frequently been an after-thought. In the absence of such support, the users of such systems must work to find an emergent order that drives shared project goals and leads to equitable processes. In short, they must rely on the "wisdom of the crowds." As our study demonstrates, however, the reality is that often the system tools available for coordination, evaluation, and work articulation are not suitable to the task at hand. Our study, first, takes a theoretical approach to understanding how tool-mediated coordination functions within peer production systems. Secondly, we enumerate the methods available to identify automated and semi-automated tools that function within such systems by quantitatively and qualitatively analyzing trace interactions and their utility in Wikipedia over a year-long period. Finally, we identify potential vacuums where new design interventions have the greatest potential for enhancing peer-production systems.

We report a study of Wikipedia in which we use a mixed-methods approach to understand how participation in specialized workgroups called WikiProjects has changed over the life of the encyclopedia. While previous work has analyzed the work of WikiProjects in supporting the development of articles within particular subject domains, the collaborative role of WikiProjects that do not fit this conventional mold has not been empirically examined. We combine content analysis, interviews and analysis of edit logs to identify and characterize these alternative WikiProjects and the work they do. Our findings suggest that WikiProject participation reflects community concerns and shifts in the community's conception of valued work over the past six years. We discuss implications for other open collaborations that need flexible, adaptable coordination mechanisms to support a range of content creation, curation and community maintenance tasks.

In online groups, increasing explicit coordination can increase group cohesion and member productivity. On Wikipedia, groups called WikiProjects employ a variety of explicit coordination mechanisms to motivate and structure member contribution, with the goal of creating and improving articles related to particular topics. However, while explicit coordination works well for coordinating article-level actions, coordinating group tasks and tracking progress towards group goals that involve tracking hundreds or thousands of articles over time requires different coordination strategies.

WikiProjects have contributed to Wikipedia's success in important ways, yet the range of work that WikiProjects perform and the way they coordinate that work remains largely unexplored. In this study, we perform a content analysis of 788 work-related discussions from the talk pages of 138 WikiProjects in order to understand the role WikiProjects play in collaborative work on Wikipedia. We find that the editors use WikiProjects to coordinate a wide variety of work activities beyond content production and that non-members play an active role in that work. Our research suggests that WikiProject collaboration is less structured and more open than that of many virtual teams and that WikiProjects may function more like FLOSS projects than traditional groups.