Accessible Design: Problems and Solutions
A Literature Review to Support the ITTATC Needs Assessment


April 2001

This is a publication of the Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center which is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the U.S. Department of Education under cooperative agreement #H133A000405. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Education. For questions or comments, please contact Brad Fain at brad.fain@gtri.gatech.edu.




A pervasive lack of accessible information technology and telecommunications equipment in today's marketplace serves to perpetuate the digital divide between people with and without disabilities, particularly as technology advances without the inclusion of people with disabilities in its conceptualization and design. This divide, however, can be removed by the consistent practice of accessible design.

In industry, the primary barrier to the implementation of accessible design principles is a lack of understanding regarding the goals of accessible design and the misperception that accessible design is overly time consuming and cost prohibitive. In addition, there is a lack of specification in the literature defining what makes a product accessible.

The primary purpose of the Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center (ITTATC) is to provide information and training materials that would assist in the development of information technology and telecommunications equipment that is accessible to people with disabilities. In order to develop and implement training materials related to accessible design, a formal needs assessment is being conducted. This needs assessment will document the extent of the accessibility problems in the information technology and telecommunications industries and provide an understanding of what project stakeholders perceive as possible solutions.




Table of Contents





Section 1: Introduction

Over 54 million Americans experience some form of disability (McNeil, 1997). In addition, most Americans will experience a temporary disability at some point in their lives, due to illness, accident, or circumstance. Since anyone can experience a disability and people with disabilities represent nearly 20% of the U.S. population (McNeil, 1997), it becomes apparent that the community of people with disabilities has the same information access needs as the general population. The community of people with disabilities is a significant part of the general population. Unfortunately, there is a large divide between people without disabilities in the general population and people with disabilities, regarding access to technology and information. Further, this access divide has a marked negative impact on the financial and social well being of people with disabilities (Kaye, 1998, 2000).

A pervasive lack of accessible information technology and telecommunications equipment in today’s marketplace serves to perpetuate this divide, particularly as technology advances without the inclusion of people with disabilities in its conceptualization and design. However, the access divide between people with and without disabilities can be removed by the consistent practice of accessible design. Accessibly designed products would not only make it possible for people with disabilities to participate in the economic opportunity and social activities that people without disabilities enjoy, but such products would also improve the efficiency with which technology is used by people without disabilities.

Accessible design, sometimes referred to as universal design or design-for-all, is defined by Vanderheiden (1997) of the Trace Center as “the practice of designing products or environments that can be effectively and efficiently used by people with a wide range of abilities operating in a wide range of situations”. Accessible design is not, as some people have feared, the impossible practice of designing products that can be used by everyone in all conditions. Rather, an accessibly designed product is simply the result of a design practice that has as its foundation an in-depth understanding of a broadly defined user population.
The benefits of accessible design seem clear. People with disabilities benefit from accessible design through access to equipment and services that were once difficult to obtain or impossible to use. By broadening its target markets to include people with disabilities and enhancing the general usability of consumer products, industry benefits from accessible design through increased market share. The government benefits from the diffusion of accessible products because such products permit a workforce that is more diverse and efficient. Finally, consumers enjoy the benefits of accessibly designed products through the increased availability of well-designed, easy-to-use technology.

While some technological hurdles must still be overcome, several input and display technologies that can aid in the design of accessible products are available today. For example, over the past 10 years the technology to integrate limited vocabulary speech displays into mainstream products has become inexpensive and readily available. It is difficult to find even a children’s toy today that doesn’t request the simple press of a button to hear a pre-recorded message. This same technology can be used to assist people with visual impairments in navigating complex menu structures that normally require visual interaction, such as those found on automatic teller machines. In addition, advances in non-speech auditory displays have made it possible to augment visual information (such as that presented on a computer screen) with auditory cues, thus making World Wide Web navigation easier for people with visual impairments. Advances in gesture recognition research sustain hopes that, in the future, computer recognition of complex gestures, such as sign language, will become commonplace in everyday interactions with technology.

Recent government regulations, such as Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998), have been enacted in order to promote the design and manufacture of accessible electronic and information technology (E&IT) products. Section 255 mandates that manufacturers of telecommunications equipment make strong attempts to ensure accessibility to all, when readily achievable. Section 508 requires that certain equipment purchased by the Federal Government be designed with accessibility in mind. It is expected that these new regulations will bring the concept of accessibility to the forefront of the design community.

The primary barrier to the implementation of accessible design principles in industry is a lack of understanding regarding the goals of accessible design and the misperception that accessible design is overly time consuming and cost prohibitive. In addition, there is a lack of specification in the literature defining what makes a product accessible. Given the current ambiguity in the literature regarding the practical application and evaluation of accessible design, it is understandable why some companies are reluctant to invest the necessary resources to develop accessible products. Simply raising awareness about accessible design would go a long way toward promoting the design of accessible products. Beyond that, promoters of accessible design must find ways of influencing the design process such that products and services are designed from the very beginning with accessibility in mind.

User-centered design (UCD) is the practice of proactively considering the information requirements of the end users throughout the design process. UCD is based on an iterative cycle of analysis, design, and evaluation. At each stage in the design process, designers work closely with users to ensure that the resultant product is usable in an efficient manner. UCD has proven to be an effective design process on both highly complex interfaces, such as aircraft cockpits, and simpler products, such as VCRs and cell phones. One possible method of promoting the design of more accessible products is to modify a proven design process, such as the UCD process, to accommodate a more broadly defined population of users. Practitioners of user-centered design could be taught to design more accessible products by introducing them to the needs and limitations of a more diverse user-base than is currently being considered. In addition, training designed to facilitate the necessary interaction between designers and the community of people with disabilities in all stages of design will prove to be immensely valuable.

Training is the key to success in influencing the way products are currently being designed. The primary purpose of the Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center (ITTATC) is to provide information and training materials that would assist in the development of information technology and telecommunications equipment that is accessible to people with disabilities. In order to develop and implement training materials and instructional modules for accessible design, a formal needs assessment is being conducted. This needs assessment will document the extent of the problems with accessibility in the information technology and telecommunications industries and provide an understanding of what project stakeholders perceive as possible solutions.

There are four major components of the needs assessment: a literature review, a structured interview of visionaries, focus groups, and surveys. Each component of the needs assessment will be documented separately in draft form and then integrated into the final needs assessment report. The first component of the needs assessment, the literature review, will provide an understanding of the problem space, as it is understood today. The primary goal of the literature review is an understanding of the major issues in accessible design as well as documentation of proposed and attempted solutions to particular problems related to accessible design. A secondary goal of the literature review is to provide information to the curriculum developer that would be useful in the development of training materials. This report documents the literature review portion of the needs assessment for the ITTATC.

A list of relevant topics was created in order to organize the literature review. Each topic area was further subdivided into a list of questions. The complete list of topics and associated questions is presented below:



Table 1: List of Literature Review Topic Areas and Associated Questions.

A. Assistive Technologies
A-1. What is the state-of-the-art of speech-based/natural language technologies?
A-2. What is the state-of-the-art of auditory information displays?
A-3. What is the state-of-the-art of haptic interfaces?
A-4. What is the state-of-the-art of gesture recognition technologies?
A-5. What is the state-of-the-art of interactive communication limited vocabulary dialogues?
B. Assessment Methodologies
B-1. How do we determine when the requirements have been met?
B-2. How do we determine if a product is truly accessible?
C. Benefits of Accessible Design
C-1. How does industry benefit?
C-2. How does government benefit?
C-3. How do individuals with disabilities benefit?
C-4. How do individuals without disabilities benefit?
D. Definition of Accessible Design
D-1. What is the definition of Universal Design? Design-for-all? Every Citizen Interfaces (ECI)?
D-2. What is the scope of Accessible Design?
D-3. What are the perceptions of the field of Accessible Design?
D-4. What experiences have other countries had with Accessible Design?
E. Definition of User Population served by the Accessible Design Community
E-1. What types of impairments do consumers with disabilities face?
F. Examples of Products
F-1. What are the existing attempts to develop products in the spirit of Accessible Design?
F-2. What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of accessible products?
G. Government Regulations
G-1. What is required by Section 255?
G-2. What is required by Section 508?
G-3. Which industries are most affected by Section 255/508?
G-4. What are the current interpretations of government regulations?
G-5. What is the current compliance approach?
G-6. What is the government’s position on enforcement of the current regulations?
H. Organizational Behavior
H-1. What are the current barriers?
H-2. What aspects of organizational behavior will facilitate the adoption of Accessible Design principles?
H-3. How will the organization climate create or sustain barriers to the adoption of Accessible Design principles?
I. Principles/Guidelines of Accessible Design
I-1. What Principles/Guidelines have been identified in the area of Accessible Design?
J. Requirements of the User Population served by the Accessible Design Community
J-1. What are the information needs of users with disabilities?
K. Training Methods and Materials
K-1. Who are the consumers of training?
K-2. What are the training techniques that could be used to teach the required material?
K-3. What types of training material is currently being used to teach Accessible Design?
K-4. What qualifications/skills does the trainer need in order to adequately teach Accessible Design?
L. Accessible Design Processes and Resources
L-1. What are the current design processes?
L-2. What changes are required to the current design processes as a result of 255/508?
L-3. What are the barriers to implementing the changes to the design processes?
L-4. What tools are available to designers?
L-5. What resources are available to support Accessible Design?
M. User-centered Design
M-1. What are the current best practices in user-centered design?
M-2. What user-centered design tools are available to designers?
M-3. What is the state-of-the-art in analysis of information requirements and user needs?
M-4. What is the state-of-the-art in rapid prototyping and iterative design?
M-5. What is the current thinking in the field of error analysis?
M-6. What is the state-of-the-art in human performance testing and evaluation?
M-7. What is the current thinking in the field of usability testing and evaluation?




Section 2: Literature Review Results

The results section is organized by topic area. For each topic area, a brief summary of the findings of the literature review is presented. Within each summary, the major contributions and shortcomings of the literature are documented and key reports are identified. In addition, after the summary of each topic area, a series of relevant questions and answers (with references) is presented.

Clicking on one of the links below will take you immediately to that section.





A: Assistive Technologies

 Introduction



The states of the art of the following assistive technology categories were reviewed: speech-based/natural language technologies, auditory information displays, haptic interfaces, gesture recognition technologies, and interactive communication limited vocabulary dialogues. Numerous software products have been designed, but there are many challenges that they have not been able to overcome, and many improvements that need to be made to make them truly accessible (Karat, et al, 1999; Mane, et al, 1996; Martin, et al, 1996). Grammar complexity, vocabulary size, and environmental factors present the greatest barriers to speech-based technologies (McMillan, et al, 1997). However, when utilized on a limited basis, perhaps with a limited vocabulary size, speech based interfaces are very beneficial to people with visual impairments.

Auditory icons and earcons provide an excellent means to provide information through the auditory channel. They can be effective at providing complex information (Bussemakers, et al, 2000; Leung, 1997) that would normally have been provided via a visual channel. Auditory web browsers, if designed appropriately, can be useful tools for the visually and mobility impaired (Feworn, et al, 2000; Wynblatt, et al, 1997). However, the major obstacle in the use of auditory web browsers is that not all web sites are accessible in the auditory domain. For example, non-tagged graphics and PDF files cannot be easily interpreted by auditory web-browsers. Care must be taken to design web sites so that access to information by people with visual impairments is not prohibited. Sonification, or the encoding of data into time varying auditory streams, provides great potential for developing a variety of tools (Kramer, et al, 1997; Leplâtre, et al, 2000). Current research has shown that sonification may be used to replace or enhance some types of real time visual displays that would normally not be available to people with visual impairments.

The development of haptic interfaces is challenged by the difficulty in simulating tactile sensations. One early approach to implementing haptic interfaces involves mapping or graphing data and allowing visually impaired individuals to "feel" the data, which would then allow them to make comparisons (Brook, 1997; Fritz, et al, n.d.). Keyboards, mice, trackballs, gloves, and force feedback joysticks can be used to enable interaction with virtual environments (Durlach, et al, 1995; Srinivasan, et al, 1999). Gesturing can be interpreted from hand and eye movements, and then translated into actions performed by a computer. Gesture recognition technologies are limited by the unavailability of gesture libraries, display options for gesture data, and precision of data gathering (Hofmann, 1995; Jacob, n.d.; Shaviv, n.d.). An attempt to enable computers to recognize sign language has met with limited success, though the technology for accomplishing this has advanced greatly.

Limited vocabularies can be used to establish communication between a person and machine (Gerth, 1991; Kelly, 1975). While research in this area of interactive communication is quite limited, there are many consumer products that do this quite well. Predictive text input is one example of a limited vocabulary dialogue that is becoming very widely used, primarily for text entry via the keypads of cellular telephones.

 A-1. What are the state-of-the-art of speech-based/natural language technologies?



The goal of speech-based/natural language technology is to provide an interface with which the user can interact through conversation without training (Martin, et al, 1996; Tanaka, 2000). While significant progress in research has been made, this goal, however, is far from being implemented in mainstream commercial products (Karat, et al, 1999; Mane, et al, 1996). Some barriers to implementation include limitations in the kind of speech recognition supported by current technology, awkward error recovery, limited speed and vocabulary size, and cost (Mane, et al, 1996). Another limitation is poor interface design (Thomas, et al, 1999). Much of the research in automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology takes place in industry labs (e.g., AT&T, IBM, Sun Microsystems), and focuses on developing interfaces that facilitate natural language dialogue between humans and machines (e.g., Boyce, 1999; Karat, et al, 1999). Another limiting factor in speech recognition is the current emphasis on sound matching; great strides are being made to add semantic knowledge to increase the accuracy of the recognition system (Barker, 2003).

The currently existing technology has been successfully implemented in commercial products that allow speech-based control, i.e., voice control (e.g., phones, household appliances, powered hospital beds, etc.) and voice interactive systems (e.g., for information services, airline reservations, or movie times) (McMillan, et al, 1997). These technologies are successful for highly constrained systems, are generally speaker-independent, and typically have an error rate of 5% or less (McMillan, et al, 1997). Voice interactive systems, as used in voicemail and interactive menus, however, are frequently inaccessible to individuals with hearing impairments (FCC, 2000; Thomas, et al, 1999).

The Speech Application Language Tags (SALT) Forum was founded in 2001. SALT expands on basic markup languages to add a speech interface to web pages. SALT also supports multi-modal access via speech, keyboard, keypad, mouse, and stylus. “By employing the SALT-based programming model and speech technology integrated into existing or new Web applications, companies can offer anyone with a telephone, PC or mobile device access to Web-based information and services” (Barker, 2003).
Barker, D. (2003). Microsoft research spawns a new era in speech technology: simpler, faster, and easier speech application development. PC AI Magazine, 16 (6), 18-27. Retrieved June 26, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.pcai.com/Paid/Issues/PCAI-Online-Issues/16.6_OL/New_Folder/TLH702/16.6_PA/PCAI-16.6-Paid-pg.18-Art1.htm)
Boyce, S. (1999). Spoken natural language dialogue systems: User interface issues for the future. In D. Gardner-Bonneau (Ed.), Human factors and voice interactive systems (pp. 37-61). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Karat, J., Lai, J., Danis, C., & Wolf, C. (1999). Speech user interface evolution. In D. Gardner-Bonneau (Ed.), Human factors and voice interactive systems (pp. 1-35). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mane, A., Boyce, S., Karis, D., & Yankelovich, N. (1996). Designing the user interface for speech recognition applications: A CHI workshop. SIGCHI, 28 (4). Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/sigchi/bulletin/1996.4/boyce.html)
Martin, P., Crabbe, F., Adams, S., Baatz, E., & Yankelovich, N. (1996, July). SpeechActs: A spoken language framework. Computer, 29 (7), 33-40. Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.computer.org/computer/co1996/r7033abs.htm)
McMillan, G. R., Eggleston, R. G., & Anderson, T. R. (1997). Nonconventional controls. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 729-771). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Roe, D. B., & Wilpon, J. G. (Eds.) (1994). Voice communication between humans and machines. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Tanaka, D. (2000, October 23). Speech next user interface, says IBM. Canada Computer Paper, Inc. Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003):
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.hubcanada.com/story_4348_20)
Thomas, J. C., Basson, S., & Gardner-Bonneau, D. (1999). Universal access and assistive technology. In D. Gardner-Bonneau (Ed.), Human factors and voice interactive systems (pp. 135-146). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

 A-2. What are the state-of-the-art of auditory information displays?



Auditory information displays augment or substitute visual information with both speech and non-speech (environmental or abstract) sound. Several researchers note the importance of auditory information for enhancing the usability of visual information displays (such as the World Wide Web), not just for people with physiological visual impairments (Krueger & Gilden, 1997), but also for people whose vision is impaired through environmental or task constraints (Petrucci, et al, 2000; Tannen, 1998; Wynblatt, et al, 1997). The type of sound (speech, non-speech environmental, or non-speech abstract) chosen for presenting auditory information varies, depending on the goals of using the sound (e.g., improving reaction time) and the characteristics of the sound environment (e.g., the frequency with which the sound will be used) (Bussemakers & de Hann, 2000; Tannen, 1998). For example, abstract non-speech sounds appear to be more difficult to learn (Leung, et al, 1997) and may even reduce performance (Bussemakers & de Hann, 2000), though users might find them less annoying to use after repeated exposures (Bussemakers & de Hann, 2000) and easier to use than language-based auditory information (Tannen, 1998).

Despite promising progress in the area of sonification (conveying information via non-speech audio) research, there are still several barriers that must be overcome before sonification is widely used for alternative presentation of information. Some of these barriers include sonification tools that are not yet flexible enough to accommodate changes in knowledge regarding the mapping of information to sound or changes in audio hardware and software (Kramer, et al, 1997, though see Petrucci, et al, 2000). In addition, general design principles for applying sonification to particular displays have yet to be developed (Kramer, et al, 1997), though some successful initial efforts should be noted (i.e., Leplâtre & Brewster, 2000; Lumsden, et al, 2002; Mynatt, 1994). This will require interdisciplinary research among the areas of human perception, acoustics, design, the arts, and engineering (Kramer, et al, 1997).
Bussemakers, M. P., & de Haan, A. (2000). When it sounds like a duck and it looks like a dog…Auditory icons vs. earcons in multimedia environments. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2000/PDFs/
Bussemakers.pdf)
Feworn, A., Bodner, R., & Chignell, M. H. (2000). Auditory WWW search tools. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2000/
PDFs/FerwornBodnerChignell.pdf)
Kramer, G., Walker, B., Bonebright, T., Cook, P., Flowers, J., Miner, N., Neuhoff, J., Bargar, R., Barrass, S., Berger, J., Evreinov, G., Fitch, W. T., Grohn, M., Handel, S., Kaper, H., Levkowitz, H., Lodha, S., Shinn-Cunningham, B., Simoni, M., & Tipei, S. (1997). Sonification report: Status of the field and research agenda.
Krueger, M. W., & Gilden, D. (1997). KnowWhere: An audio/spatial interface for blind people. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD97/
Kruger.PDF)
Leplâtre, G., & Brewster, S. A. (2000). Designing non-speech sounds to support navigation to mobile phone menus. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2000/
PDFs/Leplatre.pdf)
Leung, Y. K., Smith, S., Parker, S., & Martin, R. (1997). Learning and retention of auditory warnings. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD97/
Leung.pdf)
Lumsden, J., Brewster, S.A., Crease, M. and Gray, P.D. (2002). Guidelines for audio-enhancement of graphical user interface widgets. Proceedings of British HCI, Vol II (pp. 6-9). London: BCS. Retrieved June 30, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~stephen/papers/HCI2002-lumsden.pdf)
Mitsopoulos, E. N., & Edwards, A. D. N. (1997). Auditory scene analysis as the basis for designing auditory widgets. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD97/
Mitsopoulos.pdf)
Mynatt, E. D. (1994). Designing with auditory icons: How well do we identify auditory cues? Proceedings of the CHI '94 Conference Companion. Boston.
Petrucci, L. S., Harth, E., Roth, P., Assimacopoulos, A., & Pun, T. (2000). WebSound: A generic Web sonification tool, and its application to an auditory Web browser for blind and visually impaired users. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2000/
PDFs/PetrucciPHRAP.pdf)
Tannen, R. S. (1998). Breaking the sound barrier: Designing auditory displays for global usability. Fourth Conference on Human Factors and the Web. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.research.att.com/conf/hfweb/proceedings/tannen/)
Wynblatt, M., Benson, D., & Hsu, A. (1997). Browsing the World Wide Web in a non-visual environment. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD97/
Wynblatt.pdf)

 A-3. What are the state-of-the-art of haptic interfaces?



