Writing Centers and Students with Disabilities: The User-centered Approach, Participatory Design, and Empirical Research as Collaborative Methodologies

Brizee, Allen; Sousa, Morgan; Driscoll, Dana Lynn

doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2012.10.003

Cited by 18 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[and] design OWL while using JAWS [screen reader]." 15 Naturally, there is wide variation in level of experience and expertise with screen readers among blind users for various reasons. Blind users may have become blind later in life and so did not learn to use a screen reader in school, older people graduated before screen readers became common, and students come from countries where they do not readily have access to technology.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“There is Nothing Inherently Mysterious about Assistive Technology” A Qualitative Study about Blind User Experiences in US Academic Libraries

Mulliken¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eighteen academic library users who are blind were interviewed about their experiences with academic libraries and the libraries’ websites using an open-ended questionnaire and recorded telephone interviews. The study approaches these topics from a user-centered perspective, with the idea that blind users themselves can provide particularly reliable insights into the issues and potential solutions that are most critical to them. Most participants used reference librarians’ assistance, and most had positive experiences. High-level screen reader users requested help with specific needs. A larger number of participants reported contacting a librarian because of feeling overwhelmed by the library website. In some cases, blind users and librarians worked verbally without the screen reader. Users were appreciative of librarians’ help but outcomes were not entirely positive. Other times, librarians worked with users to navigate with a screen reader, which sometimes led to greater independence. Some users expressed satisfaction with working with librarians verbally, particularly if websites did not seem screen reader user friendly, but many users preferred independence. Participants agreed it would be helpful if librarians knew how to use screen readers, or at least if librarians were familiar enough with screen readers to provide relevant verbal cues. Many users liked and used chat reference and many preferred Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL) to learn citation style, though learning citation style was challenging. Questions such as reference librarians’ role when e-resources are not equally accessible deserve wider discussion in the library literature and in practice. Given the challenges described by the research participants and legal requirements for equally effective electronic and information technologies, libraries and librarians should approach reference services for blind users more proactively. Recommendations are provided. This paper was originally published in Reference and User Services Quarterly at https://journals.ala.org/index.php/rusq/article/view/6528

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“There is Nothing Inherently Mysterious about Assistive Technology” A Qualitative Study about Blind User Experiences in US Academic Libraries

Mulliken¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…-Addressing real-life problems related to writing (e.g., Olson 1987 for an early approach; Brizee, Sousa, and Driscoll 2012;K. Sullivan and Lindgren 2006;Thompson 2009).…”

Section: Outcome: Explaining Writing and Text Production Ex Post And mentioning

confidence: 99%

5 Methodology: From speaking about writing to tracking text production

Grésillon¹,

Perrin²

2014

Handbook of Writing and Text Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Doing writing research from an applied linguistics perspective means investigating individual, collaborative, and organizational writing and text production as language-based activities in complex and dynamic real-life contexts. In doing so, micro and macro levels, product and process perspectives, as well as theoretical and practical questions are combined in transdisciplinary approaches. Appropriate methods have to be deliberately chosen and transparently explained across disciplinary boundaries. Methodological questions need to be clarified, such as: which method fits which problem -and how should and can various methods complement each other?In this chapter, we start from two methodologically complementary ways of doing research into real-life writing processes (Part 1). These approaches illustrate why collecting data represents a key problem in the history of writing research (2). We then outline a typology of state-of-the-art methods in writing research (3) and explain challenges of combining perspectives and methods in research projects (4). This allows us to evaluate what sophisticated methodology in writing research can contribute to applied linguistics (5) and to conclude by sketching a related research roadmap (6). In the reference section, we focus on work combining approaches from writing research and applied linguistics in methodologically innovative ways (7).

show abstract

“…More often, technical communicators have embraced "universal" rather than "open" as a descriptor for their accessibility initiatives. For instance, universal design has been utilized to study accessible pedagogy [11,12], accessible web design [13], and accessible writing in general [14]. Unlike the open science and open access movements that are primarily concerned with advancing research and scholarship through collaboration, universal design within technical communication directs itself towards providing necessary information to those with disabilities.…”

Section: Open Versus Universal: Two Trends In Accessibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Infrastructures of Accessibility

Roberts

2020

Proceedings of the 38th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infrastructure is a crucial consideration for creating code that can be reused and repurposed. Infrastructures of data are highly rhetorical, because they structure how others interact with information and reflect hierarchies of information, people, and things. Those creating open source and open science projects, in particular, must consider how they structure their data according to principles of accessibility, reusability, and replicability. Failure to consider the design of publicly available code and insufficient user documentation lead to issues with transparency, learnability, and usability within open source science projects.This paper explores the decision-making processes of two open science researchers as they design their data according to the principles of open science. Using interviews and document analysis, I analyze the rhetorical coding choices of researchers and how these choices encourage or discourage accessibility for different audiences. Ultimately, I examine what accessibility means for these researchers working under the umbrella of open science.

show abstract

Writing Centers and Students with Disabilities: The User-centered Approach, Participatory Design, and Empirical Research as Collaborative Methodologies

Cited by 18 publications

References 8 publications

“There is Nothing Inherently Mysterious about Assistive Technology” A Qualitative Study about Blind User Experiences in US Academic Libraries

“There is Nothing Inherently Mysterious about Assistive Technology” A Qualitative Study about Blind User Experiences in US Academic Libraries

5 Methodology: From speaking about writing to tracking text production

Infrastructures of Accessibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About