Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

A mixed-ability research team argues that explicit, locally developed AI practice recommendations can preserve agency and disability identity while enabling generative AI adoption.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 04:13 UTC pith:LPVK5Y2N

load-bearing objection A useful, honest experience report on AI norms in a mixed-ability lab; the recommendations are practical, but the evidence base is a single self-interviewed team and the paper should not overstate transferability. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22886 v1 pith:LPVK5Y2N submitted 2026-07-24 cs.HC

Reflections and Recommendations on AI Adoption Practice from a Mixed-Ability Research Group

Shalini Madan , Sreelakshmi Surabiyil Bindu , Veronica Pimenova , Ellie Seehorn , Venkatesh Potluri This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords generative AImixed-ability teamsdisabilityaccessible researchAI adoptionAI practice recommendationsqualitative analysiscrip time
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper tries to establish that a mixed-ability research team can develop workable, values-preserving norms for generative AI use by systematically reflecting on its own practice. Through semi-structured interviews among five team members and thematic analysis, it identifies five recurring concerns: managing disability tax and crip time, identity homogenization, privacy and disclosure of disability information, self-experimentation, and information seeking. From these themes the authors derive ten concrete recommendations for mixed-ability labs, covering task selection, core competencies, privacy norms, experimentation budgets, verification, and time-blocking to avoid burnout. The intent is to offer a transferable template for other labs to develop their own AI-use norms, not a universal policy.

Core claim

The central claim is that the benefits and harms of generative AI in a mixed-ability research team can be balanced through a small set of explicit practice recommendations grounded in the team's own experience. The paper's qualitative analysis surfaced five themes: AI helps manage 'disability tax' and crip time; AI use can homogenize identity and undermine disability identity; AI risks disclosing private disability information; self-experimentation with AI builds useful skills; and AI is acceptable for low-risk information seeking when users have verification skills. From these themes the authors propose ten recommendations (R1–R10), including using AI for busy work, avoiding AI for identity

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the team's own qualitative process: semi-structured interviews conducted pairwise among five team members, followed by memoing and iterative thematic analysis, resulting in five themes and ten recommendations. The central object is the recommendation set itself, grounded in the theme that 'friction is an adopted practice' — the deliberate insertion of barriers to AI use to preserve agency, identity, and cognitive skill. The recommendations operationalize this theme by specifying when to use AI, when to refuse it, and how to structure organizational supports like budgets and time limits.

Load-bearing premise

The entire empirical base is the self-report of five members of one lab who interviewed and analyzed each other, so if their experiences are unrepresentative of other mixed-ability teams, the recommendations will not transfer.

What would settle it

Conduct the same interview protocol with a larger, independent sample of mixed-ability research teams; if the five themes fail to recur, or if teams that follow R1–R10 report no better agency/identity preservation than controls, the central claim is not supported.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the recommendations work as described, other mixed-ability labs could adopt a similar human-centered process to set their own AI-use norms, rather than relying on organization-wide mandates.
  • The distinction between skill-building and task completion (R3) gives lab leaders a concrete way to decide when AI assistance is appropriate and when it undermines training.
  • The privacy-related recommendations (R4–R6) imply that teams need explicit, ongoing consent norms about disability disclosure when using shared AI accounts.
  • The budgeting recommendation (R8) suggests that low-stakes, no-approval funding for AI experimentation can reduce burnout by separating play from production.
  • The time-blocking recommendation (R10) responds to documented 'brain fry' and workload intensification, implying that AI adoption policies should include limits on duration and cognitive effort.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the self-reflection process is the active ingredient, then the specific ten items are less important than the practice of periodic, collective reflection; labs might benefit more from institutionalizing such reflection than from copying the list.
  • The recommendations imply a testable hypothesis: teams that adopt explicit friction and core-competency rules will report lower AI-related burnout and stronger disability identity preservation than teams that do not.
  • The paper's own limitation — five people in one lab — suggests a natural extension: a multi-lab comparison study to see which themes generalize across different disability mixes, fields, and institutional contexts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is an experience report from a five-member mixed-ability accessibility research lab at a US R1 university. The authors describe a qualitative, self-study process involving semi-structured interviews (claimed n=5), memos, and group reflection, and they derive five themes—managing disability tax and crip time, identity homogenization, privacy/disclosure of disability information, self-experimentation, and information seeking—from which they formulate ten AI practice recommendations (R1–R10) for their lab. The paper explicitly scopes the recommendations to the lab and frames the contribution as a template process that might guide other mixed-ability labs, but it also extends this in the Discussion toward organizational-level adoption.