The design challenge for haptic interfaces is to simultaneously allow the manipulation of either real (as in teleoperated devices) or imagined (as in VR objects) objects that create the tactile sensation that such activity is occurring. The implications of meeting this challenge span diverse applications, such as operating remote equipment, medical training, and tactile graphics for the blind (Brook, 1997; Fritz, et al, n.d.). Research in this area to date has had a successful start in meeting this challenge (Durlach & Mavor, 1995). Current haptic interfaces that have enjoyed some success in the commercial market are position-sensing gloves (e.g., CyberTouch, SensorGloves) and exoskeletons without force-reflection (e.g., PHANToM) (Durlach & Mavor, 1995; Hofmann, 1995). In addition, a haptic interface, called TACTICS, which presents 2- and 3-dimensional graphical information through touch has recently been developed with some initial success (Fritz, et al, n.d.). While force-reflecting (ground- and body-based) interfaces simulating tactile sensations have been designed, more work must be done to improve their effectiveness (Durlach & Mavor, 1995).

Some barriers to more effective haptic interfaces include lack of knowledge about the physiology of human haptics, lack of sophisticated technology for stimulating the multitude of haptic nerves or mapping the degrees of freedom of the hand, and lack of data comparing human vs. haptic device performance (Durlach & Mavor, 1995; Srinivasan, et al, 1999).

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, in conjunction with the National Federation of the Blind, are working to develop two display technologies for use by the blind and visually impaired. The first is a rotating-wheel based refreshable Braille display, which promises to reduce the cost of refreshable Braille displays and enable high speed reading devices about the size of a portable CD player. The second is a refreshable tactile graphic display, which allows blind and visually impaired users to view images by touch (NIST, 2003).
Brook, D. (1997, December 6). Haptic interfaces in virtual reality. Retrieved January 16, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.hpcc.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~dtcb98r/vrhap/vrhap.htm)
Durlach, N. I., & Mavor, A. S. (Eds.). (1995). Haptic interfaces. Virtual reality: Scientific and technological challenges (pp.161-187). Washington, D. C. National Academy Press.
Fritz, J. P., Way, T. P., & Barner, K. E. (n.d.). Haptic representation of scientific data for visually impaired or blind persons. Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.rit.edu/~easi/easisem/haptic.html)
NIST. (2003). The NIST Rotating-Wheel Based Refreshable Braille Display. The NIST Refreshable Tactile Graphic Display. Retrieved September 25, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/isis/braille.html)
Srinivasan, M. A., Basdogan, C., & Ho, C. (1999). Haptic interactions in the real and virtual worlds. In D. J. Duke & A. Puerta (Eds.), Design, specification, and verification of interactive systems ’99, (pp. 1-16). Austria: Springer-Verlag/Wien.

 A-4. What are the state-of-the-art of gesture recognition technologies?



Gesture recognition technology, which holds promise for the development of hands-free interfaces, is fraught with barriers to implementation (Wexelblat, 1998). Such barriers include the lack of a comprehensive taxonomy for categorizing and interpreting classes of gestures, technology that is limited to recognizing discrete gestures, culture-specific gestures, poor communication among researchers, and technological limitations (Wexelblat, 1998). There have been some initial successful attempts to develop technology that recognizes sign language symbols, facial expressions, and sign language grammar, however (Edwards, 1998). In addition, attempts to develop interfaces that are controlled by eye movements have also achieved some success (Jacob, n.d.; Shaviv, n.d.). Barriers to implementing this technology includes technological limitations, awkward user equipment, and lack of knowledge regarding the nature of eye movements (Jacob, n.d.; Shaviv, n.d.).
Edwards, A. D. N. (1998). Progress in sign language recognition. In I. Wachsmuth & M. Fröhlich (Eds.), Gesture and sign language in human-computer interaction, Proceedings of the International Gesture Workshop, September, 1997, Bielefeld, Germany (pp. 13-21). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Hofmann, F. (1995, November 3). Gesture recognition with SensorGloves. Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://pdv.cs.tu-berlin.de/forschung/IFP_engl.html)
Jacob, R. J. K. (n.d.). Eye tracking in advanced interface design. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.eecs.tufts.edu/~jacob/papers/barfield.html)
Leibe, B., Minnen, D., Weeks, J., & Starner, T. (2001). Integration of Wireless Gesture Tracking, Object Tracking, and 3D Reconstruction in the Perceptive Workbench. International Conference on Computer Vision Systems, July, 2001, Vancouver, Canada (pp. 73-92). Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.vision.ethz.ch/leibe/papers/leibe-perceptive-icvs01.pdf)
Shaviv, B. D. (n.d.). The design and improvement of an eye controlled interface. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003):
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~vislab/projects/eye/Reports/
report/report.pdf)
Wexelblat, A. (1998). Research challenges in gesture: Open issues and unsolved problems. In I. Wachsmuth & M. Fröhlich (Eds.), Gesture and sign language in human-computer interaction. Proceedings of the International Gesture Workshop, September, 1997, Bielefeld, Germany (pp. 1-12). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

 A-5. What are the state-of-the-art of interactive communication limited vocabulary dialogues?



A limited vocabulary dialogue that is becoming very widely used is “predictive text entry.” There are a number of competing technologies, including T9, iTAP, and eZiText, all of which are primarily used for text entry on telephone (typically cellular telephone) keypads. Predictive text entry allows the user to enter text by pressing one key on the keypad for each letter; as a word is entered, the phone will compare all possible letter combinations against a built-in vocabulary. If the entry cannot be mapped uniquely to a single word in the vocabulary, a list of choices is presented to the user.
Kelly, M.J. (1975). Studies in interactive communication: Limited vocabulary natural language dialogue. (ONR Contract No. N00014-75-C-0131). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University, Department of Psychology.
Gerth, J. (1991, July). Knowledge Acquisition. Briefing presented at Technical Coordination Meeting #2 for the Analog Circuit Analysis and Partitioning System (ACAPS), Atlanta, GA.
T9 Text Input Home Page. (n.d). How to Type on Your Phone. Retrieved from the World Wide Web September 26, 2003:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.t9.com/t9_learnhow.html)





B: Assessment Methodologies

 Introduction



Current assessment approaches have used summative evaluation, most frequently some form of checklist pass/fail rating with non-disabled evaluators simulating the disability in terms of sensory, cognitive and physical performance during the screening. Indications of more maturing methodologies are possible as guidelines for accessible design principles are being developed and other approaches such as performance-based evaluation and focus group techniques are being considered. Adoption of user-centered design and evaluation approaches could contribute further methods suitable for formative testing of evolving designs (See 3.15 in the bibliography for a discussion of these methods). Testing methodologies can be automated; they can involve users without disabilities simulating disabilities or tests with actual disabled users; they may involve simple inspection or evaluation of compatibility with assistive technologies (ATIA, n.d.).

There are a number of checklists for evaluating whether requirements have been met. IBM (n.d.) provides checklists for hardware, Java, software, and web accessibility. Checklists, guidelines, and techniques for ensuring accessibility of web content are also provided by WAI (n.d). WAI also has a working group dedicated to evaluation and repair tools. Checklist evaluations prove to be problematic since they rely on a well-derived set of guidelines or performance expectations.

Law and Vanderheiden (1999) propose inexpensive screening tests to apply to product design for accessibility evaluation. These tests are designed to impose functional limitations on individuals who may not actually have an impairment. Sensory screening tests include use without vision, use with low vision, use without the ability to hear, and use with reduced ability to hear. Physical screening tests include use with one hand, use with one finger, use with a mouthstick, use with a low manipulation capability, and use with a tremor/poor coordination. Cognitive screening tests include use without the ability to read and use with limited cognitive capability.

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) (1996) provides a guidebook that discusses federal initiatives necessitating accessible design, general characteristics of the population of people with disabilities, industrial response to the call for accessible design, general principles of accessible design, tools and tips for design evaluation, and general guidelines for accessible design. Montoya-Weiss, et al (n.d.) provide a performance measure evaluation survey for product testing. Focus group discussions provide another way to determine accessibility, but they must be used with caution, as discussed by Nielsen (1997).

 B-1. How do we determine when the requirements have been met?



There are several ways to evaluate product design, including heuristic evaluation, usability testing, direct observation, and focus groups (TIA Access, 1996). Further, evaluation and testing should occur throughout the design process (Nielson, 1997; TIA Access, 1996). There are several online resources for conducting heuristic evaluation using checklists (e.g., IBM, n.d.; TIA Access, 1996, WAI, n.d.). It is important to note that one barrier to producing compliant products has been the exclusion of individuals with disabilities from the target market. Evaluations of compliance should include these individuals through focus groups or should include simulations of disability (e.g., Law & Vanderheiden, 2000). Nielson (1997) notes however, that focus groups must only be supplemental to usability testing, as inferences drawn from focus group responses are sometimes incorrect. Further, special testing considerations should be noted when conducting usability tests with persons with disabilities (Law & Vanderheiden, 1999). ATIA (n.d.) provides some guidelines for determining compatibility with and designing for compatibility with assistive technologies. Finally, some measure of accessibility can be inferred from design awards given by disability advocate groups, such as the RNIB and AFB (Montoya-Weiss, et al, 2000.).
ATIA. (n.d.). AT-IT Compatibility Guidelines, Version 1.05. Retrieved September 18, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.atia.org/AT_Compatibility_Guidelines_v1.05.pdf
IBM. (n.d.). Hardware accessibility. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003):
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.ibm.com/able/guidelines/hardware/
accesshardware.html)
IBM. (n.d.). Java accessibility. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/guidelines/java/accessjava.html
IBM. (n.d.). Software accessibility. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/guidelines/software/accesssoftware.html
IBM. (n.d.). Web accessibility. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/guidelines/web/accessweb.html
Law, C. M., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1999). Tests for screening product designs prior to user testing by people with functional limitations. Presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Conference.
Law, C. M., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (2000). Reducing sample sizes when user testing with people who have, and how are simulating disabilities - experiences with blindness and public information kiosks. Presented at the joint conference of the International Ergonomics Association and Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
TIA Access. (1996, November). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Electronic Industries Alliance/Electronic Industries Foundation. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/guide.html

WAI. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/WAI/

 B-2. How do we determine if a product is truly accessible?



Montoya-Weiss, M., Mueller, J., & Story, M. (n.d.). Measuring universal design. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.
Nielsen, J. (1997). The use and misuse of focus groups. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/focusgroups.html





C: Benefits of Accessible Design

 Introduction



Accessible design benefits industry, government, and individuals with and without disabilities by providing a user interface that is both easier to use (and therefore more marketable to a larger population) and is tailored to the capabilities and limitations of the operator. Industry and government both benefit by having access to a larger workforce that is more diverse, efficient and productive. Accessible design provides tools to aid industry in marketing their products more widely and increasing their customer base (Clarkson & Keates, 2000). It also aids companies in meeting worldwide regulations and standards (IBM, n.d.). Government will benefit by having employees who are more informed, having more productive workers, and having more workers available for a larger number of positions (EIT Accessibility Standards, 2000).

Benefits to people with disabilities are numerous, and range from employment to education to mobility. Engelen, et al (1999) discuss the importance of accessible web sites, which can be used to disseminate a wealth of information. Namioka and Fisher (n.d.) discuss the benefits such as increased communications access, increased access to consumer products, and more equal treatment (employment, education).

There is a long history of individuals without disabilities benefiting from technologies designed for individuals with disabilities. The telephone and curb cuts provide only two examples (IBM, n.d.; Microsoft, n.d.; Norman, 1998). Vanderheiden (1990) discusses the faulty nature of designers' current tendency to design for the average individual. This approach actually leaves out a significant number of individuals, and accessible design can facilitate greater access for all. In the absence of other information, designers tend to design based on their own experience and capabilities.

 C-1. How does industry benefit?



Industry benefits from accessible design because this design practice results in increased target markets and more satisfied customers (IBM, n.d.; InClude, 1999; W3C, n.d.). In addition, designing for a wide range of abilities may help companies avoid costly lawsuits initiated by people who (rightfully) wish to be included in design decisions (Tedeschi, 2001; W3C, n.d.). By addressing the accessibility needs of older adults and individuals with disabilities, companies will have a connection to the disposable income of millions of individuals who are currently left out of design decisions (Clarkson, et al, 2000; TIA Access, 1996). Further, accessible design makes products easier to use, and thus more appealing to the population in general (TIA Access, 1996). Finally, the practice of accessible design supports innovative and competitive business practices while also making commercial products compliant with federal regulations (Access Board, n.d.). Additional benefits include increased efficiency when using WCAG guidelines and attracting recognition through demonstrating social responsibility (W3C, n.d.).
Clarkson, P. J., & Keates, S. (2000). I-design project (inclusive design for the whole population). Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.
IBM. (n.d.). Identifying reasons for producing accessible content and products. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/access_ibm/reasons.html
InClude. (1999, December). Handbook on Inclusive Design of Telematics Applications (Sections 1 through 3). Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/include/handbook.htm
Monterey Technologies, Inc. (September 9, 1996). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Submitted to EIA-EIF Committee on Product Accessibility, A Joint Venture of the Electronic Industries Association and the Electronic Industries Foundation.
Tedeschi, B. (2001, January 1). E-Commerce Report. New York Times.
TIA Access. (1996, November). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Electronic Industries Alliance/Electronic Industries Foundation. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/guide.html
W3C. (n.d.). Auxiliary benefits of accessible web design. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/WAI/bcase/benefits.html

 C-2. How does government benefit?



The government benefits from more accessible electronic and information technology in three primary ways: increased productivity of federal employees with disabilities, reduced transaction costs associated with hiring individuals with disabilities, and increased productivity of federal employees without disabilities (ATCB, 2000). Currently, there is not much information documenting the specifics of how the government will benefit.
Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards: Economic Assessment. (2000). Washington, D.C.: EOP Foundation.

 C-3. How do individuals with disabilities benefit?



Until the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, the needs of individuals with disabilities were excluded from the general design of living, work, and leisure environments as well as the design of personal technology. A long history of exclusion has resulted in a gap between the populations with and without disabilities with respect to economic access, technological access, employment and educational opportunities, personal independence, and social integration (Kaye, 1998, 2000a, 2000b). In spite of improvements in awareness about the barriers to access experienced by individuals with disabilities and the requirements of additional legislation, this gap persists (Kaye, 1998; Tedeschi, 2001).

While assistive devices have a long history of improving the capabilities of people with functional limitations (King, 1999; Scherer & Galvin, 1997), such technology is often expensive (ABLEDATA, 1994, 1999; King, 1999), difficult to use (King, 1999), and not easily integrated into mainstream environments and technology (Tedeschi, 2001). Further, retrofitted adaptations to environments and devices that have not been designed with a wide range of abilities in mind are often unappealing to the people for whom the modifications were intended, and makes the gap between populations with and without disabilities even more apparent (King, 1999).

Clearly, integrating the access needs of individuals with disabilities throughout the design process would serve to improve the quality of life for millions of Americans and citizens worldwide (IBM, n.d.; Microsoft, n.d.; Pacific Bell Network, 1996; Russell, et al, 1997). As is evident in several examples (RNIB, 2000; Taylor, 2000; TIA Access, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c), environments and products conforming to the principles of accessible design have already increased the access of individuals with disabilities to the economic and social world of their peers without disabilities.
Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards: Economic Assessment. (2000). Washington, D.C.: EOP Foundation.
Engelen, J., Evenepoel, F., Bormans, G., et al. (COST219). (1999, October). Producing web pages that everyone can access. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/webdesign.htm
Gill, J., Roe, P., & Martin, M. (COST219). (n.d.). Pay phones with immediate public access. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/payphones.htm
Gjoderum, J., Hypponen, H., Nordby, K., Ruud, S., Ekberg, J., & Martin, M. (COST219). (n.d.). Guideline—Booklet on Mobile Phones. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/mobiletelephone.htm
IBM. (n.d.). Identifying reasons for producing accessible content and products. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/access_ibm/reasons.html
InClude. (1999, December). Handbook on Inclusive Design of Telematics Applications (Sections 1 through 3). Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/include/handbook.htm
King, T. W. (1999). Assistive technology: Essential human factors. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
King & Thomas. (n.d.). Position papers on key processes regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/15.html
Mercinelli, M. (COST219). (n.d.). Guidelines—Accessibility requirements for new telecommunication equipment. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/smartphones.htm
Microsoft. (n.d.). Today's assistive technology, tomorrow's everyday convenience. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.microsoft.com/enable/news/ada99.aspx
Namioka & Fisher. (n.d.). Position papers on application areas regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. Retreived January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/13.html
Pacific Bell Network. (1996, June). Universal design policy. Retrieved January 4, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/pacbell_ud/agpd.htm
Scherer, M. J., & Galvin, J. C. (1997). Assistive technology. In S. Kumar (Ed.), Perspectives in rehabilitation ergonomics (pp.273-301). London: Taylor & Francis.
Simpson, J. (1996). How people who use electronic augmentative and alternative communication devices utilize telephony. An RERC Report. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://tap.gallaudet.edu/UCPA/default.htm
Taylor, H. (June 7, 2000). How the internet is improving the lives of Americans with disabilities. The Harris Poll. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=93
Tedeschi, B. (2001, January 1). E-Commerce Report. New York Times.
TIA Access. (1996, November). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Electronic Industries Alliance/Electronic Industries Foundation. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/guide.html
Vanderheiden, G. C. (In print). Telecommunications - accessibility and future directions. In Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (Eds.), Inclusive guidelines for HCI.

 C-4. How do individuals without disabilities benefit?



Accessible design benefits individuals without disabilities because it results in products that are generally easier to use and it results in more flexible products that can be used effectively in a wide array of environmental situations or circumstances (Vanderheiden, 1997). Such situations might include using a cell phone in a very noisy environment, or trying to discern telephone buttons in the dark. Further, users without disabilities who fall outside of the 95th percentile on various ergonomic characteristics (e.g., height) benefit from accessible design because it results in products that are designed for all people, not just the “average” user. In addition, “organizations” that must accommodate people with disabilities benefit through lower cost, and greater ease of finding and acquiring accessible technology.
IBM. (n.d.). Identifying reasons for producing accessible content and products. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/access_ibm/reasons.html
InClude. (1999, December). Handbook on Inclusive Design of Telematics Applications (Sections 1 through 3). Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/include/handbook.htm
Microsoft. (n.d.). Today's assistive technology, tomorrow's everyday convenience. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.microsoft.com/enable/news/ada99.aspx
Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer: Why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tedeschi, B. (2001, January 1). E-Commerce Report. New York Times.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (In print). Telecommunications - accessibility and future directions. In Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (Eds.), Inclusive guidelines for HCI.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990). Thirty-something million: Should they be exceptions? Human Factors, 32, 383-396.



D: Definition of Accessible Design

 Introduction



Accessible design has also been referred to as universal design, design-for-all, and every citizen interfaces. However, the central concept of all these terms can be reduced to the design of interfaces such that they are accessible by a wide range of users. The European Commission concluded:
“Desk research showed almost identical definitions and conclusions in American discussions of ‘universal design’ and ‘accessibility’ and European ones on ‘barrier free design’, ‘usability’, and ‘Design for All’. All agree upon the American Trace Center definition of ‘universal design’…This normative concept implies that designers have to look at a person with a disability just as they look at any other person.” (European Commission, 1998)
Accessible design means designing products such that both individuals with and without disabilities can use them. This includes people with vision, hearing, mobility, cognitive and other impairments, as well as anyone who might be experiencing a temporary disability due to an illness or accident. Accessible design also accounts for the elderly population, which is generally characterized by a gradual loss of ability of some sort. Accessible design also ensures effective implementation of technology in a variety of environments or conditions that would cause individuals who are not normally impaired to be temporally impaired. For example, if someone is using their visual channel in the performance of a demanding task, such as driving a car, their visual channel cannot be utilized for the operation of other equipment without impairment of the primary task. Similarly, someone who walks into a noisy environment may have difficulty hearing and comprehending information from an auditory display.

Weiser, et al (n.d.) believes that every citizen interfaces should be invisible, such that they are a natural part of the environment, rather than being identified as a tool to help someone with a disability. Vanderheiden (1997) emphasizes that anyone, at any time, can experience functional limitations, and therefore, the goal of accessible design is to maximize the range of people that can access and use technology.

There are many challenges and barriers to incorporating accessible design in mainstream society. The primary one is lack of knowledge about what accessible design is, and why it is important. Once individuals and organizations develop an understanding of it, most are quite open to including it in their designs (European Commission, 1998). On the other hand, there are many who are aware of the need for improved access, particularly with the multitude of technological advances, and are working toward promoting the concepts and researching methodologies (Feruzig & Goldberg, n.d.). Many software companies (e.g., Macromedia, IBM, Microsoft) have taken extensive steps to develop inclusive technologies.

Morrow (n.d.) and others perceive accessible design as being much more expensive to implement, though this is usually not the case. The United States appears to be far ahead of other countries in implementing and regulating universal access, but there have been efforts by other countries as well.

The following table contains a number of definitions found in the literature that pertain to the concept of accessible design.


