World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Computer Science

D-Index
50
Citations
12281
World Ranking
5545
National Ranking
2535

Leah Findlater publication distribution in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Computer Science in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Leah Findlater sits on this spectrum.

32–41 publications: 7 scientists 42–51 publications: 22 scientists 52–61 publications: 82 scientists 62–71 publications: 134 scientists 72–81 publications: 249 scientists 82–91 publications: 324 scientists 92–101 publications: 421 scientists 102–111 publications: 420 scientists 112–121 publications: 497 scientists 122–131 publications: 544 scientists 132–141 publications: 555 scientists 142–151 publications: 609 scientists 152–161 publications: 559 scientists 162–171 publications: 534 scientists 172–181 publications: 556 scientists 182–191 publications: 583 scientists 192–201 publications: 519 scientists 202–211 publications: 508 scientists 212–221 publications: 490 scientists 222–231 publications: 437 scientists 232–241 publications: 423 scientists 242–251 publications: 408 scientists 252–261 publications: 377 scientists 262–271 publications: 301 scientists 272–281 publications: 335 scientists 282–291 publications: 320 scientists 292–301 publications: 293 scientists 302–311 publications: 250 scientists 312–321 publications: 238 scientists 322–331 publications: 206 scientists 332–341 publications: 209 scientists 342–351 publications: 208 scientists 352–361 publications: 162 scientists 362–371 publications: 176 scientists 372–381 publications: 127 scientists 382–391 publications: 158 scientists 392–401 publications: 128 scientists 402–411 publications: 104 scientists 412–421 publications: 94 scientists 422–431 publications: 99 scientists 432–441 publications: 83 scientists 442–451 publications: 108 scientists 452–461 publications: 73 scientists 462–471 publications: 77 scientists 472–481 publications: 69 scientists 482–491 publications: 84 scientists 492–501 publications: 62 scientists 502–511 publications: 54 scientists 512–521 publications: 57 scientists 522–531 publications: 51 scientists 532–541 publications: 51 scientists 542–551 publications: 32 scientists 552–561 publications: 38 scientists 562–571 publications: 28 scientists 572–581 publications: 43 scientists 582–591 publications: 33 scientists 592–601 publications: 41 scientists 602–611 publications: 32 scientists 612–621 publications: 28 scientists 622–631 publications: 25 scientists 632–641 publications: 27 scientists 642–651 publications: 17 scientists 652–661 publications: 20 scientists 662–671 publications: 17 scientists 672–681 publications: 15 scientists 682–691 publications: 14 scientists 692–701 publications: 21 scientists 702–711 publications: 13 scientists 712–721 publications: 12 scientists 722–731 publications: 19 scientists 732–741 publications: 14 scientists 742–751 publications: 12 scientists 752–761 publications: 10 scientists 762–771 publications: 10 scientists 772–781 publications: 11 scientists 782–791 publications: 10 scientists 792–801 publications: 11 scientists 802–811 publications: 8 scientists 812–821 publications: 8 scientists 822–831 publications: 7 scientists 832–841 publications: 11 scientists 842–851 publications: 10 scientists 852–861 publications: 5 scientists 862–871 publications: 9 scientists 872–881 publications: 4 scientists 882–891 publications: 6 scientists 892–901 publications: 3 scientists 902–911 publications: 6 scientists 912–921 publications: 3 scientists 922–931 publications: 2 scientists 932–941 publications: 2 scientists 942–951 publications: 2 scientists 952–961 publications: 3 scientists 962–971 publications: 3 scientists 972–981 publications: 3 scientists 982–990 publications: 5 scientists 991+ publications: 100 scientists
32 publications 991+

This scientist: 143 publications — 24th percentile

24% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 991 publications or more.

Leah Findlater D-index placement in Computer Science in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Computer Science scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Leah Findlater sits on this spectrum.