Significance. If taken as a scoped experience report, this is a useful contribution to the ASSETS community. It offers concrete, context-rich recommendations that address disability-specific concerns—such as disability tax, disclosure norms, and identity preservation—that are largely absent from generic AI-adoption guidelines. The paper is transparent about its non-generalizability and presents a human-centered process (interviews, memos, collective theme refinement) that other labs could adapt. The verbatim quotes and positionality statement add valuable empirical texture. However, the paper's evidentiary base is a single group of five people, and its own stated limitations are in tension with some broader claims in the Discussion. The value is primarily illustrative, not confirmatory.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and §2.3] The abstract and §1 state the empirical base is 'interviews of the five members' / 'five semi-structured interviews with team members.' Yet §2.3 says 'Each team member interviewed one other member, and Jay did not act as an interviewer.' With five members and four interviewers, at most four interview sessions occur, and at least one member is never a sole interviewee. This is an internal inconsistency in the reported sample size, which is load-bearing because the recommendations derive from this dataset. Please clarify the exact number of interviews, the interviewer–interviewee mapping, and whether all five members participated as interviewees.
  2. [§2.2 Personas] Section 2.2 introduces three personas (Taylor, Evan, Jay) said to represent 'the diverse abilities and experiences of each author,' but the paper lists five authors. The paper never explains how the other two authors' data are represented. If some team members did not contribute interview data, claims such as 'all team members collectively refuse' (§3.2) or 'we observe that all team members were skeptical' (§3.3) lack support. If all five contributed, the persona mapping is incomplete and the reader cannot trace quotes to participants. Please clarify the persona construction and coverage.
  3. [§4 Discussion vs. §2.3 limitation] Section 2.3 explicitly acknowledges that 'the guidelines we propose are specific to our research lab and may not be generalizable.' Section 4, however, states that 'our guidelines show potential towards organizational-level adoption' and 'can serve as an example for meaningful adoption across similar mixed-ability labs.' These statements are in tension. If the contribution is a scoped example, the Discussion should avoid generalizing language without external validation; if the authors intend transferability, they need to argue from evidence beyond a single group of five. Please revise the framing to be consistent with the stated limitations.
  4. [§3.4, R7] R7 recommends 'allocating 10% of your time to areas where AI could be helpful.' The specific 10% figure is presented as a recommendation for other teams, but no rationale, calibration, or source is given. As a lab-internal practice it is understandable to report it; as a general recommendation it appears as an arbitrary free parameter. Please state the basis for the figure, or weaken it to 'consider setting aside a fixed portion of time' without committing to a particular percentage.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.3] The text says 'when Taylor commented' in the informal ideation anecdote. Taylor is a persona, not a named team member. Use 'one member' or an author alias to avoid confusing the reader about who made the remark.
  2. [§2.3, last paragraph] Grammar: 'Our human-centered process ... holds a broader potential for other mixed-ability collaboration groups' should be 'has broader potential' or 'may hold broader potential.'
  3. [References [48]] Reference [48] contains '23 3 2026' in the date field, which appears to be a typo (likely '23 March 2026' or a day-month order error).
  4. [§2.3] The paper does not mention whether institutional ethics review was sought or deemed unnecessary. For a self-study of research-team members this may be acceptable, but a brief statement would help readers assess the ethical grounding.
  5. [§3.1] The term 'crip time' is used without definition. Since the audience may include readers outside disability studies, a one-sentence explanation or citation would improve accessibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper is an explicitly scoped experience report whose recommendations are derived from, and limited to, the authors' own lab reflections; no fitted input is relabeled as an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper does not claim a predictive or first-principles derivation. Its central contribution is a set of AI practice recommendations (R1–R10) established for the authors' own mixed-ability lab, produced by qualitative thematic analysis of their own semi-structured interviews and reflections. Section 2.3 transparently describes the process: 'Each team member interviewed one other member,' 'the group held two meetings and reflected between discussions,' and 'all authors refined these themes and developed a set of AI practice recommendations through multiple rounds of discussion.' The recommendations are therefore explicitly defined as lab-specific guidelines, not as independent predictions tested against external data. The paper even states the limiting scope: 'We recognize that the guidelines we propose are specific to our research lab and may not be generalizable to all research groups.' Self-citations in the paper (e.g., refs [19], [26], [27], [43], [55]) appear in related work or as supporting context for general accessibility claims; none is the sole load-bearing justification for a central conclusion. The only notable issue is an internal inconsistency about the number of interviews: the abstract says 'five semi-structured interviews' while Section 2.3 says 'Each team member interviewed one other member, and Jay did not act as an interviewer,' which could imply at most four interviews. This is a data-reporting and generalizability concern, not a circularity reduction: no equation, fitted parameter, or self-citation chain makes the output equivalent to the input by construction. The experience-report method is self-contained by design, and no specific circular step can be exhibited under the required standard.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The report rests on qualitative self-study methods rather than mathematical derivation. The main ledger entries are the assumptions that self-report is valid data, that thematic analysis is an appropriate lens, and that lab-specific guidelines can be adapted by other teams.