Table 2: Common Definitions of Accessible Design Terminology.
Universal Design “the practice of designing products or environments that can be effectively and efficiently used by people with a wide range of abilities operating in a wide range of situations” (Vanderheiden, 1997)

“building products that are robust and accommodating. Universal designs take account of differences in sight, hearing, mobility, speech, and cognition. Universal design helps not only people with disabilities, but also any of us when we're tired, busy, or juggling many tasks” (Francik, 1996)

“products and buildings that are accessible and usable by everyone, including people with disabilities… Universal design… (as opposed to accessible design)… provides one solution that can accommodate people with disabilities as well as the rest of the population. Moreover, universal design means giving attention to the needs of older people as well as young, women as well as men, left handed persons as well as right handed persons.” (Steinfeld, 1994)

“Universal design might be thought of as "accessible" or "inclusive" design. The underlying goal is to design products or services for the fullest range of human function--taking into account the physical, sensory, cognitive, and language needs or abilities of the broadest spectrum of customers during the initial design phase.” (Pacific Bell Network, 1996)

“The design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.” (Connell, et al, 1997)

“creat(ing) resources that can be used by the widest spectrum of potential visitors rather than an idealized ‘average’.” (University of Washington, n.d.)

“the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. The intent of universal design is to simplify life for everyone by making products, communications, and the built environment more usable by as many people as possible at little or no extra cost. Universal design benefits people of all ages and abilities.” (The Center for Universal Design, n.d.)
Design for All “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised design. The intent of the universal design concept is to simplify life for everyone by making products, communications, and the built environment more usable by more people at little or no extra cost. The universal design concept targets all people of all ages, sizes, and abilities.” (COST 219 Bis, 1997)

“the designing of products, services and systems that are flexible enough to be directly used, without assistive devices or modifications, by people within the widest range of abilities and circumstances as is commercially practical” (Porrero & Ballabio, 1998; Quoted in European Commission, 1998)

“designing products that are readily useable for most of the potential users without any modification, or are easily adaptable to different users (e.g. by adapting their user interfaces), or have standardised interfaces to be compatible with special products (e.g. special interaction devices) for people with disabilities” (Porrero, 1998; Quoted in European Commission, 1998)
Inclusive Design “a feature of mainstream technology: part of the quality of mass market products and services, which makes them usable for a wider market” (InClude, 1999)
Accessible Design “maximizing the number of potential customers who can readily use a product. While no product can be readily used by everyone, accessible design can impact market size and market share through consideration of the functional needs of all consumers, including those who experience functional limitations as a result of aging or disabling conditions” (TIA Access, 1996)

“products and buildings that are accessible and usable by people with disabilities… Accessible design has a tendency to lead to separate facilities for people with disabilities, for example, a ramp set off to the side of a stairway at an entrance or a wheelchair accessible toilet stall.” (Steinfeld, 1994)

“can make it possible for everyone, including people with varying degrees of disabilities, to use (technology) successfully in work, education, and recreation” (Microsoft, n.d.)

“can be accessed by anyone” (RNIB, 2000)

“maximizing the number of potential customers who can readily use a product” (Monterey Technologies, Inc., 1996)



 D-1. What is the definition of Universal Design? Design-for-all? Every Citizen Interfaces (ECI)?



Accessible design, frequently equated with Universal Design, Inclusive Design, and Design for All (European Commission, 1998; Microsoft, n.d.; Pacific Bell Network, 1996; RNIB, 2000), is the practice of designing environments and products to be usable by people with the widest possible range of abilities and in the widest possible range of situations (Francik, 1996; Steinfeld, 1994; Vanderheiden, 1997). Accessible environments and products are readily usable by all people, or are easily adapted, without modification or specialized design (Connell, et al, 1997; Porrero, 1998; Quoted in European Commission, 1998; Porrero & Ballabio, 1998; in European Commission, 1998).

Steinfeld (1994) distinguishes between accessible design and universal design, describing the former as design that promotes accessibility by individuals with disabilities, but often produces environments and products that are specialized for use by individuals with disabilities (such as wheelchair ramps or specialized bathroom stalls). Universal design, in contrast, is expected to benefit both users with and without disabilities alike (through such developments as phone keypads that can be operated without sight). This distinction is often not made.

Not a design practice, like Accessible Design and Design for All, but a design product, Every Citizen Interfaces (ECIs) are developed in the spirit of maximizing the range of individuals who can use a product (CSTB, CPSMA, & NRC, 1997 ). In the case of ECIs, however, specific access to the national information infrastructure is of primary interest.
Francik, E. (1996). Telephone interfaces: Universal design filters. Retrieved January 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/taacmtg_aug96/pbfilter.htm
Gjöderum, J. (Ed.). (NFTH/COST219). Text telephony for deaf, hearing impaired, deaf-blind, and speech impaired people. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/Texttelephony.htm
InClude. (1999, December). Handbook on Inclusive Design of Telematics Applications (Sections 1 through 3). Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/include/handbook.htm
Namioka & Fisher. (n.d.). Position papers on application areas regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/13.html
TIA Access. (1996, November). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Electronic Industries Alliance/Electronic Industries Foundation. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/guide.html
Vanderheiden, G. C. (1997). Design for people with functional limitations resulting from disability, aging, and circumstance. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd Ed., pp. 2010-2052). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Weiser, Maybury, Shedroff, Winograd, Siewiorek, & Tognazzini. (n.d.). Position papers on interface specifics regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/11.html

 D-2. What is the scope of Accessible Design?



Accessible design is applicable to a wide range of commercial products, from buildings and playgrounds to telephones and cutlery (Steinfeld, 1994). Accessible design is expected to increase the accessibility of all man-made environments or products, to varying degrees. (For example, a web site could be made accessible to individuals who have cognitive or movement limitations, but a high-performance aircraft cockpit could not. While the application of accessible design principles could make the cockpit interface easier to use in highly attention-demanding situations, or even across users who do not share languages, such an interface would likely remain inaccessible to individuals who have severe cognitive or movement impairments.) Legislation notes that environments and telecommunications products must be made as widely accessible as possible but only where it is “readily achievable” or does not pose “undue burden” (Access Board, 1998, 2001). Presumably, for highly specialized devices, such as cockpit or command and control center interfaces, truly accessible design is not “readily achievable”.

The benefit of accessible design extends to a population with a wide range of characteristics, including cognitive, perceptual, and movement disabilities, age, sex, education level, nationality, and circumstance (Vanderheiden, 1997). In this way, the scope of accessible design is broader than that of user-centered design. As opposed to a specific population of users, accessible design principles have been based on the access needs of a very general population of users (COST 219, n.d.; Vanderheiden, 1997). Accessible design is not, however, an attempt to make products available to individuals who could not otherwise afford them. Accessible design is an engineering and architectural endeavor and not a method of social reform.
Preiser, W. F. E. (n.d.).Universal Design Evaluation. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.
Steinfeld, E. (1994). The concept of universal design. Buffalo, NY: E. Steinfeld. Retrieved January 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.arch.buffalo.edu/~idea/publications/free_pubs/
pubs_cud.html)
Vanderheiden, G. C. (1997). Design for people with functional limitations resulting from disability, aging, and circumstance. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd Ed., pp. 2010-2052). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

 D-3. What are the perceptions of the field of Accessible Design?



Designers in industry are often unaware of the needs of older adults and individuals with disabilities, and are unaware of accessible design principles (European Commission, 1998). In other cases, accessible design is often thought of as a costly, effortful, time-consuming process that is not worthwhile in designing commercial products because individuals with disabilities do not represent a sizable target market (e.g., InClude, 1999). However, several companies in Europe and the US are recognizing not only the legal ramifications but also the business ramifications of failing to incorporate accessible design principles in the design process (e.g., European Commission, 1998; IBM, n.d.).

The Trace Center in Wisconsin conducted a 3-year research project toward identifying the factors determining the acceptance of accessible design in industry. Several attitudes toward accessible design, both negative and positive, have been identified. The negative attitudes include fear that applying accessible design principles will result in increased litigation by dissatisfied customers, fear that since products cannot be truly accessible to everyone they will leave more customers dissatisfied, and belief that incorporating accessible design principles into the design process will require substantial retraining of staff designers. Positive attitudes include belief that accessible design is cost-effective, appealing to the average user as well as the user with disabilities, and beneficial for increasing the target market.
Christenson, M. A.. (n.d.). Roadblocks to incorporating universal design. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.
European Commission. (1998). Design for all and ICT business practice: Addressing the barriers. Examples of best practice (EC Ref. Number 98.70.022). Telematics Applications Programme: “Design-for-All” for an Inclusive Information Society, Brussels.
Feurzeig, Porter & Goldberg. (n.d.). .Position papers on selected population groups regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/14.html
Gill, J. (2000, November). Approaches for influencing the design of new telecommunication systems and services. Retrieved January 4, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiresias.org/reports/approach.htm
IBM. (n.d.). Identifying reasons for producing accessible content and products. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/access_ibm/reasons.html
InClude. (1999, December). Handbook on Inclusive Design of Telematics Applications (Sections 1 through 3). Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/include/handbook.htm
Internet World. (2000, October 25). Macromedia enables creation of accessible web content. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003):
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/proom/pr/2000/
accessibility.html)
Macromedia. (2000, October). Accessibility at Macromedia. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibility/
Morrow, R. (n.d.). Inclusion as a critical tool in design education. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.
NCR. (2001, January). Access for all. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncr.com/solutions/self-service/access_for_all.htm
Qualcomm. (1999). Creating possibilities with accessibility. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.qualcomm.com/corporate/accessibility/index.html
Royal National Institute for the Blind. (2000, November 12). Accessible web design. Retrieved December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital/hints.htm
Sun Microsystems. (2000). Accessibility Program. Retrieved January 9, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sun.com/access/general/overview.html
Tedeschi, B. (2001, January 1). E-Commerce Report. New York Times.
Trace Center. (n.d.). Universal design research project. Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/univ_design_res_proj/udrp.htm
Vanderheiden, G. C. (In print). Telecommunications - accessibility and future directions. In Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (Eds.), Inclusive guidelines for HCI.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990). Thirty-something million: Should they be exceptions? Human Factors, 32, 383-396.
Vanderheiden, G., Vanderheiden, K., & Tobias, J. (n.d.). Universal design motivators and facilitators. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.
Weiser, Maybury, Shedroff, Winograd, Siewiorek, & Tognazzini. (n.d.). Position papers on interface specifics regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/11.html

 D-4. What experiences have other countries had with Accessible Design?



The experience in other countries with accessible design has been similar to that in the US, with the exception that the US has regulations requiring accessibility, while some other nations apparently do not (Gill, 2000). That is, individuals with disabilities in other nations experience similar barriers to accessibility, such as web sites that are not compatible with screen readers, voice interactive menus that advance too quickly, and product information that is unavailable in alternate formats (HREOC, 2000). Further, other nations have attempted to remove accessibility barriers through promoting accessible design (or Design for All) principles and guidelines for design (e.g., European Commission, 1998; InClude, 1999; PSCC, n.d.) and providing online resources to product developers (COST 219, n.d.; Engelen, et al, 1999; RNIB, 2000). Advocates of accessible design in some countries, however, must sell the idea of accessibility to developers and legislators because the government does not require it (Gill, 2000).
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (2000). Accessibility of Electronic Commerce and New Service and Information Technologies for Older Australians and People with a Disability: Report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on a reference from the Attorney-General, 31 March 2000. Retrieved January 26, 2001 from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.independentliving.org/docs4/hreo2000.html
Independent Living. Report on a Priority Theme: Accessibility on the Internet. Retrieved January 24, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/UN-Report-accessibility-on-the-internet.html
Internet Industry Association. IIA Warns SOGOC: Disability Web Decision Puts Businesses on Notice. Retrieved January 24, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/sydney-olympics-blind-accessibility-decision-press-release.html
Public Service Commission of Canada. Building the Site. Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://canada.gc.ca/programs/guide/3_1_4e.html




E: Definition of User Population Served by the Accessible Design Community

 Introduction



Numerous sources address the issue of types of impairments faced by consumers with disabilities. The types of impairments include visual, auditory, motor, and cognitive. This includes all age ranges and cultures. The difficulty in the characterization of any particular impairment is that there is so much variability in the degree and extent of impairments in the community of individuals with disabilities. For example, the capabilities of someone with low vision are clearly different than the capabilities associated with someone without vision. In addition, the variability of the capabilities associated with a particular type of impairment can depend on the circumstance of the impairment. For example, the capabilities associated with someone that has been blind from birth are quite different from the capabilities associated with someone who has recently lost vision.

Designers would benefit greatly from a thorough documentation of the capabilities and limitations of users throughout the range of common impairments. After all, user-centered design is based on a thorough understanding of the user. Without this knowledge the designer is forced to either not take the community of people with disabilities into account or to utilize a partial understanding of the user base in the development of new products.

It is clear that the community of people with disabilities consists of a sizable portion of the US population. The following table, with information gathered from Kaye (1997, 1998) and McNeil (1997) provides an overview of the community of people with disabilities in the United States:


Table 3: Characterization of the Disabled Community in the United States.
Number of Americans with a disability      54 million     
Number of those in institutions 2 million
Number age 15+ with visual limitations 8.3 million
Number age 15+ with hearing limitations 9.7 million
Number age 15+ with speech limitations 2.0 million
Number age 15+ with lifting/carrying limitations 16 million
Number age 15+ with self care limitations 8.2 million
Number age 15+ with home management limitations 12.3 million
Number working age adults restricted in working ability 19 million
Unemployment rate of working adults with any activity limitation 48%
Unemployment rate of working adults with severe functional limitation 74%
Unemployment rate of working adults with work disabilities 72%
Percentage of disabled living in poverty 30%
Percentage of disabled without a high school education 38.4%
Percentage of disabled living in metropolitan area 74.8%
Percentage of disabled who feel social isolation is problematic 51%
Percentage of disabled who have public facility access problems 24%
Percentage of disabled who are of working age 57.6%
Percentage of disabled over age 65 31.6%
Percentage who acquired their disability before age 20 21%
Percentage who acquired their disability after age 40 53%



 E-1. What types of impairments do consumers with disabilities face?



Since accessibly designed products are expected to be accessible to people with the widest range of abilities in the widest range of circumstances, consumers of such products may have profound cognitive, perceptual, emotional and/or movement impairments or no impairments at all (ABLEDATA, 1994, 1995, 1999; Vanderheiden, 1997). Impairment might be temporary (e.g., a broken arm or difficulty speaking the dominant language) or long-term (e.g., paralysis or deafness). King (1999) notes that the nature of an individual’s impairment can change daily or even hourly. Vanderheiden (1997) notes that an individual can have multiple impairments. Additionally, some impairments grow worse over time (e.g., cognitive impairment due to dementia or perceptual impairment due to aging, Fisk & Rogers, 1997). Finally, millions of individuals partially compensate for impairment through the use of assistive devices (Russell, et al, 1997), and ability should be examined both with and without the use of such devices (Vanderheiden, 1997). The accessibility of a product may depend on how well it accommodates a particular assistive device (e.g., Brodin, et al, 1999; Engelen, et al, 1999; Wilson, 1996).

For the purposes of accessible design, however, Vanderheiden (1997) organizes impairment into five broad categories, based on the impact of the impairment on the use of commercial products. The categories are: visual impairments, hearing impairments, physical impairments, cognitive or language impairments, and seizure disorders. The severity of impairment within each category varies, and an individual may have impairment spanning multiple categories. People with visual impairments experience difficulty when using visual displays, reading visual output, particularly written or printed instructions or other documentation, and using controls whose labels are coded with text or color. People with hearing impairments have difficulty perceiving auditory information present in displays or used as control feedback. Physical impairments may be either neuromuscular (e.g., paralysis or spasticity) or skeletal (e.g., arthritis or missing limbs), and the functional limitations caused by either type vary widely. Like physical impairments, cognitive impairments also vary widely in their implications for functional limitations. Seizure disorders affect the continuity of movement, and can be triggered by particular display types (i.e., those including rapidly flashing (10-25 Hz) lights).
ABLEDATA. (1994, November). Informed consumers guide to office equipment for people with visual disabilities. Retrieved December 15, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.abledata.com/Site_2/icg_off.htm
ABLEDATA. (1995, May). Fact Sheet on Computer Access. Retrieved December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.abledata.com/Site_2/compute.htm
ABLEDATA. (1999, February). Informed consumers guide to office equipment for people with hearing disabilities. Retrieved December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.abledata.com/Site_2/icg_hear.htm
Baker, L. (1999). Therapeutic riding and the visually impaired. [Printed in NARHA Strides, 5(1) and 5(2). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.narha.org/features/tr_visimp.pdf
Bergman, E. (1995). Towards accessible human-computer interaction. Nielsen, J. (ed.), Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 5. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sun.com/access/developers/updt.HCI.advance.html
Brodin, J., Hellström, G., Lindström, J., Martin, M., Pereira, L. M., & Roe, P. (COST219). (1999, August). New ways of using video telephony. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/videotelephony.htm
COST219. (n.d.). Disabilities and their identified barriers. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/COSB228.HTML
Engelen, J., Evenepoel, F., Bormans, G., et al. (COST219). (1999, October). Producing web pages that everyone can access. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/webdesign.htm
Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of human factors and the older adult. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Francik, E. (1996). Telephone interfaces: Universal design filters. Retrieved January 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/taacmtg_aug96/pbfilter.htm
Gjöderum, J. (Ed.). (NFTH/COST219). (n.d.). Text telephony for deaf, hearing impaired, deaf-blind, and speech impaired people. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/Texttelephony.htm
Kaye, H. S. (1997). Disability watch: The status of people with disabilities in the United States. San Francisco: Disability Rights Advocates.
King, T. W. (1999). Assistive technology: Essential human factors. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McNeil, J. M. (1997). Americans with disabilities: 1994-95. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved March 13, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/p70-61.pdf
Neil, R. J., Hendershot, G. E., LeClere, F., Howie, L. J., & Adler, M. (1997, November 13). Trends and differential use of assistive technology devices: United States, 1994. Advance Data, Number 292. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Pacific Bell Network. (1996, June). Universal design policy. Retrieved January 4, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/pacbell_ud/agpd.htm
Perlman, L. G. (Electronics Industries Foundation). (1993, August). Making technology useable: The views of consumers with learning disabilities, mental retardation, and their caregivers (H133E80029). Retrieved January 4, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://codi.buffalo.edu/graph_based/.universal/.kiss
Red Hat. (1997, March 28). LINUX Access HOWTO. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.europe.redhat.com/documentation/HOWTO/Access-HOWTO.php3
Scherer, M. J., & Galvin, J. C. (1997). Assistive technology. In S. Kumar (Ed.), Perspectives in rehabilitation ergonomics (pp.273-301). London: Taylor & Francis.
Simpson, J. (1996). How people who use electronic augmentative and alternative communication devices utilize telephony. An RERC Report. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://tap.gallaudet.edu/UCPA/default.htm
TIA Access. (1996, November). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Electronic Industries Alliance/Electronic Industries Foundation. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/guide.html
TIA Access. (1999, September 29). Assistive technology. Williams, J. M. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/news.php?ID=38
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Cognitive and language impairments and their implications. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Hearing impairments and their implications. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Physical impairments and their implications. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Visual impairments and their implications. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (1997). Design for people with functional limitations resulting from disability, aging, and circumstance. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd Ed., pp. 2010-2052). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wilson, L. (October, 1996, revision by Pishney, J.). Assistive technology for the disabled computer user. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.unc.edu/cit/guides/irg-20.html




F: Examples of Products

 Introduction



Becker (1999) describes a few products that have been developed with accessibility in mind. They include Emacspeak (a screen reader), Java Accessibility API (which gives developers more power to include accessible features in the software rather than needing to supply add-ons), and OCR (this translates print to computer text which can be manipulated). Unfortunately, very few products have been designed from the ground up with accessibility in mind. It is much more likely that we will find examples of products with accessible features added.

Much more work has been done in the realm of assistive technologies, but companies are working toward more accessible design. There have been numerous efforts to increase accessibility to the web (Engelen, et al, 1999), and this is one of the best attempts to make a product truly accessible without calling out any particular disability. Macromedia, Microsoft, NCR, Pacific Bell, Qualcomm, Red Hat, and Sun Microsystems, among others, have developed accessibility policies and have included individuals with disabilities in product design and evaluation. Vanderheiden (n.d.) identifies a number of attempts to improve access for the various impairment groups.

 F-1. What are the existing attempts to develop products in the spirit of Accessible Design?