30–31 D-Index: 879 scientists 32–33 D-Index: 983 scientists 34–35 D-Index: 918 scientists 36–37 D-Index: 990 scientists 38–39 D-Index: 968 scientists 40–41 D-Index: 907 scientists 42–43 D-Index: 821 scientists 44–45 D-Index: 763 scientists 46–47 D-Index: 689 scientists 48–49 D-Index: 543 scientists 50–51 D-Index: 543 scientists 52–53 D-Index: 518 scientists 54–55 D-Index: 500 scientists 56–57 D-Index: 458 scientists 58–59 D-Index: 400 scientists 60–61 D-Index: 337 scientists 62–63 D-Index: 308 scientists 64–65 D-Index: 292 scientists 66–67 D-Index: 249 scientists 68–69 D-Index: 213 scientists 70–71 D-Index: 192 scientists 72–73 D-Index: 189 scientists 74–75 D-Index: 165 scientists 76–77 D-Index: 139 scientists 78–79 D-Index: 119 scientists 80–81 D-Index: 121 scientists 82–83 D-Index: 113 scientists 84–85 D-Index: 88 scientists 86–87 D-Index: 87 scientists 88–89 D-Index: 75 scientists 90–91 D-Index: 69 scientists 92–93 D-Index: 57 scientists 94–95 D-Index: 46 scientists 96–97 D-Index: 38 scientists 98–99 D-Index: 34 scientists 100–101 D-Index: 36 scientists 102–103 D-Index: 27 scientists 104–105 D-Index: 37 scientists 106–107 D-Index: 18 scientists 108–109 D-Index: 31 scientists 110–111 D-Index: 19 scientists 112–113 D-Index: 16 scientists 114–115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116–117 D-Index: 20 scientists 118–119 D-Index: 15 scientists 120–121 D-Index: 5 scientists 122–123 D-Index: 20 scientists 124–125 D-Index: 8 scientists 126–127 D-Index: 5 scientists 128–129 D-Index: 7 scientists 130 D-Index: 3 scientists 131+ D-Index: 98 scientists
30 D-Index 131+

This scientist: 50 D-Index — 62nd percentile

62% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 131 D-Index or more.

Overview

Leah Findlater is affiliated with the University of Washington in the United States. Their research primarily falls within the field of Computer Science, with a significant focus on several subfields including Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Neuroscience, Signal Processing, Human Factors and Ergonomics, and Human-Computer Interaction.

The main topics of their work span tactile and sensory interactions, digital accessibility for disabilities, speech and audio processing, speech and dialogue systems, speech recognition and synthesis, voice and speech disorders, and music and audio processing.

Leah Findlater's publication record includes papers in multiple venues, with frequent publications in:

  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  • Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
  • ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

Some recent papers authored by Findlater include:

  • What Do We Mean by "Accessibility Research"? A Literature Survey of Accessibility Papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019, 2021, arXiv (Cornell University)
  • Use of Intelligent Voice Assistants by Older Adults with Low Technology Use, 2020, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
  • ProtoSound: A Personalized and Scalable Sound Recognition System for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Users, 2022, CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
  • Social Media through Voice, 2021, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction
  • Toward User-Driven Sound Recognizer Personalization with People Who Are d/Deaf or Hard of Hearing, 2021, Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies

Findlater has collaborated frequently with several coauthors, including:

  • Dhruv Jain
  • Jon E. Froehlich
  • Abigale Stangl
  • Jeffrey P. Bigham
  • Steven M. Goodman

Their interdisciplinary work links technology with accessibility and sensory processing, exploring how voice, sound recognition, and assistive technologies can support users with diverse needs.

Best Publications

  • The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures

    Jacob O. Wobbrock;Leah Findlater;Darren Gergle;James J. Higgins

  • The design of eco-feedback technology

    Jon Froehlich;Leah Findlater;James Landay

  • How are Java software developers using the Elipse IDE

    G.C. Murphy;M. Kersten;L. Findlater

  • "Accessibility Came by Accident": Use of Voice-Controlled Intelligent Personal Assistants by People with Disabilities

    Alisha Pradhan;Kanika Mehta;Leah Findlater

  • A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus

    Leah Findlater;Joanna McGrenere

  • What Do We Mean by “Accessibility Research”?: A Literature Survey of Accessibility Papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019