free parameters (1)
  • 10% time allocation for AI experimentation (R7) = 10%
    R7 recommends allocating 10% of time to self-experimentation with AI; this round number is chosen by hand and not derived from data.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Self-reported use and motivations of the five team members, as captured in semi-structured interviews and retrospective chat review, are reliable data for deriving lab-level recommendations.
    The entire recommendation set (R1–R10) rests on interview and reflection data from the same five authors (Section 2.3); no external observation or independent validation.
  • domain assumption Applied thematic analysis (Guest et al., 2011) is an appropriate method for deriving themes from five interviews.
    The paper explicitly uses thematic analysis as a tool, not a rigorous study instrument; its suitability is assumed.
  • domain assumption The concepts of 'disability tax' and 'crip time' apply to this team's experiences.
    Theme 3.1 relies on these frameworks to interpret quotes; if rejected, the rationale for R1 weakens.
  • domain assumption Recommendations developed for one lab can, with contextual modifications, be useful to other mixed-ability labs.
    The paper's broader value claim in Section 4 depends on this transferability assumption, which is acknowledged but untested.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11869 in / 10579 out tokens · 104337 ms · 2026-08-01T04:13:07.769234+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Generative AI tools have recently been rapidly adopted by academics in mixed-ability research teams for both personal and professional tasks. While previous work on adoption of AI-based workflows has focused on collaboration and productivity, the perceptions of AI use within research teams remains divided. Through qualitative analysis of interviews of the five members of our mixed-ability research team, we discuss the motivations, challenges, and practices surrounding the use of generative AI in our lab. We reflect on experiences that shaped recommendations for balanced AI use that enable mixed-ability team workflows: (1) managing disability tax & crip time, (2) homogenizing identity, (3) risk disclosure of private information, (4) self-experimentation and miscellaneous tasks, and (5) information seeking. We build upon these themes to present AI practice recommendations we established for our lab to promote AI workflow adoption while preserving agency and disability identity.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    Stevie Bergman, Jennifer Chien, Mark Díaz, Seliem El-Sayed, Jaylen Pittman, Shakir Mohamed, and Kevin R

    William Agnew, A. Stevie Bergman, Jennifer Chien, Mark Díaz, Seliem El-Sayed, Jaylen Pittman, Shakir Mohamed, and Kevin R. McKee. 2024. The Illusion of Artificial Inclusion. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 286, 12 pag...

    doi:10.1145/3613904 2024

  2. [3]

    Rahaf Alharbi, Pa Lor, Jaylin Herskovitz, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Robin N. Brewer

  3. [4]

    Bedour Alshaigy and Virginia Grande. 2024. Forgotten Again: Addressing Ac- cessibility Challenges of Generative AI Tools for People with Disabilities. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 2024 Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Uppsala, Sweden)(NordiCHI ’24 Adjunct). Association for Computing Machinery, ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vila Nova de...

    arXiv 2024

  4. [5]

    Julie Bedard, Matthew Kropp, Megan Hsu, Olivia T Karaman, Jason Hawes, and Gabriella Rosen Kellerman. 2026. When using AI leads to ‘brain fry’.Harvard Business Review(2026)

    2026

  5. [6]

    Baligh Beshr, Ali Ateeq, Ranyia Ali Ateeq, and Mohammed Abdulrazzaq Alagh- bari. 2024. AI in academia: pros and cons of integrating artificial intelligence in universities. InBusiness Sustainability with Artificial Intelligence (AI): Challenges and Opportunities: Volume 2. Springer, 327–335

    2024

  6. [7]

    Reuben Binns and Reuben Kirkham. 2021. How could equality and data protection law shape AI fairness for people with disabilities?ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS)14, 3 (2021), 1–32

    2021

  7. [8]

    Melanie Birks, Ysanne Chapman, and Karen Francis. 2008. Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes.Journal of research in nursing13, 1 (2008), 68–75

    2008

  8. [9]

    Game Changer

    Yoonha Cha, Victoria Jackson, Lauren Shu, Stacy Branham, and André van der Hoek. 2025. " Game Changer" or" Overenthusiastic Drunk Acquaintance"? Gen- erative AI Use by Blind and Low Vision Software Professionals in the Workplace. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.24462(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  9. [10]

    Deming, Zoe Hitzig, Christopher Ong, Carl Yan Shan, and Kevin Wadman

    Aaron Chatterji, Thomas Cunningham, David J. Deming, Zoe Hitzig, Christopher Ong, Carl Yan Shan, and Kevin Wadman. 2025.How People Use ChatGPT. Working Paper 34255. National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w34255

    doi:10.3386/w34255 2025

  10. [11]

    Qiu, Arran Zeyu Wang, Zilong Wang, and Yuqing Yang

    Nan Chen, Luna K. Qiu, Arran Zeyu Wang, Zilong Wang, and Yuqing Yang. 2025. Screen Reader Programmers in the Vibe Coding Era: Adaptation, Empowerment, and New Accessibility Landscape. arXiv:2506.13270 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2506.13270

    arXiv 2025

  11. [13]

    Jennifer Chubb, Peter Cowling, and Darren Reed. 2022. Speeding up to keep up: exploring the use of AI in the research process.AI & society37, 4 (2022), 1439–1457

    2022

  12. [14]

    Beatriz Costa-Gomes, Sophia Chen, Connie Hsueh, Deborah Morgan, Philipp Schoenegger, Yash Shah, Sam Way, Yuki Zhu, Timothé Adeline, Michael Bhaskar, Mustafa Suleyman, and Seth Spielman. 2025. It’s About Time: The Copi- lot Usage Report 2025: The Temporal and Modal Dynamics of Copilot Usage. arXiv:2512.11879 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.11879

    arXiv 2025

  13. [15]

    Be My Eyes. 2024. Introducing: Be My AI. https://www.bemyeyes.com/blog/ introducing-be-my-ai

    2024

  14. [17]

    Ahmed Fawzy, Amjed Tahir, and Kelly Blincoe. 2026. Vibe Coding in Practice: Motivations, Challenges, and a Future Outlook – a Grey Literature Review. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 48th International Conference on Software Engineer- ing: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 212–223. doi:...