There are several attempts in industry to develop commercial products in the spirit of accessible design, especially in big companies (e.g., Internet World, 2000; Macromedia, 2000, NCR, 2001; Pacific Bell, 1996; Qualcomm, 1999; Sun Microsystems, 2000). Such products include cell phones that are more compatible with assistive listening devices (TIA Access, 1999a; 1999b, 1999c), PDF files that are more compatible with assistive reading devices (Adobe, 1999), and kiosk terminals with touchscreen input and private voice-assisted leadthrough (NCR, 2001). In a letter to President Clinton (September, 2000), technology executives from several companies vowed to lead industry efforts in incorporating accessible design principles into the design process. Award programs sponsored by disability advocacy groups, such as the American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) and Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (SHHH), further support industry efforts by providing publicity for accessible products (AFB, 2000; RNIB, 2000; TIA Access, 1999a, 1999b).
(2000, September 21). An open letter on accessibility from technology executives. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sun.com/access/general/clinton_letter.html
Adobe Systems, Inc. (1999). Optimizing Adobe PDF files for accessibility. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/pdfs/pdfaccess.pdf
Becker, D. (1999). Some dedicated people are helping the disabled participate in the computer revolution. TechWeek. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.techweek.com/articles/5-17-99/access.htm
Engelen, J., Evenepoel, F., Bormans, G., et al. (COST219). (1999, October). Producing web pages that everyone can access. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/webdesign.htm
Feworn, A., Bodner, R., & Chignell, M. H. (2000). Auditory WWW search tools. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2000/PDFs/
FerwornBodnerChignell.pdf)
Internet World. (2000, October 25). Macromedia enables creation of accessible web content. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003):
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/proom/pr/2000/
accessibility.html)
Krueger, M. W., & Gilden, D. (1997). KnowWhere: An audio/spatial interface for blind people. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD97/Kruger.PDF
Macromedia. (2000, October). Accessibility at Macromedia. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibility/
Microsoft. (n.d.). Accessibility Homepage. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.microsoft.com/enable/
NCR. (2001, January). Access for all. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncr.com/solutions/self-service/access_for_all.htm
Pacific Bell Network. (1996, June). Universal design policy. Retrieved January 4, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/pacbell_ud/agpd.htm
Qualcomm. (1999). Creating possibilities with accessibility. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.qualcomm.com/corporate/accessibility/index.html
Red Hat. (1997, March 28). LINUX Access HOWTO. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003): http://www.europe.redhat.com/documentation/HOWTO/Access-HOWTO.php3
Royal National Institute for the Blind. (Nov, 2000). “RNIB Approved” UK Websites which are accessible to everyone. Retrieved January 11, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.rnib.org.uk/access/accessible.htm
Sun Microsystems. (2000). Accessibility Program. Retrieved January 9, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sun.com/access/general/overview.html
TIA Access. (1999, July 13). SHHH selects Motorola as National Access Award winner. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/news.php?ID=31
TIA Access. (1999, June 30). Nokia recognized for innovations in access technology. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/news.php?ID=35
TIA Access. (1999, September 23). Mobile phones for the deaf: Telesta offers real-time-text exchange for hearing- and speech-impaired. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/news.php?ID=34
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices and strategies for individuals with hearing impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices and strategies for persons with visual impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices for persons with physical impairments: Conversation, writing, and computer access. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices for persons with physical impairments: Input interface techniques. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive techniques and devices for persons with cognitive and language impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C., Law, C. M., & Barnicle, K. (n.d.). Cross disability telecollaboration systems. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.
Wilson, L. (October, 1996, revision by Pishney, J.). Assistive technology for the disabled computer user. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.unc.edu/cit/guides/irg-20.html

 F-2. What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of accessible products?



The perceived strengths of accessible products are that they increase the productivity and independence of people with disabilities and are easier to use by people who do not have disabilities (Access Board, n.d.; Taylor, 2000; TIA Access, 1996). In addition, accessible products are perceived as being more flexible for use in situations where individuals without disabilities may experience temporary impairment (e.g., environments with a great deal of noise, Vanderheiden, 1997).

There are three perceived weaknesses of accessible products that are commonly cited as reasons for not incorporating accessible design principles in the design process. The first is that accessible products cannot be truly accessible to everyone. Developers in industry fear that misperceptions about the promise of accessible design could lead to increased customer dissatisfaction and thus increased litigation (Trace Center, n.d.). The second perceived weakness is that accessible products, in order to be more accessible to people with disabilities, must necessarily be less aesthetically appealing. Individuals with disabilities, however, appreciate cosmetic appeal just as much as individuals without disabilities (King, 1999). The third perceived weakness is that accessible products are more expensive and time consuming to produce (Trace Center, n.d.).
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices and strategies for individuals with hearing impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices and strategies for persons with visual impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices for persons with physical impairments: Conversation, writing, and computer access. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices for persons with physical impairments: Input interface techniques. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive techniques and devices for persons with cognitive and language impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (In print). Telecommunications - accessibility and future directions. In Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (Eds.), Inclusive guidelines for HCI.




G: Government Regulations

 Introduction



The primary regulatory actions impacting E&IT design include Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. There are many comments on and interpretations of these regulations, and they are referred to in the literature review. Section 255 is part of the Telecommunications Act, and was developed to mandate that manufacturers of telecommunications equipment make strong attempts to ensure accessibility to all, when readily achievable. Compliance involves a complaint process that ensures confidentiality and provides strict guidelines for timeframes to react to the complaints (Access Board, 1998; TIA, 1999).

Section 508 impacts government agencies, and was developed to ensure access to information provided by the Federal Government. Any non-compliance must be documented and explained, agency evaluations will be completed regularly, and compliance reports will be developed. Technical assistance is available for the various agencies (Access Board, 2001).

 G-1. What is required by Section 255?



Section 255 requires that telecommunications “equipment and customer premises equipment” be accessible to individuals with disabilities, where “readily achievable” (Access Board, 1998). If accessibility in design, development, and manufacturing is not readily achievable, telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment must be made compatible with assistive devices. Disability is defined by Section 255 as functional limitations in vision, hearing, movement, manipulation, speech, and interpretation of information.
Access Board. (1998). (n.d.) Telecommunications Act accessibility guidelines. [Published in the Federal Register February 3, 1998]. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/html/telfinal.htm
Access Board. (n.d.). Market monitoring report. Retrieved September 18, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/marketrep/.
Kennard, W. E. (March 8, 1998). Remarks by Chairman William E. Kennard regarding disability access to telecom equipment. Washington, D.C.
NCD. (June 30, 1998). Comments to the Federal Communications Commission. National Council on Disability. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/correspondence/fcc_6-30-98.html
TIA. (June 30, 1998). Comments of the Telecommunications Industry Association. Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.
TIA. (January 8, 1999). Correspondence from the Telecommunications Industry Association. Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.
TIA. (1997). Proposal for FCC guidelines for implementing Section 255 of the Communications Act. Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.
TIA. (1998). Reply comments of the Telecommunications Industry Association. (August 14, 1998). Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.

 G-2. What is required by Section 508?



Section 508 requires that, unless “undue burden” is imposed, all federal departments and agencies make electronic and information technology accessible to both federal employees with disabilities and individuals in the public with disabilities who wish to access services and information provided by the federal government. If undue burden is observed, and fully justified, federal departments and agencies must provide alternative means of access to electronic and information technology. A set of standards for accessibility, produced by the Access Board, are to follow Section 508 and six months after they are published all government departments and agencies are to be evaluated for compliance by their respective heads. At this point, individuals can also contact the federal government for litigation and enforcement purposes regarding non-compliant departments or agencies.
Access Board. (2001). Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794(d)). (1998). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/about/Rehab%20Act%20Amend-508.htm
Accessibility Forum (2003). Quick reference guide to Section 508. Retrieved September 26, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.accessibilityforum.org/paper_tool.html
EITAAC Report. (June 9, 1999). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cot.org/dreport.htm
Electronic and information technology accessibility standards. (2000). [Published in the Federal Register]. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm
Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards: Economic Assessment. (2000). Washington, D.C.: EOP Foundation.
Section508.gov. (n.d.). 508 Law. Retrieved September 3, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.section508.gov/index.php?FuseAction=Content&ID=3
Workforce Investment Act of 1998: Section 508. Electronic and Information Technology. Retrieved December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508law.html

 G-3. Which industries are most affected by Section 255/508?



The Electronic and Information Technology Access Advisory Committee (EITAAC) identified several critical areas in which accessibility to electronic and information technology must be addressed (EITAAC Report, 1999). These areas include keyboards, software, web-based information and applications, telecommunications, multimedia, information transaction machines, PDAs, and cabling. Therefore, industries producing technology falling in these areas would be affected by Section 508. As Section 255 pertains to telecommunication equipment and customer premises equipment, telecommunications providers and manufacturers of telecommunications equipment are the most affected industries by this legislation (Access Board, 1998).
Access Board. (2001). Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794(d)). (1998). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/about/Rehab%20Act%20Amend-508.htm
Access Board. (1998). Telecommunications Act accessibility guidelines. (n.d.). [Published in the Federal Register February 3, 1998]. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/html/telfinal.htm
EITAAC Report. (June 9, 1999). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cot.org/dreport.htm
Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards: Economic Assessment. (2000). Washington, D.C.: EOP Foundation.

 G-4. What are the current interpretations of government regulations?



Current interpretations of government regulations recognize that attempts to increase accessibility will not necessarily make all products accessible to all people (Access Board, n.d.; TIA, 1997). The definition of what is “readily achievable” will vary with each manufacturer and depend on the costs and resource availability associated with making products accessible (Access Board, n.d.). Recognizing the diversity in manufacturers and products, the guidelines established by federal regulations focus on performance specifications that equipment must meet, rather than the exact manner in which accessibility is achieved (Access Board, n.d.). Attempts to meet these specifications must occur at the earliest stages in the design process, however (Access Board, n.d.). Industry interpretations of the regulations support the accessibility of product lines, rather than individual products in order to promote continued flexibility in product development (TIA, 1998, 1999). Interpretations of Section 508 make it clear that this legislation applies to the federal sector only, though such regulation may eventually apply to the public sector (ATBCB, 2000; Tedeschi, 2001). Finally, enforcement of Section 255 compliance is exacted by the Federal Communications Commission, and not by the organizations through which regulations are drafted. It is encouraged that complaints about accessibility be informally addressed (e.g., the Access Board; TIA, 1997, 1999). There is some debate as to how this should be accomplished (NCD, 1998; TIA, 1999).
Access Board. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/bulletin.txt (Informal guidance on Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)
Access Board. (1998). Telecommunications Act accessibility guidelines. (n.d.). [Published in the Federal Register February 3, 1998]. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/html/telfinal.htm
Electronic and information technology accessibility standards. (2000). [Published in the Federal Register]. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm
NCD. Comments to the Federal Communications Commission. (June 30, 1998). National Council on Disability. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/correspondence/fcc_6-30-98.html
TIA. (1998). Reply comments of the Telecommunications Industry Association. (August 14, 1998). Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.
TIA Access. (1996, November). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Electronic Industries Alliance/Electronic Industries Foundation. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/guide.html

 G-5. What is the current compliance approach?



Several telecommunications and electronic information industry leaders (e.g., Sun Microsystems, Microsoft, AT&T, Adobe, Macromedia, etc.) have taken the initiative to address compliance issues within their companies, as evidenced by the “Open Letter on Accessibility from Technology Executives” to the President in September, 2000. In this letter, industry leaders committed to drafting company-wide policies on accessibility, which include raising awareness about accessibility, providing training in accessibility issues, including individuals with disabilities in the design process, and documenting the accessibility features of their products and services. As can be seen in several corporate web sites (e.g., IBM, Pacific Bell, Microsoft, Macromedia), several companies have already begun to address accessibility on a large-scale and have taken an active part in promoting accessibility through their products and documentation. One way in which compliance is documented is through the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT); a template has been created for corporations to address their compliance issues (ITIC, 2001).

Further, the telecommunications industry maintains contact with legislation through active participation in the process through which standards and regulations are implemented (e.g., TIA, 1997, 1999). The goal of this participation is to address compliance issues while also trying to support industry innovation and competition. Accessible design appears to be an ideal way in which to integrate the needs of individuals with disabilities with the needs of industry (Access Board, n.d.).
Access Board. (2001). Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794(d)). (1998). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/about/Rehab%20Act%20Amend-508.htm
ITIC. (2001). Voluntary Product Accessibility Template. Retrieved September 19, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.itic.org/policy/vpat.html
ITAA. (n.d.). Information Technology Association of America IT Accessibility and Regulation Task Group. Retrieved September 26, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.itaa.org/software/sec508/
TIA. (January 8, 1999). Correspondence from the Telecommunications Industry Association.

 G-6. What is the government’s position on enforcement of the current regulations?



The government has provided evidence that it takes enforcement of the current regulations seriously through clearly described compliance procedures including multiple evaluations, clearly described processes for proving “undue burden” or “not readily achievable”, and warnings to agencies or companies that have not yet complied with regulation that financial penalty will ensue if failure continues (Access Board, 2001; FCC, 2000). The government evaluates compliance of its own departments and agencies with federal standards through a series of evaluations and reports, prepared by the Attorney General (Access Board, 2001). The heads of federal departments and agencies are expected to cooperate with the preparation of these reports by providing information about the current state of compliance. The President then evaluates this report. However, there is not much documented on government action taken against non-government offenders of Section 255, and the enforcement provisions specified in Section 508 do not go into effect until June 21, 2001.
Access Board. (2001). Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794(d)). (1998). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/about/Rehab%20Act%20Amend-508.htm
Federal Communications Commission: Chief, Enforcement Bureau; Chief, Consumer Information Bureau; and Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. (2000, September 22). Reminder to manufacturers and providers of voice mail and interactive menu products and services of their accessibility obligations under new part 7 of the Commission’s rules. Washington DC. Retrieved January 4, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Public_Notices/2000/
da002162.doc)
Tedeschi, B. (2001, January 1). E-Commerce Report. New York Times.
TIA. (1997). Proposal for FCC guidelines for implementing Section 255 of the Communications Act. Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.


H: Organizational Behavior

 Introduction



Organizations face many barriers when it comes to incorporating accessible design. An evaluation of European organizations found the following barriers to be in place: the role of end users in the design process, the structure of the firm, perceptions of older people and people with disabilities, the role of these same populations within the design process, other priorities in the design process, the availability or awareness of material on accessibility issues, awareness of Design for All principles, and the nature of Design for All (European Commission, 1998).

Grudin (1993) identifies two barriers: the separation of the product definition and development processes, and the traditional, intentional separation of developers and users, which perpetuates ignorance of user needs. Aspects of organizational behavior that will facilitate the adoption of accessible design principles include offering human factors services free of charge to the design team or paying out of the overhead or other levels to encourage use by design teams; tailoring methods to the time and resources available; co-locating human factors experts with project design teams to permit quick access; and creating incentive programs for good designs. Raising awareness is the most important behavior an organization can adopt (Hartley, C). Without enabling the end user to participate in the design process and making distinct user and development environments, organizations will not overcome barriers to accessible design (Grudin, 1993).

 H-1. What are the current barriers?



Organizations face several barriers when it comes to adopting accessible design principles in design, primarily due to the separation of the user and the developer and lack of awareness regarding the availability of accessible design resources. An evaluation of European organizations found such barriers as failure to include end users in the design process, the structure of the firm, negative or inaccurate perceptions of older people and people with disabilities, other priorities in the design process, the availability or awareness of material on accessibility issues, awareness of Design for All principles, and the nature of Design for All (European Commission, 1998). Grudin (1993) identifies two barriers: the separation of the product definition and development processes, and the traditional, intentional separation of developers and users, which perpetuates ignorance of user needs. Research conducted at the Trace Center (n.d.) indicated that the size of the company, the separation of the company from accessible design resources, and the perception of cost associated with accessible design were all associated with failure to adopt accessible design principles.

European Commission. (1998). Design for all and ICT business practice: Addressing the barriers. Examples of best practice (EC Ref. Number 98.70.022). Telematics Applications Programme: "Design-for-All" for an Inclusive Information Society, Brussels.

Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to participatory design in large product development organizations. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 99-119). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Trace Center. Universal design research project. Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/univ_design_res_proj/udrp.htm

 

 H-2. What aspects of organizational behavior will facilitate the adoption of Accessible Design principles?



Research conducted at the Trace Center (n.d.) indicates that the fundamentally competitive nature of commercial product development will serve to facilitate the adoption of accessible design principles. That is, once some companies expand their target markets and increase profits by producing more accessible products, other companies will feel pressure to fall into step. In a similar vein, the aversion to litigation shared by all companies will compel organization leaders to investigate and improve the compliance of their products with federal regulations in order to prevent getting sued (Trace Center, n.d.). Finally, the ongoing research efforts in industry to produce more advanced products may contribute to increased awareness of accessible design and its implications for improved profits. Increased awareness may be one of the most important facilitators of the adoption of accessible design principles in design (Hartley, 1999).

European Commission. (1998). Design for all and ICT business practice: Addressing the barriers. Examples of best practice (EC Ref. Number 98.70.022). Telematics Applications Programme: "Design-for-All" for an Inclusive Information Society, Brussels.

Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to participatory design in large product development organizations. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 99-119). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hartley, C. (October 20, 1999). Personal communication [email].

Trace Center. Universal design research project. Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/univ_design_res_proj/udrp.htm

 

 H-3. How will the organization climate create or sustain barriers to the adoption of Accessible Design principles?



Unfortunately the competitive and litigation-averse nature of organizations has also created and may sustain barriers to the adoption of accessible design principles. That is, unwillingness to take the time to research and train in accessible design, fear of increased cost incurred by accessible design, and fear of increased litigation due to failure to truly design for everyone are all associated with failure to adopt accessible design principles (Trace Center, n.d.). Increased awareness of accessible design and increased availability of resources and training may cater to these aspects of the organizational climate therefore making the adoption of accessible design principles the profitable choice. Another aspect of organizational design processes that may sustain barriers is the separation of product definition and product development processes, particularly for large companies (Grudin, 1993). While increasing awareness of the benefits of including users in the design process will likely improve organizational response to user needs, specialization in organizational departments may prevent these needs from leaping the gap between product definition and development.

Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to participatory design in large product development organizations. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 99-119). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.





I: Principles/Guidelines of Accessible Design

 I-1. What Principles/Guidelines have been identified in the area of Accessible Design?



Broadly speaking, accessible design allows the participation of people with disabilities in the fundamental daily activities taken for granted by individuals without disabilities. Such activities include the use of services, products, and information (Bergman, 1995). However, it is important to note that disabilities may be temporary (e.g., having an arm in a cast) or a result of circumstance (operating in a noisy environment) (Vanderheiden, 1997). When accessible design accounts for this range of abilities, it is appropriately termed "Accessible Design".

Universal design is "the practice of designing products or environments that can be effectively and efficiently used by people with a wide range of abilities operating in a wide range of situations" (Vanderheiden, 1997). There are seven fundamental principles of universal design; they are 1) Simple and Intuitive Use; 2) Equitable Use; 3) Perceptible Information; 4) Tolerance for Error; 5) Accommodation of Preferences and Abilities; 6) Low Physical Effort; and 7) Space for Approach and Use (Connell, et al, 1997; Vanderheiden, 1997). These principles are also incorporated into the practices of "Design for All" (InClude, 1999) and "Every Citizen Interfaces" (Wiesser, et al, n.d.).

Several guidelines, both general (Steinfeld, 1994; Vanderheiden, 1997) and specific (Engelen, et al, 1999; Gill, et al, n.d.; Gjoderum, et al, n.d.; InClude, 1999; Mercinelli, n.d.), have been developed and made widely available as tools and resources for accessible design. These guidelines suggest design characteristics that would maximize the range of abilities that individuals could have in order to interact with some technology. In this case, the specific guidelines involve the accessibility of telecommunication products and technology.

In 1998, Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act to require Federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d), agencies must give employees with disabilities and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others. (Section508.gov, n.d.) Section 508 required the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (or Access Board) to publish standards setting forth a definition of electronic and information technology and the technical and functional performance criteria necessary for such technology to comply with section 508. On December 21, 2000, the Access Board's final accessibility standards for electronic and information technology covered by Section 508 were published in the Federal Register. (Access Board, n.d.) The technical standards covered the following types of technology:
  •   software applications and operating systems
  •   web-based intranet and internet information and applications
  •   telecommunications products
  •   video and multimedia products
  •   self contained, closed products, and
  •   desktop and portable computers
    • The enforcement provisions of Section 508 went into effect June 21, 2001 -- six months from the date the Access Board published its final standards.

