As generative AI (GenAI) is integrated into everyday technologies, it offers new accessibility opportunities and risks for disabled people. However, little is known about how disabled people navigate GenAI in their everyday lives, particularly how trust, privacy, and intersectional identities affect these experiences. We present findings from seven cross-disability focus groups (N=20) that explore how disabled people navigate GenAI. Our findings reveal that while GenAI supports autonomy, efficiency, and communication, it also introduces accessibility taxes and ethical dilemmas. Although participants voiced skepticism, many continued using GenAI out of necessity. Finally, we found identity-based benefits and tensions, in which GenAI preserved and validated intersecting identities, but also misrepresented and erased those identities. We frame these negotiations as a constant balancing act between access and risk, urging research to further examine how "access" is conceptualized. We offer implications for creating GenAI tools that are transparent, trustworthy, and responsive to intersectional identities.

Accessibility research has a broad mandate: use technology to make the world more accessible to disabled people. Yet, as a field, accessibility research lacks a clear characterization of what "accessibility" is. Furthermore, it has been historically limited in who is designed for, focusing on specific types of disability and often failing to consider how disability intersects with other identities. We set out to explicate what it means to make something accessible, grounded in the lived experiences of a diverse group of 25 disabled people. From our empirical findings, we develop a process for modeling accessibility. First, an individual assesses their experience of inaccess, specifically, the type of barrier they face, the technology repertoire they possess, and the contextual factors that shape how they address accessibility barriers. Then, having assessed an access barrier, they perform consequence calculus, weighing all available options to achieve access and deciding upon the option that best matches their priorities. We highlight the situated nature of access; people's identities, contextual factors, repertoires, and priorities all dictate their experience of accessibility.

Generative AI (AI) has become ubiquitous in both daily and professional life, with emerging research demonstrating its potential as a tool for accessibility. Neurodivergent people, often left out by existing accessibility technologies, develop their own ways of navigating normative expectations. GAI offers new opportunities for access, but it is important to understand how neurodivergent "power users"-successful early adopters-engage with it and the challenges they face. Further, we must understand how marginalization and intersectional identities influence their interactions with GAI. Our autoethnography, enhanced by privacy-preserving GAI-based diaries and interviews, reveals the intricacies of using GAI to navigate normative environments and expectations. Our findings demonstrate how GAI can both support and complicate tasks like code-switching, emotional regulation, and accessing information. We show that GAI can help neurodivergent users to reclaim their agency in systems that diminish their autonomy and self-determination. However, challenges such as balancing authentic self-expression with societal conformity, alongside other risks, create barriers to realizing GAI's full potential for accessibility.

Deceptive design patterns manipulate people into actions to which they would otherwise object. Despite growing research on deceptive design patterns, limited research examines their interplay with accessibility and visual accessibility technology (e.g., screen readers, screen magnification, braille displays). We present an interview and diary study with 16 people who use visual accessibility technology to better understand experiences with accessibility and deceptive design. We report participant experiences with six deceptive design patterns, including designs that are intentionally deceptive and designs where participants describe accessibility barriers unintentionally manifesting as deceptive, together with direct and indirect consequences of deceptive patterns. We discuss intent versus impact in accessibility and deceptive design, how access barriers exacerbate harms of deceptive design patterns, and impacts of deceptive design from a perspective of consequence-based accessibility. We propose that accessibility tools could help address deceptive design patterns by offering higher-level feedback to well-intentioned designers.

Examinations of intersectionality and identity dimensions in accessibility research have primarily considered disability separately from a person’s race and ethnicity. Accessibility work often does not include considerations of race as a construct, or treats race as a shallow demographic variable, if race is mentioned at all. The lack of attention to race as a construct in accessibility research presents an oversight in our field, often systematically eliminating whole areas of need and vital perspectives from the work we do. Further, there has been little focus on the intersection of race and disability within accessibility research, and the relevance of their interplay. When research in race or disability does not mention the other, this work overlooks the potential to better understand the full nuance of marginalized and “otherized” groups. To address this gap, we present a series of case studies exploring the potential for research that lies at the intersection of race and disability. We provide examples of how to integrate racial equity perspectives into accessibility research, through positive examples found in these case studies and reflect on teaching at the intersection of race, disability, and technology. This paper highlights the value of considering how constructs of race and disability work alongside each other within accessibility research studies, designs of socio-technical systems, and education. Our analysis provides recommendations towards establishing this research direction.