    arXiv 2026

  15. [18]

    Kate S Glazko, Mina Huh, Jazette Johnson, Amy Pavel, and Jennifer Mankoff

  16. [19]

    Kate S Glazko, Momona Yamagami, Aashaka Desai, Kelly Avery Mack, Venkatesh Potluri, Xuhai Xu, and Jennifer Mankoff. 2023. An Autoethnographic Case Study of Generative Artificial Intelligence’s Utility for Accessibility. InProceedings of the 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (New York, NY, USA)(ASSETS ’23). Associat...

    arXiv 2023

  17. [20]

    2011.Applied thematic analysis

    Greg Guest, Kathleen M MacQueen, and Emily E Namey. 2011.Applied thematic analysis. sage publications

    2011

  18. [21]

    Jessica Hammer, Alexandra To, and Erica Principe Cruz. 2020. Lab Counterculture. InExtended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI EA ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–14. doi:10.1145/3334480.3381824

    arXiv 2020

  19. [22]

    2026.What 81,000 people want from AI

    Saffron Huang, Shan Carter, Jake Eaton, Sarah Pollack, Dexter Callender III, Nikki Makagiansar, Maria Gonzalez, Sylvie Carr, Jerry Hong, Kunal Handa, Miles McCain, Thomas Millar, Mo Julapalli, Grace Yun, AJ Alt, Chelsea Larsson, Jane Leibrock, Matt Gallivan, Theodore Sumers, Esin Durmus, Matt Kearney, Judy Hanwen Shen, Jack Clark, Michael Stern, and Deep ...

    2026

  20. [23]

    Mina Huh, Zihui Xue, Ujjaini Das, Kumar Ashutosh, Kristen Grauman, and Amy Pavel. 2025. Vid2Coach: Transforming How-To Videos into Task Assistants. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 46, 24 pages. doi:10.1145/3746059.3747612

    arXiv 2025

  21. [24]

    AIRA Inc. 2026. Aira’s AI Visual interpreter powered by project Astra. https: //aira.io/ai/

    2026

  22. [25]

    Be My Eyes Inc. 2026. Be My Eyes Workplace: Making work more accessible. https://www.bemyeyes.com/business/workplace/

    2026

  23. [27]

    Hira Jamshed, Mustafa Naseem, Venkatesh Potluri, and Robin N. Brewer. 2025. Rethinking Productivity with GenAI: A Neurodivergent Students’ Perspective. In Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 37, 16 pages. doi:10.1145/3663...

    arXiv 2025

  24. [28]

    It’s the only thing I can trust

    JiWoong Jang, Sanika Moharana, Patrick Carrington, and Andrew Begel. 2024. “It’s the only thing I can trust”: Envisioning Large Language Model Use by Autistic Workers for Communication Assistance. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(Honolulu, HI, USA)(CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, U...

    arXiv 2024

  25. [29]

    Johnson, Macarena Peralta, Mansanjam Kaur, Ruijie Sophia Huang, Sheng Zhao, Ruijia Guan, Shwetha Rajaram, and Michael Nebeling

    Janet G. Johnson, Macarena Peralta, Mansanjam Kaur, Ruijie Sophia Huang, Sheng Zhao, Ruijia Guan, Shwetha Rajaram, and Michael Nebeling. 2025. Exploring Collaborative GenAI Agents in Synchronous Group Settings: Eliciting Team Perceptions and Design Considerations for the Future of Work.Proc. ACM Hum.- Comput. Interact.9, 7, Article CSCW414 (Oct. 2025), 33...

    work page doi:10.1145/3757595 2025

  26. [30]

    Vaishnav Kameswaran, Valentina Hong, Jazmin Clark, Yu Hou, Hal Daumé III, and Katie Shilton. 2026. Surveilling Suitability: How AI Hiring Interviews Impact Job Seekers with Disabilities. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 159, 16 pages. d...

    arXiv 2026

  27. [31]

    Nataliya Kosmyna, Eugene Hauptmann, Ye Tong Yuan, Jessica Situ, Xian-Hao Liao, Ashly Vivian Beresnitzky, Iris Braunstein, and Pattie Maes. 2025. Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task. arXiv:2506.08872 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [32]

    Hao-Ping (Hank) Lee, Advait Sarkar, Lev Tankelevitch, Ian Drosos, Sean Rintel, Richard Banks, and Nicholas Wilson. 2025. The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CH...

    arXiv 2025

  29. [33]

    Jie Li, Hancheng Cao, Laura Lin, Youyang Hou, Ruihao Zhu, and Abdallah El Ali

  30. [34]

    Yao Lyu, He Zhang, Shuo Niu, and Jie Cai. 2024. A preliminary exploration of YouTubers’ use of generative-AI in content creation. InExtended abstracts of the CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–7

    2024

  31. [35]

    Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Mateo Aboy, Joel Jiehao Seah, Zhicheng Lin, Xufei Luo, Daniel Rodger, Hazem Zohny, Timo Minssen, Julian Savulescu, and Brian D. Earp. 2026. AI and the Future of Academic Peer Review. arXiv:2509.14189 [cs.CY] https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.14189

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  32. [36]

    InProceedings of the 2024 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems

    User experience design professionals’ perceptions of generative artificial in- telligence. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1–18

    2024

  33. [37]

    Tianchi Mo, Humphrey Curtis, and Timothy Neate. 2025. Life as an International Computer Science PhD Student with Cerebral Palsy. InProceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Denver, CO)(ASSETS ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 39, 7 pages. doi:10.1145/3663547.3749835

    arXiv 2025

  34. [38]

    I’m treating it kind of like a diary

    Kayla Mullen, Wenhan Xue, and Manasa Kudumu. 2024. “I’m treating it kind of like a diary”: Characterizing How Users with Disabilities Use AI Chatbots. In Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(St. John’s, NL, Canada)(ASSETS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 133, 7 p...

    arXiv 2024

  35. [39]

    Bernard Marr. 2025. Microsoft Makes AI Mandatory for Employees: What It Means for Your Career. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/ 2025/07/08/microsoft-makes-ai-mandatory-for-employees-what-it-means- for-your-career/ Accessed: 2026-06-09

    2025

  36. [40]

    Zheng Ning, Leyang Li, Daniel Killough, JooYoung Seo, Patrick Carrington, Yapeng Tian, Yuhang Zhao, Franklin Mingzhe Li, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2025. AROMA: Mixed-Initiative AI Assistance for Non-Visual Cooking by Grounding Multimodal Information Between Reality and Videos. InProceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Techno...

    2025

  37. [41]

    Gabrielle O’Brien, Alexis Parker, Nasir Eisty, and Jeffrey Carver. 2026. A survey of generative AI adoption and perceived productivity among scientists who program. arXiv:2512.19644 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.19644 Reflections and Recommendations on AI Adoption Practice from a Mixed-Ability Research Group ASSETS ’26, October 25–28, 2026, Vila Nova...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [42]

    Richard Nelson. 2025. Academic Identity in the AI Era.AI-Powered Pedagogy and Curriculum Design: Practical Insights for Educators(2025)

    2025

  39. [43]

    Veronica Pimenova, Sarah Fakhoury, Christian Bird, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Madeline Endres. 2025. Good vibrations? A qualitative study of co-creation, communication, flow, and trust in vibes coding.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.12491 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [44]

    Robert Pinzolits. 2024. AI in academia: An overview of selected tools and their areas of application.MAP Education and Humanities4 (2024), 37–50

    2024

  41. [45]

    Cold, Calcu- lated, and Condescending

    Mahika Phutane, Ananya Seelam, and Aditya Vashistha. 2025. “Cold, Calcu- lated, and Condescending”: How AI Identifies and Explains Ableism Compared to Disabled People. InProceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Ac- countability, and Transparency (FAccT ’25). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1927–1941. doi:10.1145/3715275.3732128

    arXiv 2025

  42. [46]

    Advait Sarkar and Ian Drosos. 2025. Vibe coding: programming through conver- sation with artificial intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.23253(2025)

    arXiv 2025

  43. [47]

    Kristen Shinohara, Michael McQuaid, and Nayeri Jacobo. 2020. Access Differential and Inequitable Access: Inaccessibility for Doctoral Students in Computing. In Proceedings of the 22nd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(Virtual Event, Greece)(ASSETS ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 7, ...

    arXiv 2020

  44. [48]

    Aruna Ranganathan and Xingqi Maggie Ye. 2026. AI doesn’t reduce work—it intensifies it.Harvard Business Review9 (2026)

    2026

  45. [49]

    Xinru Tang, Ali Abdolrahmani, Darren Gergle, and Anne Marie Piper. 2025. Everyday uncertainty: How blind people use genai tools for information access. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    2025

  46. [50]

    Accountability must not be delegated to non- human actors

    Mara Ulloa, Jenna L. Butler, Sankeerti Haniyur, Courtney Miller, Barrett Amos, Advait Sarkar, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2026. Product Manager Practices for Delegating Work to Generative AI: “Accountability must not be delegated to non- human actors”. InProceedings of the IEEE/ACM 48th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering ...

    work page doi:10.1145/3786583 2026

  47. [51]

    Margaret-Anne Storey. 2026. From technical debt to cognitive and intent debt: Rethinking software health in the age of AI.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.22106(23 3 2026). arXiv:2603.22106 [cs.SE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [52]

    Geoff Weiss. 2025. Nvidia CEO Told Employees to Use AI for ‘Every Task That Is Possible’ and Says There Will Still Be Plenty of Jobs. Business In- sider. https://www.businessinsider.com/nvidia-ceo-employees-use-ai-every- task-possible-2025-11 Accessed: 2026-06-09

    2025

  49. [53]

    Justin D Weisz, Shraddha Vijay Kumar, Michael Muller, Karen-Ellen Browne, Arielle Goldberg, Katrin Ellice Heintze, and Shagun Bajpai. 2025. Examining the use and impact of an ai code assistant on developer productivity and experience in the enterprise. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13

    2025

  50. [54]

    Jiayin Wang, Weizhi Ma, Peijie Sun, Min Zhang, and Jian-Yun Nie. 2024. Understanding User Experience in Large Language Model Interactions. arXiv:2401.08329 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08329

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  51. [55]

    Xinqi Zhang, Hariharan Subramonyam, Advait Sarkar, Ian Drosos, Zichao Wang, Kyungho Lee, Veronica Pimenova, Xiang ’Anthony Chen, and Kai Lukoff. 2026. Generative Design and Vibe Coding: Rethinking The Design-Development Divide for UI Prototyping. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ...

    arXiv 2026

  52. [56]

    Yujie Zhang. 2025. Beyond Technical Debt: How AI-Assisted Develop- ment Creates Comprehension Debt in Resource-Constrained Indie Teams. arXiv:2512.08942 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.08942

    arXiv 2025

  53. [57]

    Lan Xiao and Catherine Holloway. 2026. Channelling, Coordinating, Collaborat- ing: A Three-Layer Framework for Disability-Centered Human-Agent Collabora- tion. arXiv:2603.26252 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.26252

    arXiv 2026

  54. [60]

    Chengbo Zheng, Yuanhao Zhang, Zeyu Huang, Chuhan Shi, Minrui Xu, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2024. Disciplink: Unfolding interdisciplinary information seeking process via human-ai co-exploration. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–20

    2024

  55. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(St

    Misfitting With AI: How Blind People Verify and Contest AI Errors. In Proceedings of the 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility(St. John’s, NL, Canada)(ASSETS ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 61, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3663548.3675659

    arXiv

  56. [2025]

    InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Generative ai and accessibility workshop: Surfacing opportunities and risks. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–6