    Accessible design for websites also is addressed by the World Wide Web Consortium Web Accessibility Initiative (W3C, n.d.). They provide guidance for accessibility in the areas of web content, authoring tools, user agents, and XML.
    Access Board. (n.d.) Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards. Retrieved September 3, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm

    Bergman, E. (1995). Towards accessible human-computer interaction. Nielsen, J. (ed.), Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 5. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.sun.com/access/developers/updt.HCI.advance.html

    Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R. Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). Raleigh, NC: NC State University, The Center for Universal Design. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/principles/
    udprinciples.htm)

    Engelen, J., Evenepoel, F., Bormans, G., et al. (COST219). (1999, October). Producing web pages that everyone can access. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/webdesign.htm

    Feworn, A., Bodner, R., & Chignell, M. H. (2000). Auditory WWW search tools. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
    Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2000/
    PDFs/FerwornBodnerChignell.pdf)

    Gill, J., Roe, P., & Martin, M. (COST219). Pay phones with immediate public access. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/payphones.htm

    Gjoderum, J., Hypponen, H., Nordby, K., Ruud, S., Ekberg, J., & Martin, M. (COST219). Guideline-Booklet on Mobile Phones. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/mobiletelephone.htm

    IBM. (n.d.). Principles for accessible software. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003):
    http://www.ibm.com/able/access_ibm/principles.html

    IBM. (n.d.). Understanding disability issues when designing web sites. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003):
    http://www.ibm.com/able/access_ibm/disability.html

    Leplâtre, G., & Brewster, S. A. (2000). Designing non-speech sounds to support navigation to mobile phone menus. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web:
    Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2000/
    PDFs/Leplatre.pdf)

    Mercinelli, M. (COST219). Guidelines-Accessibility requirements for new telecommunication equipment. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/smartphones.htm

    Microsoft. (n.d.). Microsoft Windows guidelines for accessible software design. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.microsoft.com/enable/dev/guidelines/software.htm

    Microsoft. (n.d.). Today's assistive technology, tomorrow's everyday convenience. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003):
    http://microsoft.com/enable/news/ada99.aspx

    Monterey Technologies, Inc. (September 9, 1996). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Submitted to EIA-EIF Committee on Product Accessibility, A Joint Venture of the Electronic Industries Association and the Electronic Industries Foundation.

    Nielsen, J. (n.d.). Ten usability heuristics. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

    Poulson, D, Ashby, M., & Richardson, S. (Eds.). (1996). USERfit: A Practical Handbook on User-Centered Design for Assistive Technology. Brussels-Luxembourg: ECSC-EC-EAEC.

    Royal National Institute for the Blind. (2000, November 12). Accessible web design. Retrieved December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital/hints.htm

    Section508.gov. (n.d.). 508 Law. Retrieved September 3, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.section508.gov/index.php?FuseAction=Content&ID=3

    Steinfeld, E. (1994). The concept of universal design. Buffalo, NY: E. Steinfeld. Retrieved January 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.arch.buffalo.edu/~idea/publications/free_pubs/
    pubs_cud.html)

    TIA. (1997). Proposal for FCC guidelines for implementing Section 255 of the Communications Act. Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.

    University of Washington. World wide web access: Accessible web design. Retrieved December 15, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
    Click here to go to this resoucre. (http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Technology/
    universal.design.html)

    Vanderheiden, G. C. (1997). Design for people with functional limitations resulting from disability, aging, and circumstance. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd Ed., pp. 2010-2052). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Vanderheiden, G. C. (In print). Telecommunications - accessibility and future directions. In Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (Eds.), Inclusive guidelines for HCI.

    W3C. (n.d.). WAI resources. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources




    J: Requirements of the User Population Served by the Accessible Design Community

     Introduction



    Because of their limitations (e.g., vision, hearing, mobility), individuals with disabilities have particularly strong needs to access information that is "readily available," but not accessible because of technological and other limitations (Feurzeig, et al, n.d.). Kaye (1997, 2000) reminds us that people with disabilities continue to be discriminated against with respect to employment, education, housing, access to public accommodations, and social integration. Educational efforts need to be made to broadcast the benefits that assistive technologies can provide, and cost reduction strategies must be implemented to make these technologies affordable.

    Since accessible design is expected to benefit everyone, the broad requirements of the user population served by the Accessible Design Community are the same as any other user population (Vanderheiden, 1997). That is, individuals with disabilities require the same access to information and employment as any individual without disabilities, and enjoy the same benefits of this access: feelings of personal empowerment and improved quality of life (Francik, 1996). However, accessible product design must meet special requirements in order to include the population with disabilities, particularly those in the population who use assistive technology (Wilson, 1996).

    Up to this point, these special requirements have not been satisfactorily met or even completely identified, as is evident in the large gap between advantaged and disadvantaged populations (Feurzeig, et al., n.d.; Kaye, 1998, 2000; Tedeschi, 2001). Specifically, hearing impaired individuals require Interactive Voice Response interfaces (IVRs) that are compatible with TTY devices and hearing aids or have adjustable volume control (FCC, 2000; Francik, 1996). Visually impaired individuals require web sites whose code is translatable by screen reading technology (Tedeschi, 2001) or whose colors and font sizes can be adjusted. In addition to the products themselves, information about the products, training, and services must also meet accessibility requirements (Francik, 1996). These are just a few examples, and it is important to note that including such requirements early in the design process would improve the accessibility of commercial products for everyone.

     J-1. What are the information needs of users with disabilities?



    The information needs of users with disabilities are the same as the information needs of any user, but access to information may be more difficult for users with disabilities.
    Baker, L. (1999). Therapeutic riding and the visually impaired. [Printed in NARHA Strides, 5(1) and 5(2). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.narha.org/features/tr_visimp.pdf

    Feurzeig, Porter & Goldberg. (n.d.). Position papers on selected population groups regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/14.html

    Francik, E. (1996). Telephone interfaces: Universal design filters. Retrieved January 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/taacmtg_aug96/pbfilter.htm

    Kaye, H. S. (1997). Disability watch: The status of people with disabilities in the United States. San Francisco: Disability Rights Advocates.

    Kaye, H. S. (July, 2000). Disability and the digital divide (Disability Statistics Abstract 22). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

    Kaye, H. S. (March, 2000). Computer and internet use among people with disabilities (Disability Statistics Report 13). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

    Kaye, H. S. (May, 1998). Is the status of people with disabilities improving? (Disability Statistics Abstract Number 21). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

    King & Thomas. (n.d.). Position papers on key processes regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/15.html

    Vanderheiden, G. C. (In print). Telecommunications - accessibility and future directions. In Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (Eds.), Inclusive guidelines for HCI.

    Vanderheiden, G. C., Law, C. M., & Barnicle, K. (n.d.). Cross disability telecollaboration systems. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.




    K: Training Methods and Materials

     Introduction



    Identifying the consumers of training is a necessary first set in developing training methods and materials. The consensus opinion is that a holistic training approach of individuals covering all facets of the design process as well as in student curricula is necessary for a shift to universal design (Welch, 1995). However, only two companies (IBM and Microsoft) have published positions on incorporating design practices in software development, and some disciplines (e.g., architecture) are reported to be resistant to universal design practices (Morrow, R., n.d.). Training techniques to teach the required material are based on emerging accessibility standards (developed by special interest groups as well as the companies mentioned) and use simulation of disabilities and observation of users with disabilities as the primary techniques.

    Welch (1995) also recommends using participatory training to directly involve the audience using trainers and teachers with disabilities, and conducting interviews of individuals with disabilities, hands-on view of design outcomes to raise awareness to these design issues, and didactic discussion on good and bad design practices. Other training techniques may be adopted from past efforts to develop user-centered design approaches, such as cognitive mapping (McNeese, et. al., 1992), which structures the intake of user requirements through interactive interviewing.

    Theory building on how innovation spreads is developing, which may contribute to a formal methodology for training innovation (Rogers, E.M., 1995). Diffusion of innovations (DI) is a descriptive approach to assessing the degree of innovation as ideas are propagated through a given culture after their introduction. Critics of this approach see DI as a "blaming" mechanism rather than fostering design collaborations. Such examples of theory are likely to evolve, as the means of positive influence on universal design practices become better understood.

     K-1. Who are the consumers of training?



    The consumers of training are those designers (and others who influence the specification of products) interested in making their products accessible to people with disabilities, either to comply with federal regulation or to increase product appeal. Such designers are employed by companies all over the country, including IBM (n.d.) and Microsoft (n.d.). Additional consumers of training are those students pursuing occupations in which accessibility issues must be addressed (e.g., architecture). Training curricula must be carefully designed, however, in order to avoid perpetuating exclusion from design practices (Morrow, 2000). As formal, standardized training curricula in accessibility, as it relates to technology, have not yet been developed (as it has in architecture), there remains a need for a comprehensive understanding of training needs and diffusion of accessible design training.

    Bergman, E. (1995). Towards accessible human-computer interaction. Nielsen, J. (ed.), Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 5. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.sun.com/access/developers/updt.HCI.advance.html

    IBM. (n.d.). Understanding disability issues when designing web sites. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003):
    http://www.ibm.com/able/access_ibm/disability.html

    Kolodner, E. L., Nathan, V., & Piersol, C. V. (n.d.). Interdisciplinary collaborative teams: A strategy for infusing universal design into professional curricula. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    Microsoft. Accessibility Homepage. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

    Morrow, R. (n.d.). Inclusion as a critical tool in design education. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    W3C. (n.d.). WAI resources. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources

    Welch, P. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for teaching universal design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    Go back to the top of this page.

     K-2. What are the training techniques that could be used to teach the required material?



    There are several techniques for training individuals in accessible design. The first technique is classroom instruction. Universities across the country (e.g., University of Wisconsin-Madison, North Carolina State University) offer courses in accessible design, frequently in the area of architecture and environmental design. A second technique is workshop demonstrations and instruction, which can be conducted on-site at companies (e.g., WAI, 2000). Finally, on-line resources provided by organizations that promote accessible design (e.g., Microsoft, the Trace Center, COST 219) can be very helpful for developers interested in learning more about accessibility and how it pertains to specific product designs. Currently, however, training in accessible design, as it pertains to electronic and information technology and telecommunications equipment and products, is not widespread. Much development in this area is required. Welch (1995) stresses the role of awareness of disabilities in accessible design training. Training conducted by individuals with disabilities or involving simulations of functional limitations may be particularly useful for increasing the adoption of accessible design principles.
    McNeese, M., Zaff, B., Peio, K., Snyder, D., Duncan, J., McFarren, M. (1992). Concept mapping: A pilot's view of the mission. In An Advanced Knowledge and Design Methodology: Application for the Pilot's Associate. (pp. 21-60) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. (NTIS No. AAMRL-TR-90-060).

    Microsoft. Accessibility Homepage. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

    Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (Fourth Edition). New York: The Free Press.

    The Center for Universal Design. (n.d.). Education and training. Retrieved January 22, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ed_train/edu_train.htm

    Web Accessibility Initiative. (2000, November 3). Planning Web Accessibility Training. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/

    Welch, P. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for teaching universal design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    Go back to the top of this page.

     K-3. What types of training material are currently being used to teach Accessible Design?



    The training material currently available to teach accessible design includes guidebooks (e.g., InClude, 1999), handbook chapters (e.g., Vanderheiden, 1997), conference proceedings (e.g., Designing for the 21st Century: An International Conference on Accessible Design, 2000), and numerous accessibility web sites (e.g., Microsoft, n.d.; Sun Microsystems, n.d.; the Trace Center). As awareness of disabilities is essential to training in accessible design (Morrow, 2000; Welch, 1995), several on-line resources are also useful, such as Cost 219 (n.d.) and IBM (n.d.), which outline or describe the functional limitations experienced by people with disabilities and how they relate to product design. In addition, simulations of disability included in training programs would also be helpful (Welch, 1995).

    Microsoft. Accessibility Homepage. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

    The Center for Universal Design. (n.d.). Education and training. Retrieved January 22, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ed_train/edu_train.htm

    Web Accessibility Initiative. (2000, November 3). Planning Web Accessibility Training. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/

    Welch, P. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for teaching universal design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    Go back to the top of this page.

     K-4. What qualifications/skills does the trainer need in order to adequately teach Accessible Design?



    Currently, there are no formal qualifications/skills required to teach accessible design in technology, though some authors have noted that having had previous or ongoing experience with disability is helpful (Morrow, 2000; Welch, 1995). Thorough knowledge in accessible design principles, and perhaps some training background, appear to be all that is recommended in addition to expert familiarity with the technology to which accessible design principles are supposed to be applied (WAI, 2000).


    The Center for Universal Design. (n.d.). Education and training. Retrieved January 22, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ed_train/edu_train.htm

    Web Accessibility Initiative. (2000, November 3). Planning Web Accessibility Training. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/

    Welch, P. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for teaching universal design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.




    L: Accessible Design Processes and Resources

     Introduction



    The current accessible design process is very similar to the process employed by user-centered design in that it begins with the users and involves testing, evaluation, and iterative design (Lund & Tschirgi, n.d.). A primary difference from traditional user-centered design, however, is the inclusion of a wide range of abilities to be accommodated by the design features of the finished product (Vanderheiden, 1997), whereas traditional user-centered design has applied to "general" user populations (Bergman, 1995). Federal regulations require that designers of commercial products extend their definition of the user population to include people with disabilities where "readily achievable" (Access Board, 1998; Austin, et al, 1998; TIA, 1998). This would involve designing accessible products from the outset, rather than retrofitting products with the appropriate, often costly and unappealing, adjustments to make them accessible.

    The most prevalent barrier to implementing this fundamental change to the design process is lack of awareness among industry designers regarding the needs of the currently underrepresented populations (elderly, disabled, foreign) and how even individuals from the mainstream population may experience similar needs at any time (Bergman, 1995). Second, there exist several myths regarding the prevalence of functional limitations, the applicability of relatively minor design changes to alleviating functional limitations, and the cost associated with making such design changes (InClude, 1999). Finally, there are barriers associated with the natures of industrial practices and regulation itself (Clark, n.d.; Lund & Tschirgi, n.d.).

    There are, however, several tools and resources made available to designers through the efforts made by both European and American leaders in accessible design, such as Microsoft, the Trace Center, and the European Commission (European Commission, 1998; Microsoft, n.d.; Vanderheiden, 1997). These tools and resources list the principles of universal design, describe the design process, and present several general design guidelines for improving the accessibility of commercial products. In addition, they present useful guides for performing a needs assessment and checklists for design evaluation (IBM, n.d.; Monterey Technologies, Inc., 1996). Further, design guidelines for specific products are also available (Adobe Systems, Inc., 1999; Brodin, et al, 1999; Mercinelli, n.d.; Red Hat, 1997).

     L-1. What are the current design processes?



    The current processes in accessible design are similar to those in user-centered design, except that accessible design considers a much broader range of potential users during the design process (Vanderheiden, 1997). That is, rather than considering the "average user," accessible design attempts to design for every user. However, like the user-centered design process, the accessible design process involves iterative stages, testing, and evaluation (Lund & Tschirgi, n.d.). As Sections 255 and 508 require increased accessibility, the design processes of accessible design are ideal for meeting federal regulations.
    Christenson, M. A.. (n.d.). Roadblocks to incorporating universal design. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    Clarkson, P. J., & Keates, S. (2000). I-design project (inclusive design for the whole population). Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    Donnelly, B. F. (n.d.). Universal design and regulation - A good business strategy. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    Evans, D. G., MacKenzie, H. R., & Przirembel, C. (1996). Twenty key elements of a product realization process. Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.prosci.com/prp1.htm

    Francik, E. (1996). Telephone interfaces: Universal design filters. Retrieved January 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/taacmtg_aug96/
    pbfilter.htm)

    Lund, A. M., & Tschirgi, J. E. Designing for people: Integrating human factors into the product realization process. Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
    Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.ameritech.com/corporate/testtown/library/articles/
    design.html)

    Middendorf, L., & Johnson, P. (n.d.). Meta-universal design. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    National Science Foundation Workshop Report. (1996, April). Research opportunities in engineering design. Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
    http://asudesign.eas.asu.edu/events/NSF/report.html

    TIA Access. (1996, November). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Electronic Industries Alliance/Electronic Industries Foundation. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.tiaonline.org/access/guide.html

    Vanderheiden, G. C. (1997). Design for people with functional limitations resulting from disability, aging, and circumstance. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd Ed., pp. 2010-2052). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    Go back to the top of this page.

     L-2. What changes are required to the current design processes as a result of 255/508?



    Several changes to current design processes are required as a result of Section 255 and Section 508. These changes include involving people with disabilities in marketing research and early phases of design, designing for multiple input and output modalities, and testing with users with disabilities.

    Access Board. (2001). Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794(d)). (1998). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.access-board.gov/about/
    Rehab%20Act%20Amend-508.htm)

    Austin, M., Chen, P., Doering, J., Mayers, H.A., Oleson, L., Turner, S., & Vinson, N. (1998). Universal access and universal service: Lowering the barriers to entry into cyberspace. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ltac98/access.html

    NCD. Comments to the Federal Communications Commission. (June 30, 1998). National Council on Disability. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/correspondence/
    fcc_6-30-98.html)

    Strategic Policy Research. (1998). An evaluation of the Access Board's accessibility guidelines. Bethesda, MD: Strategic Policy Research.

    TIA. Comments of the Telecommunications Industry Association. (June 30, 1998). Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.

    Go back to the top of this page.

     L-3. What are the barriers to implementing the changes to the design processes?



    Resistance to making the shift to designing for every user instead of the average user originates from negative attitudes in industry toward regulation (e.g., see Clark, 2000) and lack of interest/awareness regarding making products accessible to people with disabilities (e.g., Trace Center, n.d.). Educational practices in accessible design do not always serve to remove these barriers (Morrow, 2000). Once awareness increases, however, interest often follows (European Commission, 1998).

    Austin, M., Chen, P., Doering, J., Mayers, H.A., Oleson, L., Turner, S., & Vinson, N. (1998). Universal access and universal service: Lowering the barriers to entry into cyberspace. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ltac98/access.html

    Clark, R. (n.d.). Universal design and regulation - A zero-sum game. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    NCD. Comments to the Federal Communications Commission. (June 30, 1998). National Council on Disability. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/correspondence/
    fcc_6-30-98.html)

    Strategic Policy Research. (1998). An evaluation of the Access Board's accessibility guidelines. Bethesda, MD: Strategic Policy Research.

    TIA. Comments of the Telecommunications Industry Association. (June 30, 1998). Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.

    Go back to the top of this page.

     L-4. What tools are available to designers?



    Like designers practicing user-centered design, designers practicing accessible design have tools available to help them in the prototyping (Greenberg, 2000; Lamancusa, 2000), construction (Meyers, 1997; Sun Microsystems, n.d.), and evaluation phases (IBM, n.d.; Monterey Technologies, 1996; Montoya-Weiss, et al, 2000) of design. Examples of prototyping tools include Windows Paint and SILK, which aid in developing paper-based sketches, and PICTIVE, which aids in participatory design and the development of low-fidelity prototypes. There exist several others, which aid in the development of computerized, high-fidelity prototypes and interface development (see Meyers, 1997). Product construction tools include Java Foundation Classes, which are specifically designed to aid developers in constructing internet, intranet, and desktop applications (Sun Microsystems, n.d.). Finally, various resources provide checklists and guidelines for evaluation methods that aid in the evaluation of design accessibility (IBM, n.d.; Monterey Technologies, 1996; Montoya-Weiss, et al, 2000).

    Monterey Technologies, Inc. (September 9, 1996). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Submitted to EIA-EIF Committee on Product Accessibility, A Joint Venture of the Electronic Industries Association and the Electronic Industries Foundation.

    Montoya-Weiss, M., Mueller, J., & Story, M. (n.d.). Measuring universal design. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    Public Service Commission of Canada. Building the Site. Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
    http://canada.gc.ca/programs/guide/3_1_4e.html

    Sun Microsystems. (n.d.). Removing barriers: Sun Microsystems, Inc.'s Java platform will give people with disabilities greater access to computing and the Web. Retrieved January 8, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.sun.com/980316/enablingtech/

    Go back to the top of this page.

     L-5. What resources are available to support Accessible Design?



    There are several resources available to help designers apply accessible design principles during the design process, including books, handbook chapters, conference proceedings, and web sites. The federal government provides extensive online information on legislation regarding access for people with disabilities (e.g., the Access Board web site), which must be reviewed in order to maximize compliance. In addition, organizations advocating accessible design, such as the Trace Center in Wisconsin, Europe's COST 219 and InClude, and the Center for Accessible Design at North Carolina State University provide online resources regarding accessible design principles and guidelines. Such guidelines in printed form can be found in human factors handbooks, such as Vanderheiden (1997). Further, companies already using accessible design principles in their design practice, such as Microsoft, IBM, Sun Microsystems, and Pacific Bell, provide information on their accessibility policies, relevant federal legislation, and design guidelines on specific commercial products.

    Disability advocacy groups, such as CODI, the National Association for the Deaf, RNIB, and SHHH provide a great deal of online information on needs and access limitations of users with disabilities, which need to be incorporated into accessible products. Books or chapters, such as Fisk & Rogers (1997), King (1999), and Scherer and Galvin (1997) also provide useful information about the aged and disabled populations' functional capabilities and needs. Information about cutting edge developments in technology, such as haptic or auditory displays, voice interactive interfaces, and gesture-recognition displays that provide potential opportunities to accommodate functional limitations and increase accessibility can be found both online and in conference proceedings (e.g., Edwards, 1998; Martin, et al, 1996; Tanaka, 2000; Wexelblat, 1998).

    Adobe Systems, Inc. (1999). Optimizing Adobe PDF files for accessibility. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/pdfs/pdfaccess.pdf

    Austin, M., Chen, P., Doering, J., Mayers, H.A., Oleson, L., Turner, S., & Vinson, N. (1998). Universal access and universal service: Lowering the barriers to entry into cyberspace. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ltac98/access.html

    Bradley, J. (1998). Human-computer interaction and the growing role of social context. ASIS Bulletin, American Society for Information Science. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-98/Bradley.html

    Brodin, J., Hellström, G., Lindström, J., Martin, M., Pereira, L. M., & Roe, P. (COST219). (1999, August). New ways of using video telephony. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/videotelephony.htm

    Clarkson, P. J., & Keates, S. (2000). I-design project (inclusive design for the whole population). Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    COST219. Potential alleviations of identified barriers. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/cosb229.HTML

    Davied, D. J., Fisher, J. E., Arnold, M., & Johnsen, D. (1999). Usage profiles of users of interactive communication technology: An empirical investigation into the significance of selected individual attributes. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/commentary/
    content/1999060510.html)

    Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1995). The illusory diffusion of innovation: An examination of assimilation gaps. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.pitt.edu/~ckemerer/illusory.htm

    Gill, J., Roe, P., & Martin, M. (COST219). Pay phones with immediate public access. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/payphones.htm

    Gjoderum, J., Hypponen, H., Nordby, K., Ruud, S., Ekberg, J., & Martin, M. (COST219). Guideline-Booklet on Mobile Phones. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/mobiletelephone.htm

    IBM. Interacting with people that have disabilities. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www-3.ibm.com/able/hr/interact.html

    InClude. (1999, December). Handbook on Inclusive Design of Telematics Applications (Sections 1 through 3). Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.stakes.fi/include/handbook.htm

    Mercinelli, M. (COST219). Guidelines-Accessibility requirements for new telecommunication equipment. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/smartphones.htm

    Microsoft. Accessibility Homepage. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

    NCDDR. (n.d.). Improving links between research and practice: Approaches to the effective dissemination of disability research. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/guide1.html

    NCDDR. (n.d.). Improving the usefulness of disability research: A toolbox of dissemination strategies. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003):
    http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/guide2.html

    NCDDR. (1996). A review of the literature on dissemination and knowledge utilization. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/litreview.pdf

    Preiser, W. F. E. (n.d.).Universal Design Evaluation. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

    Public Service Commission of Canada. Building the Site. Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web:
    http://canada.gc.ca/programs/guide/3_1_4e.html

    Red Hat. (1997, March 28). LINUX Access HOWTO. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 22, 2003):
    Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.europe.redhat.com/documentation/HOWTO/
    Access-HOWTO.php3)

    Royal National Institute for the Blind. (2000, November 12). Accessible web design. Retrieved December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital/hints.htm

    University of Washington. World wide web access: Accessible web design. Retrieved December 15, 2000 from the World Wide Web:
    Click here to go to this resource. (http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Technology/
    universal.design.html)

    Vanderheiden, G. C. (1997). Design for people with functional limitations resulting from disability, aging, and circumstance. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd Ed., pp. 2010-2052). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

    W3C. (n.d.). WAI resources. Retrieved June 30, 2003, from the World Wide Web:
    http://www.w3.org/WAI/Resources



    M: User-Centered Design

     Introduction



    The three components of the user-centered human factors design process are analysis, design, and evaluation. These three components are interrelated and must be executed in an iterative manner. Analysis forms the basis of design requirements, thus, design reflects requirements identified through analysis. Evaluation produces validation of design. Evaluation results feed back into analysis and design. Subsequent design reflects input from analysis and evaluation.

    Analysis involves identification and examination of the missions, functions, and tasks that the user must perform. Analysis may be thought of as a formal, thorough, thinking-through of the requirements that a system must meet.

    Mission (or scenario) analysis is used to identify system-level (mission-level) requirements that impact human performance requirements. Mission analysis includes identification of the user population of interest, with focus on identification of characteristics of that population that will translate into design requirements. For example, anthropometric properties of the population will drive selection and arrangement of hardware components. The presence of users for which English is a second language (or who do not have any proficiency in English) will drive requirements for software interfaces and documentation. The presence of users with various impairments (e.g., visual impairment, mobility impairment, hearing impairment) will drive the selection of interface modes and/or provision of alternative methods of access. Mission analysis includes the development of explicit design reference scenarios that define the scope of functionality required and illustrate that functionality in operation. The scenarios should include normal operations as well as unusual conditions such as failure modes or environmental extremes.

    Function analysis is used to identify the proper roles for human and machine components of the system, and thereby further identify machine-related requirements that translate into human performance requirements. Function analysis involves decisions about what functions to automate (partially or fully), and how the human will interact with automated functions. The decision to not automate a function, or to only partially automate it, is a decision to require the human to perform the function in part or in whole. The two major activities in function analysis are function identification (identifying all the functions that the system must perform to meet its mission requirements) and function allocation (deciding the level of automation for each function.)

    Task analysis is used to identify the specific behaviors that will be required of the human operators, and to estimate operator workload and error rates on the various tasks. Task analysis outputs form the basis for design by establishing the complete set of information requirements, and by creating descriptions of temporal relationships (operational sequences) that must be supported by the design. The task analysis outputs also drive the design by identifying the task sequences that must be streamlined by the design to alleviate workload problems, and the errors that must be prevented or mitigated.

    Design involves the identification and development of specific techniques to represent, and thereby transmit, information to and from the human operator. Each information element must be represented in the design. The methods of representing each information element, and of grouping and coordinating these elements, are the essential components of design. Selection of the information representation methods is based on the following factors:
    • Methods and conventions used in predecessor systems or comparable systems that are familiar to the population of intended users.
    • Known capabilities and limitations of humans in the population of intended users to respond to attributes of physical stimuli such as color, brightness, shape, loudness, directionality, etc.
    • Known cognitive capacities and limitations in the population of intended users, for example, short-term memory capacity or restrictions on literacy.
    • Established design principles for information representation, such as control-display compatibility.
    • Lessons learned in related systems regarding good and bad designs, especially known pitfalls associated with significant human errors.
    Note that information representation involves provision of information to the human (i.e., display), and of receipt of information from the human (i.e., control.) The selection of display techniques and control mechanisms should take into account the capabilities, limitations, and past experiences of the population of intended users.

    Evaluation involves the creation of task performance conditions in which representatives of the intended population of users can perform representative tasks using the information elements produced by design. The performance of the users can be measured and evaluated, and the subjective opinions and preferences of the users can be obtained. Although there is a small role for examination of static illustrations and descriptions of information elements in the evaluation process, relatively little value is obtained from such evaluations. Much more value is obtained from creating task performance conditions by using interactive prototypes and dynamic simulation.

    There are two primary types of evaluations used in the development and validation of controls and displays. The first type is formative evaluation, which refers to evaluations that solicit qualitative inputs from evaluators. These inputs may be in the form of suggestions for improvement, ideas on alternatives, and expressions of preferences. The second type is summative evaluation, which refers to evaluation procedures that generate quantitative performance measurements and pass/fail outcomes.

    Formative evaluation is an important part of the design process. Formative evaluations provide an opportunity to consider two or more design alternatives and to identify potential enhancements to an existing design. Formative evaluations may be conducted using incomplete representations of the design, and may examine only a subset of the tasks of interest. As the design process progresses, the formative evaluations may become increasingly more complete and the supporting simulation may become of increasingly higher fidelity.

    It is very important to begin formative evaluation in the early stages of design, before too many design decisions are made. Formative evaluation should continue, iteratively, until the final design of the operator interfaces is established. Each iteration should address progressively more detailed issues (unless a second iteration is needed on a particular problem discovered in a previous iteration).

    Summative evaluation is the process by which formal pass/fail evaluative judgments are obtained. It is sometimes solely conducted as acceptance testing. It can be structured so that it produces a single pass/fail judgment on the overall design of the controls and displays. Usually, however, it will be more constructive to render pass/fail judgments on various design features (or modes) individually.

    Simulation is an important part of both types of evaluations. Fidelity of simulator is a more strict concern in summative evaluation than in formative evaluation. In general, simulation fidelity requirements are low in the beginning, for early formative evaluations, and become progressively more stringent in formative evaluation. Fidelity requirements for summative evaluation are relatively high - at least as high as the final level of fidelity used in formative evaluation.



     M-1. What are the current best practices in user-centered design?



      American Foundation for the Blind. (2000). AFB Presents 2000 Access Awards.
      Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.afb.org/afbnews_2000accessawards_summer.asp

      Bradley, J. (1998). Human-computer interaction and the growing role of social context. ASIS Bulletin, American Society for Information Science. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-98/Bradley.html

      Davied, D. J., Fisher, J. E., Arnold, M., & Johnsen, D. (1999). Usage profiles of users of interactive communication technology: An empirical investigation into the significance of selected individual attributes. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/commentary/content/1999060510.html

      Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1995). The illusory diffusion of innovation: An examination of assimilation gaps.Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pitt.edu/~ckemerer/illusory.htm

      Folds, D. J. (2000). Three crucial components of an aircrew-centered design process (AIAA-2000-1061). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

      Folds, D. J. (1998). Use of design reference scenarios in a user-centered design process (AIAA-98-1039). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

      Hackos, J. T., & Redish, J. C. (1998). User and task analysis for interface design. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

      Hoffman, R. R., Crandall, B., Shadbolt, N. (1998). Use of the Critical Decision Method to Elicit Expert Knowledge: A Case Study in the Methodology of Cognitive Task Analysis. Human Factors, 40 (2), 254-276.

      Kelley, J. F., Spraragen, S. L., Jones, L., Greene, S. L., & Boies, S. (1996). Extending user-centered methods beyond interface design to functional definition. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting . Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Retrieved January 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.musicman.net/itshfs69.html

      Kelly, M. J. (1999). Principles and methods of user-centered design. In Preliminary Human Factors Guidelines for Traffic Management Centers (FHWA-JPO-99-042). Mclean, VA: Federal Highway Administration.

      Lund, A. M., & Tschirgi, J. E. Designing for people: Integrating human factors into the product realization process. Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ameritech.com/corporate/testtown/library/articles/design.html

      McNeese, M., Zaff, B., Peio, K., Snyder, D., Duncan, J., McFarren, M. (1992). Concept mapping: A pilot’s view of the mission. In An Advanced Knowledge and Design Methodology: Application for the Pilot’s Associate. (pp. 21-60) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. (NTIS No. AAMRL-TR-90-060).

      Microsoft. Accessibility Homepage. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

      NCDDR. (n.d.). Improving links between research and practice: Approaches to the effective dissemination of disability research. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/guide1.html

      NCDDR. (n.d.). Improving the usefulness of disability research: A toolbox of dissemination strategies. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/guide2.html

      NCDDR. (1996). A review of the literature on dissemination and knowledge utilization. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/litreview.pdf

      Nielsen, J. (1994). Guerilla HCI: Using discount usability engineering to penetrate the intimidation barrier. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/guerrilla_hci.html

      Nielsen, J. (1997). The use and misuse of focus groups. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/focusgroups.html

      Nielsen, J. (n.d.). How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html

      Nielsen, J. (n.d.). Ten usability heuristics. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

      Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer: Why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

      Poulson, D, Ashby, M., & Richardson, S. (Eds.). (1996). USERfit: A Practical Handbook on User-Centered Design for Assistive Technology. Brussels-Luxembourg: ECSC-EC-EAEC.

      Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., & Carey, T. (n.d.). Methods for user-centered design. Retrieved January 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://iea.fmi.uni-sofia.bh/hci/Book/c18/




     M-2. What user-centered design tools are available to designers?



      Meyers, B. A. (1997). User interface software tools. Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/bam/www/toolnames.html

      Poulson, D, Ashby, M., & Richardson, S. (Eds.). (1996). USERfit: A Practical Handbook on User-Centered Design for Assistive Technology. Brussels-Luxembourg: ECSC-EC-EAEC.



     M-3. What is the state-of-the-art in analysis of information requirements and user needs?



    There are several ways for the interested designer to gather data regarding user needs and information requirements, including surveys, questionnaires, panel studies, brainstorming sessions, structured interviews, observation, diaries, attribution analysis, and focus groups (KADO, n.d.). For carefully collected data from many individuals, statistical analyses such as factor analysis, cluster analysis, and scaling analysis may be used to identify trends and patterns underlying user behaviors and responses (KADO, n.d.). The nature of the data and the questions they are expected to answer should be carefully considered before choosing a particular analysis technique (Goode, 2001). The choice of the information gathering method depends on several factors, such as the geographic distance that must be covered (questionnaires or other at-home methods would be preferable over focus groups) and the degree to which the characteristics of the population of interest matches those of the designers (brainstorming might be more cost-effective when characteristics are similar).

    Conducting focus groups appears to be a common method for gathering extensive information about user needs (e.g., Pacific Bell, 1996; Perlman, 1993). For successfully conducting focus groups several factors must be addressed, such as the quality of the moderator, the size of the group, and the social/cultural nature of the group, which can have a profound effect on the outcome of the effort (Garson, 2000). Additionally, when conducting focus groups with individuals with disabilities, the specific needs of these individuals must be recognized (IBM, n.d.). Finally, supplemental methods have been recommended for eliciting tacit knowledge where current needs assessment methods focus mainly on eliciting explicit knowledge, which may or may not be accurate or complete (Ko, 1999; Nielson, 1997).

     M-4. What is the state-of-the-art in rapid prototyping and iterative design?



    There are several types of prototypes available for the purposes of conducting design evaluation and guiding iterative design (Greenberg, 2000; Lamancusa, 2000). Prototypes vary in the degree to which they are similar in functionality and appearance to the actual product design. High-fidelity prototypes most precisely represent the actual product design, using computers to simulate a great deal of the product's functionality and even actually performing some tasks. In contrast, low-fidelity prototypes, including sketches and storyboards, are paper-based, and cannot simulate product functions but instead represent general design appearance and layout. Medium-fidelity prototypes are not necessarily paper-based, but do not have full capacity to simulate product functions either.

    Functionality in medium-fidelity prototypes is limited in three ways, through vertical prototyping, horizontal prototyping, or scenarios (Mankoff, n.d.; Greenberg, 2000). Vertical prototyping allows a particular design function to be evaluated in depth. In contrast, horizontal prototyping allows only surface evaluation of multiple design functions. In scenarios, in which the user must use the prototype to complete a particular function, both breadth and depth of design functionality are limited.

    The type of prototype (high-, medium-, or low-fidelity) selected depends on several factors, including the amount of time available to construct the prototype (high-fidelity prototypes take longer to build), monetary constraints (high-fidelity prototypes cost more to make), and the degree to which the design idea is already developed (low-fidelity prototypes are better for less well-developed design ideas; Mankoff, n.d.; Greenberg, 2000). Other considerations include the degree to which quantitative vs. qualitative data collection is desired, the amount of specialized equipment or personnel available, the degree to which independent user exploration of design functionality is desired, and the degree to which controlled study is desired.


     M-5. What is the current thinking in the field of error analysis?



    A critical finding in the field of error analysis is that characteristics of system design may be more responsible for errors than the operators themselves (Moray, 1994). Another critical finding is that organizational pressures may serve to repress error reporting, which could lead to improved technology design (Linda, et al, 2000). Together, findings such as these indicate that the errors occurring within evaluations of system designs should be taken seriously as potential problems in the system. Further, if usability testing occurs within the organization in which the tested product is being developed, test subjects' desire to minimize reports of errors to avoid criticism must be considered. With regards to testing for accessibility, it has been demonstrated that users simulating disability produce similar errors resulting from design defects, particularly gross design defects, to those errors of people who are actually disabled (Law & Vanderheiden, 1999, 2000).

      Law, C. M., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1999). Tests for screening product designs prior to user testing by people with functional limitations. Presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Conference.

      Law, C. M., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (2000). Reducing sample sizes when user testing with people who have, and how are simulating disabilities - experiences with blindness and public information kiosks. Presented at the joint conference of the International Ergonomics Association and Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

      Linda, T. K., Corrigan, J.M., and Donaldson, M.S. (Eds.). (2000). To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

      Moray, N. (1994). Error reduction as a systems problem. In M.S. Bogner (Ed.), Human Error in Medicine (pp. 67-91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.



     M-6. What is the state-of-the-art in human performance testing and evaluation?



    Performance testing and evaluation have changed a great deal as the clear demarcation between human and machine performance has blurred (Meister, 1996). In addition, as the human role moves toward supervising and monitoring, performance is not necessarily reflected in an observable behavior, which has implications for how performance is assessed (Meister, 1996). With regards to assessing the performance effects of system design, however, usability testing is still currently valued and practiced (Conyer, 1995; Lee, 1999; Nielsen, 1997). There exist several other methods for examining human-machine interaction through usability testing, such as heuristic evaluation (Nielsen, n.d.) design reference scenarios (Folds, 1998). Each has been shown to be effective, though careful consideration of verbal protocol and rating results must be made (Ericsson & Simon, 1984; Goode, 2001).

      Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewoods Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

      Boose, J. (1985). A knowledge acquisition program for expert systems based on personal construct psychology. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23, 495-525.

      Conyer, M. (1995). User and usability testing: How should it be undertaken? Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (2), 38-51. Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet11/conyer.html

      Lee, S. H. (1999). Usability testing for developing effective interactive multimedia software: Concepts, dimensions, and procedures. Educational Technology & Society 2 (2). Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_2_99/sung_heum_lee.html

      Meister, D. Human Factors Test and Evaluation in the Twenty First Century. (1996) In O’Brien, T.G. , Charlton, S.G. (Eds.). Handbook of Human Factors Testing and Evaluation. (pp 313-322) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Inc.

      Nielson, J. (1997). Usability testing. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd Ed., pp. 1543-1568). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.



     M-7. What is the current thinking in the field of usability testing and evaluation?



    As evidenced by the volume of documentation on methods and procedures (e.g., Folds, 1998, 2000; Law, et al, 2000; Nielsen, 1997, n.d.), usability testing is currently an effective approach to conducting design evaluation, although heuristic evaluation has also been shown to be effective (Nielsen, n.d.). In addition, several tools (e.g., WebCAT) exist, however, to aid designers in creating prototypes for usability testing and conducting evaluations (Meyers, 1997; NIST, n.d.). There are, however, special needs that must be considered when conducting usability tests with participants with disabilities (Law, et al, 2000), and the results of verbal protocols and ratings must be carefully evaluated in order to prevent misinterpretation of the data (Ericsson & Simon, 1984; Goode, 2001; Nielsen, n.d.). Unfortunately, recent work indicates that usability testing (in fact, usability engineering in general) is not a common practice among industrial developers (Nielsen, n.d.). Misperceptions of the cost and time associated with usability engineering appear to be the major roadblock to adopting the practice of user-centered design (Nielsen, n.d.).

      Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. "Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Folds, D. J. (2000)"

      Folds, D. J. (2000). Three crucial components of an aircrew-centered design process (AIAA-2000-1061. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

      Folds, D. J. (1998). Use of design reference scenarios in a user-centered design process (AIAA-98-1039). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

      Goode, E. (January 2, 2001). Researcher challenges a host of psychological studied. The New York Times. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/02/science/02ERRO.html?printpage=yes

      Law, C. M., Barnicle, K., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Usability testing of people with disabilities: Where do you begin? Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      Nielsen, J. (1994). Guerilla HCI: Using discount usability engineering to penetrate the intimidation barrier. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/guerrilla_hci.html

      Nielsen, J. (n.d.). Characteristics of usability problems found by heuristic evaluation. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/usability_problems.html

      Nielsen, J. (n.d.). How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html

      Nielsen, J. (n.d.). Ten usability heuristics. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

      NIST. (n.d.) WebCAT Category Analysis Tool. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/webmet/cat/webcat-process.html




    Section 3: Annotated Bibliography



    1. (2000, September 21). An open letter on accessibility from technology executives. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sun.com/access/general/clinton_letter.html

      This letter is addressed to President Clinton from several leaders in the high-technology industry (e.g., Sun Microsystems, Adobe, Microsoft). It pledges support for the president’s efforts to promote accessibility in information and communications products for two reasons: improving quality of life for individuals with disabilities and expanding commercial markets. The authors of the letter describe several ways in which their support will be manifested within their companies. Briefly, these ways include raising levels of awareness of accessibility issues, training staff and designers, developing accessibility guidelines, and including individuals with disabilities in the design and evaluation of products and services.


    2. ABLEDATA. (1994, November). Informed consumers guide to office equipment for people with visual disabilities. Retrieved December 15, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.abledata.com/Site_2/icg_off.htm

      This guide briefly presents several current assistive devices used by people with vision impairments in both office and leisure environments. The guide distinguishes between two types of vision impairments, low vision and blindness, and also notes that needs vary a great deal between individuals with vision impairments. Many of the assistive devices described are intended for use with a computer, and therefore have implications for the design of computers and software so that the devices may be used effectively. The guide also presents resources for funding and additional recommended reading.


    3. ABLEDATA. (1995, May). Fact Sheet on Computer Access. Retrieved December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.abledata.com/Site_2/compute.htm

      This guide briefly presents several current computer access options for people that have various disabilities. Included in the guide are options for input and control, and output and displays. The input and control alternatives essentially provide the user with an alternative other than the keyboard or mouse. The list of such devices includes modified keyboards, trackballs, touchscreens, and voice input. The list of output alternatives includes screen readers, Braille displays, closed-circuit capability, and Braille printers. The guide provides additional information for procuring these devices.


    4. ABLEDATA. (1999, February). Informed consumers guide to office equipment for people with hearing disabilities. Retrieved December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.abledata.com/Site_2/icg_hear.htm

      This guide describes the assistive technology currently available for deaf, hard of hearing, and deaf-blind individuals. The types of devices described are separated into three categories, based on the type of communication they are designed to enhance: face-to-face communication and enjoyment of television, telephone communication, and awareness of environmental sounds and situations. This guide notes that the different types of hearing loss require different types of assistive listening devices, all of which can enhance the quality of life for an individual (if they are selected properly), and all of which must be considered when designing accessible telecommunications technology. The guide also presents resources for funding and additional recommended reading.


    5. Access Board. Retrieved December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/bulletin.txt (Informal guidance on Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

      This web site explains Section 255 in very general terms. It describes the federal requirements for telecommunications technology, and summarizes the Access Board guidelines for making telecommunications products accessible. It also provides a definition for “telecommunications” and “telecommunications equipment”, and summarizes the telecommunications products covered by Section 255. Finally, it describes general ways in which telecommunications technology can be modified in order to accommodate assistive technology, when providing general access is not “readily achievable.”


    6. Access Board. (1998). Telecommunications Act accessibility guidelines. (n.d.). [Published in the Federal Register February 3, 1998]. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/html/telfinal.htm

      Section 255 mandates that manufacturers of telecommunications equipment ensure accessibility, where readily achievable. This document provides comments and responses regarding a number of the Section 255 entries. Individuals are concerned about continued limited selection for them of accessible versus mainstream products. They fully support a product-by-product approach, addressed by Section 255, and criticized by TIA. This report highlights a number of misunderstandings between interpretation and actual meaning of the guidelines.


    7. Access Board. (2001). Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794(d)). (1998). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/about/Rehab%20Act%20Amend-508.htm

      Requires federal departments and agencies to provide accessibility, when developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information technology that is equally accessible to Federal employees and the public, with and without disabilities, where appropriate. Alternative means of access should be provided where necessary. This act requires the development and incorporation of standards for the above mentioned. The act requires that non-compliance be documented and explained. These regulations do not apply to national security systems. Technical assistance will be available for agencies implementing actions related to these requirements. Evaluations will be done of each agency, and compliance reports will be submitted to the President.


    8. Access Board. (n.d.). Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards. Retrieved September 3, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm

      This web site provides the preamble and text of the electronic and information technology accessibility standards developed by the Access Board in support of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The standards were published in the Federal Register on December 21, 2000. The technical standards cover software applications and operating systems; Web-based intranet and internet information and applications; telecommunications products; video and multimedia products; self contained, closed products; and desktop and portable computers.


    9. Access Board. (n.d.). Market monitoring report. Retrieved September 18, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/marketrep/

      This web site provides a baseline for telecommunications equipment and how well this equipment addresses the Access Board guidelines. It identifies barriers to accessibility and features that may help overcome these barriers.


    10. Adobe Systems, Inc. (1999). Optimizing Adobe PDF files for accessibility. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/pdfs/pdfaccess.pdf

      This document describes ways in which PDF files can be created so that they are more accessible to individuals using screen readers. It describes the problems that screen readers have with PDF files (e.g., text in tables often cannot be read in the proper order, files are often difficult to navigate) and presents solutions for making files created with the currently available software more accessible. Two solutions involve converting PDF files into readable form. One solution is accomplished via access.adobe.com, in which files in PDF format can be converted into HTML. The other solution involves the use of a plug-in, called Acrobat Access™, which converts PDF files into plain text. The document also offers design guidelines that would make converted files easier to read and navigate, and briefly describes planned attempts to increase the accessibility of Adobe PDF files.


    11. American Foundation for the Blind. (2000). AFB Presents 2000 Access Awards. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.afb.org/afbnews_2000accessawards_summer.asp

      This web site lists the four recipients of the AFB 2000 Access Awards. The recipients were Dancing Dots, IBM Special Needs Systems, L’Occitane, and Pitney Bowes, Inc. Each of these organizations were given the award for the innovative ways in which they have made their products more accessible to individuals who are blind or visually impaired.


    12. ATIA. (n.d.). AT-IT Compatibility Guidelines, Version 1.05. Retrieved September 18, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.atia.org/AT_Compatibility_Guidelines_v1.05.pdf

      This document contains guidelines generated by assistive technology developers for the purpose of assisting E&IT vendors with making their devices compatible with both existing and anticipated AT devices. This also discusses some of the benefits of designing for compatibility.


    13. Austin, M., Chen, P., Doering, J., Mayers, H.A., Oleson, L., Turner, S., & Vinson, N. (1998). Universal access and universal service: Lowering the barriers to entry into cyberspace. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ltac98/access.html

      The authors provide a history of universal access, and emphasize the comparability of internet communications with traditional communications. Issues relevant to telephone and postal systems are relevant to more modern forms of communication technologies. In 1896, the post office instituted free rural delivery, greatly increasing access for individuals with impairments. This provides an early example of making communications universally accessible. TRS and TTY facilitate use of telephone service by people with hearing impairments. Closed captioning increases accessibility of television (audio and video access). A boon to internet accessibility is that "a new data representation can always be introduced on the digital foundation." (p. 6) A problem, however, is the speed at which internet technology is evolving. The World Wide Web Consortium is one organization that is working to develop standards for Web pages. The Web Accessibility Initiative is a universal access project devoted to technology development, development of tools, guidelines for use of the technology, education of content creators, and research and advanced development. Accessibility application programming interfaces (APIs) may be one way to more readily meet accessibility needs. The authors review legislation related to universal access. They also discuss universal service, the economic accessibility of technology.


    14. Baker, L. (1999). Therapeutic riding and the visually impaired. [Printed in NARHA Strides, 5(1) and 5(2). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.narha.org/features/tr_visimp.pdf

      The author discusses the concepts of blindness and low vision. Sighted guide technique is used to facilitate horseback riding for people with visual impairments. The component subsystems of vision, accommodation, oculomotor, and convergence, are discussed. Additional characteristics of the visual system are described. It is important for the therapists to have as much information as possible about each individual so that they can develop the best programs possible.


    15. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Englewoods Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

      The classic work in the field of social psychology on the basis of observational learning. Bandura presents a unified theoretical framework for analyzing human thought and behavior. This book discusses bases by which people learn from the observation and modeling of others, a critical factor in designing effective training systems. This concise overview of the framework of social learning theory presents the supporting theoretical and experimental research of circa 1977. As conceived by social learning theory, learning occurs by response consequences or by modeling (observing others performing desired overt actions). The complex mechanisms of learning are separately discussed for both the antecedent determinates that predispose responding (e.g., physiological and emotional responsiveness, cognitive expectancy learning), as well as the consequent determinates that are the outcomes of responding (e.g., external reinforcement, vicarious reinforcement and self-reinforcement). Bandura acknowledges that human behavior cannot be fully explained by these mechanisms alone and postulates the cognitive processes (internal not directly observable) such as directed attention to certain external observable events that must be considered to fully account for observational learning. He argues that the symbolism representing the information of our world is internally manipulated, affected by experience and thus one can comprehend events and generate new knowledge about them.


    16. Barker, D. (2003). Microsoft research spawns a new era in speech technology: simpler, faster, and easier speech application development. PC AI Magazine, 16 (6) , 18-27. Retrieved June 26, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pcai.com/Paid/Issues/PCAI-Online-Issues/16.6_OL/New_Folder/TLH702/16.6_PA/PCAI-16.6-Paid-pg.18-Art1.htm

      This article discusses the recent historical evolution of speech technology, particularly with respect to a researcher by the name of Huang, who has made incredible strides in this field. The focus is on Kokanee, which is the codename for a major research and development effort at Microsoft. The primary goal of Kokanee is to research, develop and deliver the Microsoft.Net Speech Platform. Through improved speech recognition quality, served in part by the addition of semantic interpretation of speech, speech technology is on track to surpass existing capabilities significantly in the next few years.


    17. Becker, D. (1999). Some dedicated people are helping the disabled participate in the computer revolution. TechWeek. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.techweek.com/articles/5-17-99/access.htm

      This article provides a review of individuals and companies who are making efforts to increase the accessibility of computers and the Internet, which will subsequently increase job prospects for people with disabilities. Emacspeak is similar to a screen reader, but it interprets the information and provides it in a much more understandable fashion. Java Accessibility API goes a step further by incorporating accessibility features into the software platform rather than offering them as an add-on. OCR translates print matter into text on the computer that can be read by software.


    18. Bergman, E. (1995). Towards accessible human-computer interaction. Nielsen, J. (ed.), Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 5. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sun.com/access/developers/updt.HCI.advance.html

      This chapter provides an overview of the HCI issues of computer accessibility. The range of user capabilities must be considered for any design. They demonstrate that each of us at some time has an impairment that may prevent us from performing at a our maximum, but which might be overcome with alternative technological applications. A typical problem is that software engineers (and other designers) design with their own experiences in mind, significantly reducing the likelihood of accommodating a range of users. Features designed for one population may interfere with use by another population. This is an incredible challenge in the HCI world. The authors review some physical disabilities and discuss related assistive technologies. They also provide a table of design guidelines.


    19. Boose, J. (1985). A knowledge acquisition program for expert systems based on personal construct psychology. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 23 , 495-525.

      One of the major challenges of building expert systems is retrieving problem-solving information from a human expert. Standard procedures include a long series of incremental interviews, building and test cycles, typically over 6 to 24 months. This article proposes an alternative method based on George Kelly’s personal construct psychology, in which knowledge is elicited from information sources, and placed into an information base. These techniques are also applicable in eliciting knowledge for establishing the boundaries of any domain of knowledge defined by a set of anchored constructs appropriate for various forms of needs assessment or mission analysis. Expert knowledge is gathered using the Expertise Transfer System (ETS), an Interlisp-D-based tool which interviews an expert, analyzes the information and produces production rule knowledge bases for several expert system tools, such as KS-300 TM (an extended version of EMYCIN) and OPS5, used for rapid prototyping and testing for necessity and sufficiency. Individual knowledge bases are combined into knowledge networks and further tested, then delivery systems tailored, and on-the-job case records are kept in order to continually improve the system. ETS can significantly shorten the knowledge engineering process; months of interviewing can be condensed into a few hours. The ETS system is described and discussed in detail, including system limitations. Among the limitations is that ETS, like Kelly’s grid methodology, is best suited for analysis of class problems, such as debugging, diagnosis, interpretation and classification, where solutions can be enumerated ahead of time. Many useful dimensions generated from this class would be how are product A and B alike and different from C or how are manufacturer A and B alike and different from C. The author’s position is that it cannot readily handle synthesis class problems, such as design and planning, or those requiring a combination of the two, such as control, monitoring, prediction or repair. Again, by forming the proper comparison such as how is design team A like team B and different from C may be a very useful construct elicitation. ETS may also be able to handle the analysis components or synthesis class problems. In addition, ETS elicits traits and relationships, but not much about how or when the information is used in the problem-solving process.


    20. Boyce, S. (1999). Spoken natural language dialogue systems: User interface issues for the future. In D. Gardner-Bonneau (Ed.), Human factors and voice interactive systems (pp. 37-61). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

      This chapter summarizes the research efforts at AT&T to develop more natural interactive voice response (IVR) systems. The primary conclusions from this research are that 1) contrary to previous findings, users preferred an automated system that referred to itself as “I”, 2) the formality of the IVR did not make a difference in user satisfaction, and 3) users provide more appropriate responses to an automated system if they are aware it is automated. General guidelines for developing the initial greeting, request confirmations, repeat requests, conversation turn taking, and human intervention in such systems are presented and discussed.


    21. Bradley, J. (1998). Human-computer interaction and the growing role of social context. ASIS Bulletin, American Society for Information Science. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.asis.org/Bulletin/Feb-98/Bradley.html

      "While ease of use still plays a central role, factors such as compatibility with an individual's work style, impact on social and organizational norms, overall usefulness and relative advantage all need to be considered when evaluating an information technology (IT) product."


    22. Brodin, J., Hellström, G., Lindström, J., Martin, M., Pereira, L. M., & Roe, P. (COST219). (1999, August). New ways of using video telephony. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/videotelephony.htm

      This guidebook describes the users, usability requirements, design guidelines, and design standards relevant to video telephony. Specifically, the guidebook describes the several applications of video communication for people of varying disabilities, including three types of hearing loss, vision impairments, and cognitive impairments. Usability requirements discussed in the guidebook cover the compatibility between auditory and visual outputs of the device, the resolution of the display image, and the dynamic visual processing capability of the device (particularly as it relates to sign language). In addition, design guidelines for the use of video telephony for distance education and telecare services are presented. General design requirements regarding transmission rates and terminal and environmental ergonomics are provided, as well as various standards for the technology.


    23. Brook, D. (1997, December 6). Haptic interfaces in virtual reality. Retrieved January 16, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.hpcc.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~dtcb98r/vrhap/vrhap.htm

      This web site describes virtual reality and the haptic interfaces that make immersion in virtual environments deeper. The interfaces described vary in technology, effectiveness, and purpose for which they are best suited. The author presents the challenges to simulating tactile sensations, such as representing shape or hardness. Simulating friction and texture are very important in order to correctly simulate the tactile properties of objects. The author also describes applications for haptic interfaces, including making graphical representations of data “visible” to people with vision impairments by representing the properties of graphs (e.g., a line or distribution) in 3-dimensional, tactile ways.


    24. Bussemakers, M. P., & de Haan, A. (2000). When it sounds like a duck and it looks like a dog…Auditory icons vs. earcons in multimedia environments. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2000/PDFs/Bussemakers.pdf

      Auditory icons (known as real-life sounds) and earcons (abstract musical sounds) can be combined with visual ../images in multimedia environments. Auditory icons can convey complex messages in a single sound, making them more quickly conveyed than speech; however, they can be annoying. Earcons require learning, but they can be effective if applied appropriately. Several experiments have demonstrated that redundant information in a different modality slows reaction time. In this experiment, subjects were to respond yes or no as to whether a sound corresponded to a picture. Results indicated faster reaction times when auditory icons were present; earcons generally resulted in slower reaction times.


    25. Christenson, M. A.. (n.d.). Roadblocks to incorporating universal design. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      Universal design needs to be considered early in the (building) construction process. To accomplish this, however, individuals need to be open to the idea of the possibility of needing various features that may not be important at the time of construction. This article focuses on resort housing, and the incorporation of universal design principles. One unit, purchased before constructed, was designed with extensive universal design elements, as dictated by the buyers. These elements were not incorporated into all units, however. Surveys were done to determine why things were and were not included, but the article, unfortunately, does not provide the results of these surveys.


    26. Clark, R. (2000). Universal design and regulation - A zero-sum game. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      The belief that education and regulation could bring about significant change in the realm of universal design failed to account for the barriers created by regulation. Regulation is goal-oriented, and as a result, does not usually facilitate resolution of the core problem. Regulations do not solve social problems, and they feed resentment. More importantly, regulations will never allow us to achieve universality, and are rarely applied universally.


    27. Clarkson, P. J., & Keates, S. (2000). I-design project (inclusive design for the whole population). Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      Presents a model of inclusive design, with particular concern for the ever growing elderly population, and the need to accommodate individuals of varying abilities. The Inclusive Design Cube was developed to help increase awareness of different population needs, particularly for marketing groups who tend to target the able-bodied. It represents the various populations as well as their motion, sensory, and cognitive capabilities.


    28. Connell, B. R., Jones, M., Mace, R. Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1997). Raleigh, NC: NC State University, The Center for Universal Design. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/principles/udprinciples.htm

      The principles include equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive use, perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, and size and space for approach and use. Guidelines associated with each principle are provided.


    29. Conyer, M. (1995). User and usability testing: How should it be undertaken? Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 11 (2), 38-51. Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet11/conyer.html

      This article describes the advantages and limitations of several methods of usability testing as a guide for choosing the most appropriate method for a particular purpose. The methods assessed were heuristic evaluation, pluralistic walkthroughs, formal usability inspections, empirical methods, cognitive walkthroughs, and formal design analysis. The primary dimensions along which different methods were compared were cost, efficiency, relatedness to the actual situation of use, amount of information provided for system improvements, and scope of experimental tasks.


    30. COST219. Disabilities and their identified barriers. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/COSB228.HTML

      This web site provides links to lists indicating the amount of difficulty individuals with varying disabilities have with different types of equipment-related tasks. The disabilities for which there are lists are: vision, hearing, speech, intellect, mobility, coordination and strength, and height. These lists provide a general overview of how the characteristics of equipment might be barriers to access if not modified for people that have particular disabilities.


    31. COST219. Potential alleviations of identified barriers. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/cosb229.HTML

      This web site presents a set of general guidelines for alleviating the barriers that technology equipment often places on people with disabilities. It lists several types of equipment-related tasks and how modifying it in general ways could make it accessible to people with various disabilities. The disabilities included are: vision, hearing, speech, intellect, mobility, coordination and strength, and height.


    32. Davied, D. J., Fisher, J. E., Arnold, M., & Johnsen, D. (1999). Usage profiles of users of interactive communication technology: An empirical investigation into the significance of selected individual attributes. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/st_org/iptf/commentary/content/1999060510.html

      Communication technologies are so prominent in our lives these days that they provide a great means of studying the influence of technology on our lives. Despite the widespread availability and relative ease of use, however, social inequalities exist with respect to access to communication technologies. We need to have a better understanding of how these technologies are used in the home. While diffusion research is quite popular today, one criticism is that some researchers using the theory fail to distinguish between trial use and adoption of technology. The authors of this article developed a survey of technology adoption and usage. They asked about technologies still in the process of diffusion. Dependent measures were ownership and usage. Independent measures were occupational prestige, income, education, and age. Social class and income were found to be significant factors.


    33. Donnelly, B. F. (2000). Universal design and regulation - A good business strategy. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      The author discusses the development of his company, Lifespan Furnishings, LLC, which manufactures products that are built with Universal Design in mind. The company developed out of a project funded by a National Endowment for the Arts Universal Design Grant. The author made extensive use of focus group sessions, and found his approach to be very effective. He is interested in products that have a traditional appearance, quality construction, comfort, and which facilitate Activities of Daily Living for those who may have difficulties.


    34. Durlach, N. I., & Mavor, A. S. (Eds.). (1995). Haptic interfaces. Virtual reality: Scientific and technological challenges (pp.161-187). Washington, D. C. National Academy Press.

      "Haptic interfaces are devices that enable manual interaction with virtual environments (VEs) or teleoperated remote systems." (p. 161) They include keyboards, mice, and trackballs, as well as gloves, exoskeletons, and force feedback joysticks. Touch can be used to both sense and manipulate the environment, unlike vision and audition. The hand has 22 degrees of freedom, and an extensive nerve system. Sensory information from the hand can be either tactile or kinesthetic. The physiology of limb position and motion is discussed, as well as the perception of contact. Haptic interfaces consist of free motion, contact involving unbalanced resultant forces, and contact involving self-equilibrating forces. Complexity depends on whether objects are manipulated directly or with a tool. A review of hardware and software technology is provided. Much work needs to be done to make haptic interfaces comfortable, to determine appropriate methods of stimulation, and to effectively evaluate the interfaces.


    35. Edwards, A. D. N. (1998). Progress in sign language recognition. In I. Wachsmuth & M. Fröhlich (Eds.), Gesture and sign language in human-computer interaction, Proceedings of the International Gesture Workshop, September, 1997, Bielefeld, Germany (pp. 13-21). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

      This chapter presents an overview of the current state of sign language recognition by computers. The author states that while recognition of particular basic signs is improving, at least two major areas have not yet been addressed in the literature. These areas are facial expressions and sign language grammar. These areas must be addressed in order to improve the as yet inadequate recognition of sign language by computers.


    36. EITAAC Report. (June 9, 1999). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cot.org/dreport.htm

      The Electronic and Information Technology Access Advisory Committee (EITAAC) developed out of a directive to involve a number of agencies in the development of the Section 508 standards. It consists of 26 organizations. The report outlines minimally acceptable standards and hopes that voluntary implementation of more stringent design, production, and procurement will take place. There are both generic and technology specific standards. Generic standards encompass accessibility of operation and information, compatibility with peripheral devices often used by people with disabilities, and documentation and services associated with electronic and information technology. Technology specific standards address keyboards, software, web-based information and applications, telecommunications, multimedia, information transaction machines, PDAs, and cabling.