    Kelly Mack;Emma McDonnell;Dhruv Jain;Lucy Lu Wang

  • WalkType: using accelerometer data to accomodate situational impairments in mobile touch screen text entry

    Mayank Goel;Leah Findlater;Jacob Wobbrock

  • Use of Intelligent Voice Assistants by Older Adults with Low Technology Use

    Alisha Pradhan;Amanda Lazar;Leah Findlater

  • Analyzing user-generated youtube videos to understand touchscreen use by people with motor impairments

    Lisa Anthony;YooJin Kim;Leah Findlater

  • The design and evaluation of prototype eco-feedback displays for fixture-level water usage data

    Jon Froehlich;Leah Findlater;Marilyn Ostergren;Solai Ramanathan

  • Age-related differences in performance with touchscreens compared to traditional mouse input

    Leah Findlater;Jon E. Froehlich;Kays Fattal;Jacob O. Wobbrock

  • "Phantom Friend" or "Just a Box with Information": Personification and Ontological Categorization of Smart Speaker-based Voice Assistants by Older Adults

    Alisha Pradhan;Leah Findlater;Amanda Lazar

  • Beyond QWERTY: augmenting touch screen keyboards with multi-touch gestures for non-alphanumeric input

    Leah Findlater;Ben Lee;Jacob Wobbrock

  • Impact of screen size on performance, awareness, and user satisfaction with adaptive graphical user interfaces

    Leah Findlater;Joanna McGrenere

  • Current and future mobile and wearable device use by people with visual impairments

    Hanlu Ye;Meethu Malu;Uran Oh;Leah Findlater

  • Typing on flat glass: examining ten-finger expert typing patterns on touch surfaces

    Leah Findlater;Jacob O. Wobbrock;Daniel Wigdor

  • Ephemeral adaptation: the use of gradual onset to improve menu selection performance

    Leah Findlater;Karyn Moffatt;Joanna McGrenere;Jessica Dawson

  • The AT Effect: How Disability Affects the Perceived Social Acceptability of Head-Mounted Display Use

    Halley Profita;Reem Albaghli;Leah Findlater;Paul Jaeger

  • Improving community health worker performance through automated SMS

    Brian DeRenzi;Leah Findlater;Jonathan Payne;Benjamin Birnbaum

  • Personalized input: improving ten-finger touchscreen typing through automatic adaptation

    Leah Findlater;Jacob Wobbrock

  • No Explainability without Accountability: An Empirical Study of Explanations and Feedback in Interactive ML

    Alison Smith-Renner;Ron Fan;Melissa Birchfield;Tongshuang Wu

Frequent Co-Authors

Jon E. Froehlich
Jon E. Froehlich University of Washington
Jacob O. Wobbrock
Jacob O. Wobbrock University of Washington
Jordan Boyd-Graber
Jordan Boyd-Graber University of Maryland, College Park
Joanna McGrenere
Joanna McGrenere University of British Columbia
Steven N. Goodman
Steven N. Goodman Stanford University
Meredith Ringel Morris
Meredith Ringel Morris Google (United States)
Amy Hurst
Amy Hurst New York University
Rama Chellappa
Rama Chellappa Johns Hopkins University
Shaun K. Kane
Shaun K. Kane Google (United States)
Krzysztof Z. Gajos
Krzysztof Z. Gajos Harvard University

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Studying Computer Science in the USA opens doors to many related online degree options that align with emerging technology career pathways. For students looking for a quick and flexible start, a 2-year computer science degree online offers a fast-track into IT, programming, and tech support roles.

Computer Science often overlaps with engineering disciplines as well. If you’re interested in applying your computing skills to sustainability or resource management, exploring options like an online environmental engineering degree science and engineering can lead to roles in environmental technology or engineering projects.

Similarly, those with an interest in design and innovation may consider a online mechanical engineering degree, blending coding with mechanical design or robotics. These interdisciplinary degrees can diversify your job opportunities and skill set.

Finally, if you’d like to broaden your horizons, you might wonder what can you do with an environmental science major. This path can connect tech-savvy graduates with roles in climate science, data analysis, and green technology.

Best Scientists Citing Leah Findlater

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles