Understanding Online Job and Housing Search Practices of Neurodiverse Young Adults to Support Their Independence

The post-school transition to adulthood is a period of change and anxiety for all youth, but especially so for neurodivergent (ND) young adults [68]. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA ’97) is a law by the U.S. Department of Education that requires transitional services to be provided for students with disabilities in the United States [28]. Two key areas of support are employment and independent living. However, despite going through transitioning planning as a part of their Individual Education Program (IEP), many students with disabilities face poor post-school outcomes [15] and families often describe the end of special education services after graduation as "falling off a cliff" [83]. The U.S. National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2) dataset that tracked around 11,000 young adults with disabilities revealed that only 63% of individuals with autism out of high school up to 8 years had been employed at some time compared to 91% of individuals with other disabilities [73]. In the area of independent living, only 38.7% (SE = 24.3) of students with mild intellectual disability met their transitional goal within 2 to 4 years of graduation [15]. Prior research has examined ways to empower low-resource and disadvantaged job seekers by designing a tool that identifies required skills and provides resources related to their dream job [35] and by investigating current employment tools (e.g., providing resume feedback) and the desired features [34].

To understand factors that compose current transitional barriers, it is also important to examine how young adults navigate the web for employment and housing. In recent years, the internet played an essential role in transition as 79% of job seekers in the United States used online resources and information as of 2015 [92] and job seekers who use the internet had a shorter duration of unemployment [93]. Nearly all (99%) of home buyers in 2021 used the internet to find homes [33]. As digital house hunting and job seeking become the norm, housing and employment-related websites should be accessible to all those who need the platform, regardless of their cognitive styles. Thus, our study examines how users with intellectual disability and/or autism find and use housing and employment-related websites to assess the usability of the existing sites (e.g., How long does it take them to identify and use appropriate filters? Can they easily change the location for the search?). We also examine the utility of the sites by assessing how well they assist the users in meeting their transitional goals. Studies show that people with intellectual disability are motivated by a desire to be productive and enjoy work environments where they are admired and have positive social connections [85, 95]. On a similar note, adults with autism reported self-actualization, job roles and work content, and social and collegial factors as the top three positive experiences in employment while pay and benefits were mentioned less frequently [11]. Individuals with intellectual disability are also likely to consider transportation in their employment searches and expressed a desire to work in familiar environments [95]. In comparison, NT groups place a higher value on salary and advancement opportunities over social factors and location [50]. In housing search, everyone places importance on compatible roommates and housing cost, but people with disabilities also consider family and support networks nearby, accessible commutes, and landlords who support housing for people with disabilities [98, 100]. Considering the broad range of transitional goals, a website cannot be considered fully inclusive if particular goals are not appropriately supported, even if the website is usable by all. To discover ways to fill the gap between neurodiverse young adults’ goals and the actual transitional outcomes, we studied how they search for jobs and housing online and examined whether the accessibility of the relevant sites could be one of the causes of the gap.

People with disabilities may have diverse physical and/or cognitive challenges. Guidelines for ensuring accessibility of online spaces and mobile applications for people with disabilities were published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an international group that guides the long-term growth of the internet [29, 99]. W3C’s accessibility guides present recommendations with three levels of compliance (A- low, AA- mid, and AAA- high) for websites and applications. Meeting AA compliance has been adopted as a requirement by many bodies, including the US Government, for web content [1]. Most A and AA-level standards focus on accessibility for users with physical disabilities, while accommodations that benefit those with cognitive disabilities are often rated AAA [37, 87]. Since many sites and mobile applications only follow A or AA-level standards, people with cognitive challenges may be marginalized in online spaces [37, 69, 87]. Furthermore, the design guidelines to accommodate disabilities center around the usability of the system and thus overlook how the unique goals of ND users would be addressed in the system to make it fully inclusive. Responding to continued accessibility challenges for people with cognitive disabilities, researchers have developed specialized platforms [12, 87], recommendations and guidelines [37, 81], and design tools (e.g., persona, empathy map) to promote a designer’s awareness of users with cognitive differences [66, 67]. However, most guides and tools are based on expert knowledge from professionals or parents [37, 66, 67, 81] and few have directly involved people with cognitive disabilities in design [12, 78]. The direct involvement of participants with intellectual disability or autism is key to our study since it allows us to observe what they value and search for while preparing for a transition.

Prior works on web and technology use of users have examined various disability groups (e.g., dyslexia [70], ADHD [65], down syndrome [56]) and domains (e.g., tourism [32], shopping [61], socialization [22, 46, 80]). Benefits of using computer-mediated communication for socialization included increased control over the communication, the ability to find similar others, and reduced stress from non-verbal signals [22, 41]. However, difficulties remained in the areas of trust, disclosure, and online social norms [22]. Morris et al.’s study provides a glimpse into the internet search behavior of ND people by focusing on a specific sector of the ND population, people with dyslexia [71]. Their study found a difference between dyslexic and non-dyslexic adults’ search behaviors in the areas of query formulation, results triage, and information extraction as dyslexic users found the tasks more challenging. We build on this research to investigate the accessibility and use of internet searches by people with intellectual disability or autism in the domain of employment and housing search. Hu and Feng investigated information search behaviors of people with cognitive disabilities by comparing how they navigated deep and broad web content structures [47]. They found that participants with cognitive disabilities navigated and searched more effectively on user interfaces with a deeper structure and fewer choices at each level compared to ones with a broader structure and more choices on fewer levels. Participants were able to detect and fix most types of search errors (e.g., typos, broad keywords, redundant keywords), but faced difficulty in recognizing the target result, which was one of the main causes of failed searches. Results also showed that they frequently used a single type of interaction (i.e., clicking on the back button) when correcting mistakes during the search (e.g., navigating a wrong path, or entering a misspelled word). In contrast, Aula et al.’s study showed that NT users without disabilities formulate diverse search terms and strategies for error recovery [10]. While Hu and Feng’s study provides a preliminary understanding of web search-related difficulties experienced by people with cognitive disabilities, they noted that future studies are needed that include NT participants as well, and where the tasks are performed on more realistic websites for ecological validity. As such, our study examines the search behaviors of both ND and NT participants on existing job and housing search websites to build on their findings.

A few studies have studied ND adults in the context of employment [70, 79], but they focused on the overall experience of the ND people at their workplace rather than their online employment search process. Lazar et al. looked at the workplace-related computer skills of expert users with Down Syndrome and found that they were able to engage in complex interaction tasks like filters and sorting for targeted search [57]. As their study showed that people with various cognitive disabilities can learn computer skills which opens new possibilities for a successful career, we further study how they navigate webpages when they are given complex criteria to find these opportunities independently via online search. Bill and Ng worked on automating a part of the process by developing a job-matching algorithm for connecting adults with autism with potential employers based on the required job skills [14]. As they tested the matching algorithm in a simulated environment, we yet have to study the experience of neurodivergent users using job search websites in real-world settings. In his literature review on technology for neurodiverse users, Motti emphasized that introducing strengths-based design principles can increase independence in web use [72]. Thus, our research examined various aspects of the online job and housing search experience of neurodivergent² and neurotypical young adults, not only focusing on the users’ needs and challenges during the current search process but also on their strengths and coping strategies in light of their goals and motivations. Cooper stated that identifying user goals and motivations is central to interaction design [30]. When it comes to independent living, users with different cognitive styles were shown to have different priorities [11, 50, 98, 100] and motivation [85, 95], and this may influence the way they interact with the interface. Hence, our study was structured to first understand the user goals, and then to identify if the existing interaction design caters to these goals. More specifically, we aim to answer the following research questions through our study:

For both ND and NT participants, our inclusion criteria were (a) young adults between the ages of 18 to 35, (b) those who have completed or are planning a major life transition such as searching for new employment or housing within the last or upcoming 6 months, and (c) searching online for resources related to the transition. While the categorizations and severity of cognitive disabilities can vary greatly, our study involved people with autism and/or intellectual disability who are proficient in using technology, competent in verbal communication, and actively pursuing independent lifestyles. We included these two subsets of the neurodivergent population as underemployment is a serious issue for both groups [64, 73], and they have been studied together in previous studies on postsecondary education [45] and on inclusive workplaces [62].

We sent out recruitment flyers to general university mailing lists, regional developmental-disability-related mailing lists (e.g., the Autism Self-Advocacy Network), and the subreddit r/AutisticAdults. Participants were also recruited verbally at events for people with autism and intellectual disability, through members of personal and professional networks, and from Transition and Postsecondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disability (TPSID). NT participants were recruited through fliers, university mailing lists, and word-of-mouth in the college groups. Both undergraduate and graduate students who have recently experienced a transition or are in the planning stages were targeted. Participants were asked screening questions on their transition planning and the self-identification of their disability, when applicable. We decided not to use one participant’s data after examining his screening answers since he did not meet our inclusion criteria.

We conducted our study with 16 participants which included 6 participants with intellectual disability (ID), 2 participants with autism (AS), and 8 neurotypical (NT) participants. Table 1 shows demographic information and the work and housing experience of each participant. All of our participants were living in a large city or nearby suburban area in the Southeast U.S. when the study took place. The median asking rent in the area is close to the national monthly median (around $1,500), and the unemployment rate is 3.4% [6, 51]. The city is rated as slightly unsafe with a crime rate that is 1.75 times the national average but a lower crime rate compared to similarly sized metro areas [7]. The city received moderate walk, transit, and bike scores [8] indicating that a person is likely car-dependent for accessing amenities due to limited reliable public bus and rail options and limited infrastructure for bikers.

All six participants with intellectual disabilities had recently graduated from the TPSID program, which is a post-secondary program that serves students with intellectual disabilities focusing on socialization, independent living skills, and integrated work experiences. They all know basic mathematics, can use a tablet or computer, have no significant behavioral/emotional challenges, and are able to live and work independently for long periods of time. In addition, all ID and AS participants were able to use language at a conversational level, independently operate computers to search for online resources, and seek resources to support independent living. All participants were highly motivated individuals with a major upcoming transition and looking for an independent lifestyle in the long run. All participants used online searches on an everyday basis and were adept at using a search engine to perform information retrieval-based tasks.

Participants were given the option to interview in person or remotely using a video conferencing platform with the flexibility to turn off their video at any time. This was to ensure that participants felt comfortable during the study. All participants chose to interview remotely over Microsoft Teams. On average, a session took about 90 minutes for the ND participants and 60 minutes for the NT participants. The researchers recorded the conference calls for a detailed analysis. ND and NT participants received a $20 and $15 Amazon gift card respectively. We compensated ND participants more than NT participants since the tasks and the interview could require more time and effort from ND individuals. For participants with ID, we had a comprehension check after going over the consent form together, where we asked them to explain the basic phases of the study in their own words to verify understanding. At the beginning of the study, the research team emphasized that participants could stop the study anytime and take a break or leave without any penalty. The participants were also informed that they would receive the full compensation amount no matter when they ended the study. All the participants completed the full study, except for ID1 who ended the study after viewing one housing site. He was frustrated that his computer was freezing during the search and the search process did not go as he expected. When he expressed his desire to exit the study, we thanked him for his participation, highlighted his contribution, and compensated him for the full study amount.

Our study was conducted in three phases: a pre-study interview, contextual inquiry, and a post-study interview. The three-phase structure of the study was inspired by the findings of Rose et al. which highlighted the importance of understanding user’s search goals and behavior, and not only how people search [82]. Therefore, the pre-study interview was designed to understand participants’ goals and motivations in their search before assessing the utility of the existing websites (i.e., how well they address the users’ needs). All interview questions were phrased at the 6th grade level for comprehension. They covered the participants’ major transition goals, different housing criteria (e.g., amenities, rent) and employment criteria (e.g., pay, location), and information on their search resources (e.g., websites, friends). We collected participants’ job and housing search goals before the contextual inquiry to ensure that the reported goals were not influenced by their search experience during the contextual inquiry.

In the second phase, through contextual inquiry, we aimed to uncover the online search strategies employed by participants and understand whether they were able to meet the goals they enumerated in the first phase. The contextual inquiry consists of a participants-driven search and a researcher-promoted search. During the participants-driven search, participants performed web searches for housing and employment starting from a search engine of their choice, while screen sharing. In order to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of existing websites, at least two different websites for each domain needed to be compared. Therefore, participants who only used a single website for their search were asked to repeat the search using a different interviewer-provided website. Depending on the site that the participant had already used, we chose Apartments.com [2] or Zillow [5] for housing-related search, and Indeed.com [3] or Linkedin [4] for employment search since they were the most popular sites in their respective domains [42, 77]. We designed the participant-driven search to allow for greater ecological validity by seeking participants in transition currently or recently and allowing them to search on the websites of their choice based on their own criteria. Despite these efforts, the experience may have differed from real-world experiences due to the limited time and the requirement to complete the entire search in one session. We monitored the different features and tasks the participants engaged with, and the level of ease or difficulty in completing these tasks. We also observed how the participants reacted to the success or failure in finding the desired search result. Note that we designed the participant-driven search to allow for greater ecological validity. This involved recruiting participants who were currently or recently in transition, as described in the Participants section, and allowing them to search on the websites of their choice using their own computer or laptop. Despite these efforts, the experience may have differed from real-world experiences due to the limited time and the requirement to complete the entire search in one session.

After completing the participant-driven search, the researchers prompted the participants to use more specific search criteria to ground the searches on their previously stated goals and criteria (e.g., under $2k per month, public transportation friendly). For example, if the participant had price and safety as their primary criteria while searching for independent living, the interviewer prompted for an apartment search "within $2000 budget in the desired location." This ensured that all participants used various features (e.g., filters) available on a site to examine the usability of the site and allowed us to assess how adequately the existing sites were designed to address their initial goals. During this phase, we offered gentle nudges for all participants when there were multiple failed searches (e.g., choosing the wrong filter of “house” instead of “apartment”), and empathized with the participant’s difficulties. If the participants voiced or showed signs of discomfort, we asked if they wanted to take a break or move to a different task. Note that we observed increased use of advanced features (e.g., interactive map, filtering, sorting, dropdown menus) in the researcher-prompted phase when compared with the participant-driven phase. However, we did not observe a significant difference in participants’ abilities to complete the participant-driven searches and the researcher-prompted searches.

After the contextual inquiry, the final phase, a post-study interview was conducted where participants reflected on their performed tasks, shared whether they were able to accomplish their search criteria successfully, and evaluated their overall experience. Our study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

All interviews were video-recorded and transcribed using Microsoft Teams. The interview was the first auto-transcribed from the recording and then for better context, the interviewers manually added descriptions of sections where the participants shared their screen but did not verbalize the task performed. Two of the authors employed open coding to identify different themes using word-level and sentence-level qualitative data analysis techniques [84]. The generated codes were validated by the inter-rater reliability test. Common themes included transition goals (e.g., job-related goals, housing goals), challenges and fears, search resources, search strategies (e.g., contextual search, targeted search), and positive and negative user experiences. These open codes were then discussed among the research team to identify commonalities and differences between ID, AS, and NT participants. We identified how the ID and AS participants had different goals and priorities for their future independence as compared to NT participants. Furthermore, we also recognized how the success or failure of the intended online search affected these two groups differently. With the newly surfaced themes, we re-analyzed the contextual inquiry part of the interview with a focused coding technique to identify different search strategies attributing to different goals and priorities, as well as patterns in response to the success or failure of search by these two different groups. The identified overarching themes are presented in the results section.

To identify the participants’ independent living and transition goals, we asked them what the most important factors were as they searched for a job or housing and what they were most excited about for their future. Then we studied whether the existing websites’ interfaces support these user goals and requirements, and if they do, whether the participants were able to actively incorporate their goals in their search strategies (RQ1). When reporting themes brought up by participants, we report the count of participants with autism as (AS=), those with intellectual disability as (ID=), and neurotypical participants as (NT=).

The contextual inquiry helped us identify the strengths of ID and AS participants when using housing and employment search websites (RQ2). We identified three unique strengths of our ID and AS participants as they searched for housing and jobs. First, they displayed attention to detail, especially when establishing criteria for housing. Several ID and AS participants (n=4; ID=3, AS=1) shared a comprehensive list of amenities when asked what they were looking for in an apartment. For example, ID3’s list started from how the electricity bill is paid, to having a stable wi-fi connection and a TV, a good washer and dryer, to having a toilet, a sink, and a bathtub that works. Another participant (AS1) took note of an apartment’s amenities and furniture while browsing through the pictures of an apartment and commented that although "it’s furnished [but] I’d always have to [bring] my own couch. This is not something that they provide." ID and AS participants were also more likely to notice when a criterion was missing — "They don’t have the common space thing. That’s definitely. I don’t see that." (ID2) — showing their adherence to their initial plan. On the other hand, NT participants never commented on the misalignment between their initial searching criteria and what was available on the sites. Instead, they often based their search criteria on the features that were available on the system, and two of them shared how missing the details could lead to regrets when finding housing. For example, NT4 had a strict requirement of "don’t want to go to the laundromat" and wanted laundry as an in-house amenity but did not actively seek this information while searching– "This is a bad thing on my part now. Now that you’ve reminded me, I will make sure I do that." Similarly, NT2 shared a past experience when he "actually did one mistake [...] I did not see where they [train] stops on this route." As a consequence of missing this detail, he ended up walking for 15 minutes to reach the nearest train station every day.

The concrete checklists for housing and employment also unveiled an opportunity for ID and AS participants to get answers during their search without the fear that it may be too "intuitive" and not worth explaining or exploring, which they often struggle to deal with in the real world. AS1 shared a detailed description of how finding out what is normal or acceptable was difficult in her everyday life both for housing search and at work, "I remember I had questions galore when I was [seeing] this other place, and they were so surprised that I had those questions that they didn’t actually answer them and just sort of like left me in the dark and made me feel really stupid." On online platforms, one can check all the details at their own pace without getting judged.

Furthermore, ID and AS participants were able to learn and use a website creatively and effectively once they got familiar with it. ID2 said while looking at the housing website shown in Figure 1a, "It’s pretty exciting. It’s just overwhelming cause there’s a lot on the page and you have to learn how to use a website, [but] I get a pretty good hang of websites easily cause I tried to not rush it. Even if there’s a lot on one page, I look at what you can do with it, you know." Two ID participants (ID2, ID4) even repurposed the sites that they were familiar with to meet their specific needs that are not addressed by the existing job and house-search sites. For example, one of the primary goals of ID participants that was difficult to identify on existing interfaces was finding a housing location near public transit. One participant (ID2) overcame the issue by using a public transit website for housing search instead of a site that was specifically designed for housing search. Another participant (ID4) used an automobile company website that he was familiar with to look for a job opening as it matched his goal of using his skills and knowledge of cars in his work. Although reaching the job opening page required him to go down several levels of menus and sub-menus, he was able to navigate the site successfully because he had a good mental model of how the site was structured. During the contextual inquiry, all ID and AS participants were able to easily use features such as filters and sorting options showing high usability of the current websites. For example, when asked to search for a two-bedroom apartment, all participants immediately used the relevant dropdown menu to change the number of bedrooms. A few usability issues were identified during the study including the visual complexity of the map feature and users entering the available budget as the minimum price instead of the maximum price. However, most usability issues were minor and quickly fixed without any prompting. Our results align with the prior findings that with sufficient experience and training, neurodivergent people are capable of using technology and search engines effectively [44, 47, 57].

Lastly, four ID participants felt a sense of achievement through the search process. Before conducting the study, we hypothesized that the search process could be a hurdle for them to overcome on their way toward independence. ID5 who shared that she had found a job all by herself, was asked a follow-up question on whether she would have liked to have someone to help her. She firmly answered, "I like searching by myself because I know that I am very, very, very independent." ID6 explained her feelings about the house search process as "proud and nervous at one time." In our study, we saw that for our ID participants, the search process in itself was an opportunity to show independence and boost self-confidence. This shows the importance of designing interfaces that support independent search for the ND population to empower them in their first step towards independent living.

Despite the benefits of online search mentioned in the previous section, the current online search process presented challenges and barriers for AS, ID, and NT participants. We also observed how different users employed different coping strategies to overcome these challenges, and what kind of impact it had on their overall search experience (RQ3).

One of the main issues our ID and AS participants faced during the search process was broad matching, where the search result includes a wider pool of related search terms rather than only including exact matches. While related matches can provide additional opportunities for users who are flexible on their search criteria, the "inaccuracy" of the results caused distress in our ID and AS participants who had set expectations on what types of results they would see. ID and AS participants’ strength in their attention to detail may have led to a bigger impact of the unexpected results on ID and AS users, as they better noticed the discrepancy between their search terms and the results. Nielsen et al.’s design recommendation for such systems was "to give customers only what they ask for [76]." Shneiderman’s usability guidelines also endorse the importance of offering predictable results stating that "one experience with misleading data or unexpected results could undermine for a long time a person’s willingness to use the system [89]." Based on our findings and existing design principles, we urge designers to take a strength-based approach which focuses on providing an opportunity for ID and AS users to leverage their strengths that were discovered in our study — searching with attention to detail and using websites creatively and effectively — rather than solely focusing on the challenges they face.

Websites that provide more predictable and relevant results can offer search experiences that better align with users’ expectations. One way to increase predictability is by showing exact matches by default and providing a toggle option for users who want to see a broader set of results. The relevance of the results could be supported by allowing users to filter by a wider range of options, going beyond practical aspects of the position (e.g., job title, location) to the social and contextual aspects (e.g., a quiet room, gender-ratio). An alternative way to provide more relevant results is by using an inferential algorithm to understand users’ preferences through their interaction patterns and browsing history [23]. While this algorithmic selection of relevant results shifts the burden of selecting relevant results from the users to the system, new ethical risks are introduced. For example, after identifying a user’s cognitive condition and challenges, tools that identify new potential employees based on a company’s current employee data [86] could start hiding these job opportunities from the ND user due to homogeneity and lack of representation of ND people in companies’ existing workforce [20, 38]. Our results have shown that the display of biased and/or discriminatory results is particularly harmful for ID and AS participants, as several of these participants internalized their search results and evaluated their self-efficacy based on the search experience. Therefore, future research is needed to strike a balance between search results based on inferences from user interaction patterns and preventing discriminatory search results to optimize the experience for a wide range of ND users.

We envision a middle-ground approach between fully manual and fully automated tailoring of results by using visual signifiers (e.g., labels, tags). The predictability of the results could be increased by using a tag to indicate which recommendation is within the strict query results and which is an extended option. The system can further expand the query filters and recommend based on the accepted results. By displaying all the results while visually marking the ones predicted to be more relevant, the users are given the option to make the selection without the lost opportunities or cognitive burden. This idea of visual signifiers is not only limited to indicating the relevance of a result but it can also be used for providing social and contextual information, which will be further discussed in the next subsection.

Next, adaptive systems could increase the relevance of the results by adjusting the number of results shown on a screen, which tailors the level of visual complexity to the user. While all of our participants shared that they valued location-based information such as proximity to public transport or family, walk-able distance from college, or access to the grocery store, most did not use the map feature to identify this information due to its visual complexity. In such cases, an adaptive system could display a simplified version of the map with fewer pins by default for decreased visual complexity and ask users about increasing the number of results based on their use. This would allow the users to easily assess the relevance of each search result (by checking its proximity to key places) for a manageable number of results. Such design patterns can be applied more broadly to web searches in other domains where interacting with a map is essential such as restaurant or hotel reservations where the location is important. While current platforms focus on adapting the information of the website using various methods such as content recommendation and targeted marketing [27, 58], prior works have suggested adapting the user interface (UI) to accommodate different users [9, 87]. Adaptive user interfaces dynamically add, remove, and adapt UI elements and features based on user interactions. As Akiki et al. have recommended, this approach can involve end-users in the adaptation process to increase their control and acceptance of the system [9]. Since our study revealed that establishing autonomy in search could increase ID and AS users’ self-efficacy, it further highlights the usefulness of adaptive interfaces. Therefore, we envision that adaptive UIs, where each user sees a page with a personalized level of visual complexity and UI elements, can complement the prominent accessibility framework of universal design (“one design fits all”). In fact, customization (e.g., providing options to change the number of elements and their arrangements in the interface) was listed as the second most important web accessibility guideline for people with autism [19]. Providing flexibility in map visual complexity is also compatible with the "competency-based" approach that Bayor et al. took in their co-design study with people with intellectual disability [12]. Their results showed that ID participants had gained competencies (e.g., common web navigation skills, functional association with icons) through their use of mainstream technologies. Furthermore, leveraging these competencies in an app’s design enhanced their confidence in using it, as well as their engagement. Given that our participants valued location information in their search and many people frequently use map-based applications, having the option to customize the visual complexity of the map could enable ND users to fully benefit from their competencies when using the map, rather than ignoring the feature entirely.

Existing HCI and neurodiversity research has shown the importance of making social and contextual information visible such as others’ facial expressions of emotions to effectively support social interactions of ID and AS people [16, 17, 36]. Our research findings contribute to this line of research by uncovering three types of under-utilized social and contextual information in current search interfaces that can facilitate a successful search for ID and AS users.