    37. Electronic and information technology accessibility standards. (2000). [Published in the Federal Register ]. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm

      This document provides the final rule for the accessibility standards associated with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. In addition, it provides comments and responses for each paragraph of the ruling, which in some cases helped to shape the wording of the final rule. Estimated costs and benefits of the final rule are provided. The Act provides definitions of terms specific to the understanding of Section 508. Regulations have to do with software applications and operating systems, web-based intranet and internet information and applications, telecommunications products, video and multimedia products, self contained/closed products, desktop and portable computers, and documentation and support.


    38. Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards: Economic Assessment. (2000). Washington, D.C.: EOP Foundation.

      “The standards are intended to improve accessibility of electronic and information technology used by the Federal government. The standards will benefit Federal employees with disabilities, as well as members of the public with disabilities who seek to use Federal electronic and information technology to access information and services…. There is an exemption for national security systems. Failure of a Federal agency to comply with the standards when procuring electronic and information technology may result in an administrative complaint or a civil action seeking to enforce compliance with the standards.” (p. 1) The report describes three issues that contributed to the development of these standards. It is estimated that the Federal government spends $12.4 billion on technology affected by the standards defined in Section 508, about 33% of the overall expenditures. Retrofitting of existing technologies is not required under this Act. The increased access created by this Act “…reduces barriers to employment in the Federal government for persons with disabilities, reduces the probability that Federal workers with disabilities will be underemployed, and increases the productivity of Federal work teams.” (p. 4) Benefits can be evaluated through wage gap analysis and team based productivity analysis. In many cases, the standards focus on the compatibility with existing and future assistive technology devices. A section of the report discusses the history associated with the development of these regulations. The final standards are summarized in this document, as well as baseline technologies associated with some of the standards. Disability statistics are provided, as well as a discussion of direct and opportunity costs. A final chapter discusses estimated benefits of the standards.


    39. Engelen, J., Evenepoel, F., Bormans, G., et al. (COST219). (1999, October). Producing web pages that everyone can access. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/webdesign.htm

      This guidebook first summarizes the usability issues that people with vision, hearing, motor, and cognitive limitations experience. The authors note that vision impairments create the most difficulty for navigating web sites, but that this can be avoided. The design of web pages is often not compatible with the assistive technology that people with low or no vision use, but with a small effort at a very low cost they can be. The authors list several types of assistive technology for the blind, as well as types of programming languages that are currently used (or will be in the near future) for creating web pages. The authors note that by increasing compatibility, web developers can increase the customer base of their employers as well as provide access to information that would otherwise be unavailable to blind individuals.

      The guidebook provides examples of web pages that have been designed using either wording or text formats that are incompatible with assistive technology and lists suggestions for how the pages could be modified. The authors note how modifications made to text format can also make web pages more accessible to people with other disabilities by improving the organization of information and the text descriptions of audio material.

      The guidebook presents a few general guidelines for designing web pages, which involve primarily improving the compatibility between text format and assistive devices for the blind. Additionally, references for further research and more detailed guidelines are presented.


    40. Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press

      A common practice during usability tests of products is to have users verbalize their intentions and thoughts and use these verbal reports as a basis for modifying design prototypes. However, verbal reports have historically been treated as useful exploratory methods to gain an understanding of underlying psychological processes but as suspect when verifying the internal workings of human behavior. Ericsson and Simon argue that by properly defining the requirements and conditions of verbal report these doubts about the usefulness of verbal data can be overcome. They introduce the problem by distinguishing between uncontrolled approaches to verbal reporting and the situations and practices where verbal reports can be validated. The two major distinctions are the time of verbalization, which is important in determining from what memory the information is likely to be drawn (long term or short term memory). Second, is the nature of the verbal report in terms of information processing occurring before making the report. The basic argument is that the concurrent verbal reports by either “talking aloud” or “thinking aloud” concurrent with the task being performed or retrospective reports, immediately reported after completing a task, are two forms of verbal report that are the closest reflection to the underlying cognitive processes. Equally important in the consideration of this as a formal method is that a protocol, which in essence is a coding scheme, must be developed and be consistently applied to the collected verbal data. In the remainder of this book, a systematic review of the areas of concern lead up to a discussion of the recommended practices for conducting and analyzing verbal reports are presented. The systematic review of areas of concern include effects of verbalization (on report accuracy), completeness of reports, inferences from verbal data and a model-based approach to protocol analysis. The final chapter contains a series of concrete examples for conducting and analyzing “thinking aloud” (TA) verbalizations.


    41. European Commission. (1998). Design for all and ICT business practice: Addressing the barriers. Examples of best practice (EC Ref. Number 98.70.022). Telematics Applications Programme: “Design-for-All” for an Inclusive Information Society, Brussels.

      This report is based on interviews with individuals in the Information and Communication Technology industries, primarily in the U.K., Germany, and the Netherlands. Overall, it was discovered that these firms have little awareness of the concept of Design for All. They were, however, found to be amenable to incorporation of the philosophy. Barriers to Design for All include the role of end users in the design process, the structure of the firm, perceptions of older people and people with disabilities, the role of these same populations within the design process, other priorities in the design process, the availability or awareness of material on accessibility issues, awareness of Design for All principles, and the nature of Design for All. The authors provide strategies used by firms to overcome these barriers. Design for All cannot only benefit the end user, but can also make sound economic sense. A number of examples of good design practice are provided.


    42. Evans, D. G., MacKenzie, H. R., & Przirembel, C. (1996). Twenty key elements of a product realization process. Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.prosci.com/prp1.htm

      This article lists and describes twenty elements that are essential in the best practice of the product realization process. The elements include social, technological, ethical, economic, and creative aspects of the process through which commercial products are conceived, designed, tested, and produced. Additionally, the article lists several best practices falling into five categories: knowledge of the product realization process, PRP team skills, design skills, analysis and testing skills, and manufacturing skills.


    43. Federal Communications Commission: Chief, Enforcement Bureau; Chief, Consumer Information Bureau; and Chief, Common Carrier Bureau. (2000, September 22). Reminder to manufacturers and providers of voice mail and interactive menu products and services of their accessibility obligations under new part 7 of the Commission’s rules. Washington DC. Retrieved January 4, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Public_Notices/2000/da002162.doc

      This document notes that voicemail and interactive menus are frequently inaccessible to people of various disabilities, and that this is in violation of federal law. Specifically, these telecommunications products cannot be used by people who use text telephones (TTY) and are extremely difficult to use by people who are slowed by blindness or mobility impairments. These problems are worsened by the fact that many interactive menus do not have an option that allows contact with a human operator. The document concludes with a warning that failure to comply with federal law will result in financial penalty.


    44. Feurzeig, Porter & Goldberg. (n.d.). Position papers on selected population groups regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/14.html

      Feurzeig discusses the need to increase access to computers and the internet for the underprivileged (low-income families, educationally disadvantaged students, illiterate adults). Computer-based speech recognition is one tool that can be used to facilitate learning to read. Porter surveyed a low-income user community, and found the following characteristics: Non-English speaking, limited educational background, limited literacy, limited access to computers. The problem of computer literacy should address simple predictable interfaces, rapid/incremental/reversible control, and training. The problem of language literacy should address direct manipulation, audio support, and culturally appropriate presentation. The problem of limited computer resources should address presentation on low-bandwidth devices, users without fixed Internet addresses, and long-running services. Goldberg reviews access for people with disabilities. While access issues are often attributable to any population, individuals with disabilities have a particular problem with input and output of data. Closed captioning and second audio programming have been a great leap forward, but they are quite limited.


    45. Feworn, A., Bodner, R., & Chignell, M. H. (2000). Auditory WWW search tools. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web.

      Visually impaired and mobile individuals can benefit from auditory web browsers. Screen reader technology is extremely limited, and this auditory search tool provides one technology to facilitate this gap in accessibility. A number of guidelines and recommendations have been developed by organizations such as W3C. This auditory search engine runs the query, and organizes the results categorically before restructuring them in such a way that they can be read on existing auditory web browsers. The arrow and enter keys are used to control playback of the content. A user study was completed, and the results were generally favorable.


    46. Fichman, R. G., & Kemerer, C. F. (1995). The illusory diffusion of innovation: An examination of assimilation gaps. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.pitt.edu/~ckemerer/illusory.htm

      Some individuals use acquisition of (enthusiasm for) technology concepts to define the time of adoption of a product; others use deployment of the technology. This can result in something called an assimilation gap, which can skew judgment of successful technology adoption. An assimilation gap is defined as "…the difference between the pattern of cumulative acquisitions and cumulative deployments of an innovation across a population of potential adopters." There are many consequences of adopting technology that then never gets widely deployed; these consequences can be summarized as limited availability. Software is deemed especially prone to the assimilation gap. The authors did a study to compare (measure) assimilation gaps for three software process innovations (RDBs, 4GLs, and CASE). This research demonstrates that it is possible to identify whether products will be successfully adopted.


    47. Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of human factors and the older adult. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

      This book devotes several chapters characterizing the aging population in terms of changes in learning and memory, sensory and perceptual functioning, movement control and speed of behavior, anthropometry and biomechanics, and language and communication. The book also presents several chapters on the application of human factors toward addressing age related changes in performance, such as the development of assistive technology in the home and the assessment of older worker capabilities and limitations. The book provides a useful resource for assessing the range of functioning that humans go through as they age and understanding the implications of these changes for designing and evaluating commercial products.


    48. Folds, D. J. (1998). Use of design reference scenarios in a user-centered design process (AIAA-98-1039). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

      Design reference scenarios can be used to coordinate information obtained from mission, function, and task analyses. They consist of a timeline and a narrative of the system in operation. This paper provides recommendations and lessons learned for use of design reference scenarios. The author recommends a set of design reference scenarios (7-10) for any system, rather than just one. These scenarios are particularly helpful in generating simulations. A team consisting of subject matter experts, designers, and individuals with technical knowledge should develop scenarios. The process for developing these scenarios is described for aircraft system design.


    49. Folds, D. J. (2000). Three crucial components of an aircrew-centered design process AIAA-2000-1061). American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

      Analysis, design, and evaluation, applied in an iterative fashion, are essential to the design process. Analysis involves identifying requirements for the system. Design involves developing techniques for information transmission; factors to consider in selecting information representation methods are provided. Evaluation is used to validate the design output. Analysis consists of mission, function, and task analysis; task analysis provides the basis for design and evaluation. Design is concerned with how elements of the system are going to be represented and organized. Evaluation can be either formative or summative, as described in this paper.


    50. Francik, E. (1996). Telephone interfaces: Universal design filters. Retrieved January 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/taacmtg_aug96/pbfilter.htm

      This is a design guide intended for early use in the development of telephone products and services. It identifies problems that may be encountered by people with disabilities.


    51. Fritz, J. P., Way, T. P., & Barner, K. E. Haptic representation of scientific data for visually impaired or blind persons. Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.rit.edu/~easi/easisem/haptic.html

      This web site describes the TACTile Image Creation System (TACTICS) that is being developed at the University of Delaware. Briefly, TACTICS reproduces visual image information in tactile form by first making the edges of objects in the information salient then processing the image in terms of segments. The processed ../images are ultimately “printed” using microcapsule paper. The web site also describes how haptic interfaces (e.g., PHANToM from SensAble Devices) can make graphical information accessible to people with low or no vision. While there is still a great deal of work to do, tactile representation of data proves to be a promising research direction.


    52. Garson, G. D. (2000). Focus Group Research. Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/focusgroups.htm

      This web site comes from a course in quantitative methods in public administration. It defines what a focus group is, and specifies how this needs assessment technique is conducted. In addition it specifies when a focus group should not be used. A focus group should not be used when quantitative data is sought, particularly for multivariate analyses. This is because statistical estimates based on the small sample size present at a focus group cannot generalize reliably. Further, the sample size is too small to provide the stability required for assessing the relative effects of multiple variables.


    53. Gerth, J. (1991, July). Knowledge Acquisition. Briefing presented at Technical Coordination Meeting #2 for the Analog Circuit Analysis and Partitioning System (ACAPS), Atlanta, GA.

      A method of graphical user interface simulation was described that involved verbal report of mental processes, and observation of problem solving activities during the simulation. The overall goal was to identify the knowledge and methods utilized by test engineers that were necessary to develop an understanding of units under test and to develop an approach to testing with automated test equipment. The interface simulation was conducted in the customers’ multi-media production studio. In the interface simulation, two test engineers worked as a team to understand the circuit. The rules of interaction designated one engineer as the information source, who had an understanding of the circuit to be tested and the other engineer was designated as the information seeker who was in the process of developing an understanding of the circuit. The limits on the dialog restricted the information seeker to ask specific questions that could be answered without requiring knowledge of the prior conversation and to permit the information source to add graphic notations, such as circles, arrows and other notations during the question and answer period of problem solving. To further restrict the conversation the two engineers were placed in separate rooms and able to see the circuit annotations on a video display and talk to each other with an intercom system. The information seeker was also trained to “think out loud” to permit observers of the simulation to assess the knowledge and use of methods to gain an understanding of the circuit operation. The dialogue between the information resource and the information seeker was analyzed. Dialogue classes for the information seeker included information requests, contingency changes (interruptions) of ongoing analysis (e.g., “Okay, I understand; now let’s look at X.”), requests for restatement or clarification, and responses to requests (including confirmations). Dialogue classes for the information resource included information requests, scope limiting requests (e.g., “Could you be more specific?”), and responses to requests. Many of the requests and responses were affected by indefinite references to “schematic” or “Over here, there’s a tank circuit.” Or “What’s the output at this opamp?” Indefinite references of this kind required additional dialogue to confirm references by pointing at the references, providing additional description, or using other scope-limiting dialogue. This approach identified the knowledge and methods used by the test engineer, the grammar and vocabulary required to ask/answer questions, and identified potential user interface considerations/issues (such as user aiding, visual decluttering, highlighting, annotation layers, and process tracking of the problem solving).


    54. Gerth, J., Kelly, M., West, P., Sobhi, N. (n.d.). Comparing advanced traffic management centers with similar operation control systems. Paper for Federal Highway Administration.

      This paper documents the human factors lessons learned and questions not resolved by the design teams from facilities with automated traffic management centers (TMCs), and from facilities that perform similar or analogous information processing and control functions. Using a data induction technique called the Repertory Grid Technique, three subject matter experts (SMEs) generated constructs that they used to rate each of six different command centers. First, each SME generated constructs relevant to features or qualities of the sites. These were combined and the unique aggregate was validated against an independent measure of the breadth of coverage of constructs concerning TMCs. In addition to comparability analysis, these constructs were also invaluable in designing the interview protocol for the follow-up site visits.


    55. Gill, J. (2000, November). Approaches for influencing the design of new telecommunication systems and services. Retrieved January 4, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiresias.org/reports/approach.htm

      Though geared toward a European audience, this web site touches on some important pointers for making accessible design a priority in situations where influential people are unaware of its necessity. More specifically, the basic questions asked are: (1) Who needs to be influenced? (2) What is the message? (3) When do they need it? (4) Who is best placed to do the influencing? (5) How to deliver the message?

      In brief summary, the author concludes that legislators, system developers, and service providers are the most important people to be influenced. The message to be delivered is telecommunications technology and services must be accessible to as many people as is reasonably possible. Accessibility and reasonability are defined by standards and guidelines regarding design and performance evaluation. The message should be delivered as soon as possible in the design process, if not beforehand, via detailed design guidelines. The people best able to deliver the message should be well versed in design and disability and thus capable of communicating the messages of both in the language of either. Finally, there were several ways listed for delivering the message, the effectiveness of each determined by who is to receive the message. The author concludes that a standardized approach with detailed guidelines is absolutely necessary for improving the incorporation of accessibility into the design of telecommunications products.


    56. Gill, J., Roe, P., & Martin, M. (COST219). Pay phones with immediate public access. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/payphones.htm

      This guidebook presents general design guidelines for pay phones in order to make them more accessible to people of varying abilities. Like the others, this guidebook cites the business and quality of life implications of universal design, or “design for all.” In addition, this guidebook emphasizes that limitations in ability can happen to anyone at any time, either due to physical disability or circumstance.
      The particular areas of focus in this guidebook are providing adequate signals for locating the phone, designing the general operating environment (e.g., illumination), designing the phone unit itself (e.g., display, payment, handset), and presenting instructions for usage. The capabilities of individuals with physical disabilities are emphasized with the assumption that individuals without physical disabilities would also benefit from many of the design implications in many diverse situations.
      General guidelines for design are presented for each area of focus. Additional relevant publications are listed, as well as relevant design standards for such devices.


    57. Gjöderum, J. (Ed.). (NFTH/COST219). Text telephony for deaf, hearing impaired, deaf-blind, and speech impaired people. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/Texttelephony.htm

      This guidebook, intended to illuminate the need for and benefits of text telephony (TT), describes the population of TT users and the usability goals of TT. The benefit of TT is that it allows immediate communication, real-time conversations among individuals that cannot speak or hear and between them and others without impairment. The guidebook describes how text telephony works. It also describes how proposed alternatives to TT (e.g., faxing, email) are not adequate for meeting the needs that TT meets. Finally, it describes briefly how the use of TT should be accommodated by other telecommunications technology (e.g., pay phones including a jack into which text telephones can be plugged).

    58. Gjoderum, J., Hypponen, H., Nordby, K., Ruud, S., Ekberg, J., & Martin, M. (COST219). Guideline—Booklet on Mobile Phones Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/mobiletelephone.htm

      This brief set of guidelines is intended to illuminate various aspects of mobile phone (GSM) design that can be modified in order to increase accessibility to users of varying capabilities. The guidelines are prefaced by justifications for using them in the design process, including business and quality of life implications. A common theme in the literature supporting the use of universal design guidelines is the expansion of the consumer base (or target market) and its obvious implication for increasing profits. As the authors note, however, making mobile phones accessible to the elderly and people with disabilities also has implications for the freedom and independence with which these people can conduct their everyday activities.
      The authors provide a definition of the Global System for Mobile communication (GSM) and their design recommendations are meant to be applied to future phones using this communication system. The authors describe the parts and accessories comprising a mobile phone unit, how elderly users and people with disabilities benefit from the features of a mobile phone unit, and general design issues that must be considered when developing such a unit. Finally, specific design guidelines are presented, organized according to particular features of the device (i.e., general design, keypad, phone operation, ingoing and outgoing sound specifications, display, battery and recharging, SIM card, and instructions). The guideline booklet concludes with design issues that require more research before specific recommendations can be made and relevant European publications and standards for the design of mobile phone devices.


    59. Goode, E. (January 2, 2001). Researcher challenges a host of psychological studies The New York Times. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/02/science/02ERRO.html?printpage=yes

      This article describes a researcher's caution in using rating scales in psychological studies. Rating scales often ask people to provide a level of some adjective describing their feelings about an issue (e.g., how hungry are you?). This is a subjective inquiry, however, and people's interpretations of the meaning of these adjectives cannot be equated, but often have been in research throughout the years.


    60. Greenberg, S. (2000, March 7). Prototyping for design and evaluation Retrieved January 18, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/~saul/681/1998/prototyping/survey.html

      This web site describes the various methods involved in low- and medium-fidelity prototyping techniques. Prototyping is defined as the method through which users are involved in the design process through testing and evaluation of product models. Low-fidelity prototyping does not represent the functionality of the to-be-designed system but provides an overview of system features. It involves pencil and paper sketches, storyboards, and PICTIVE techniques, and the system developers typically guide the direction of evaluation. Medium-fidelity prototyping partially represents the functionality of the to-be-designed system. It involves such techniques as computer-based simulation, Wizard of Oz, slide shows, and video prototyping. Here, the user is more involved in guiding the direction of evaluation. The choice to use low-, medium-, or high-fidelity prototypes depends on the phase and budget of the design process.


    61. Grudin, J. (1993). Obstacles to participatory design in large product development organizations. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 99-119). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

      This chapter describes the organizational barriers to the participatory design of commercial products and some trends in industry that may lead to the removal of some of the barriers. The specific barriers appear to come from organizational structure, and not from individuals with bad attitudes. While there are several barriers, one such barrier is the separation of the product definition and development processes. Another one is the traditional, intentional separation of developers and users, which perpetuates ignorance of user needs. Additionally, the user environment for computer hardware and software has traditionally been very similar to the development environment but this has changed dramatically in the past three decades. It is this change that the author posits will slowly start the slow train of organizational change in motion. The author also advises that practitioners become familiar with organizational barriers in order to communicate and effectively integrate end users into the design process.


    62. Hackos, J. T., & Redish, J. C. (1998). User and task analysis for interface design New York: John Wiley & Sons.

      The authors emphasize that good design is impossible if designers do not understand the users. A usable interface not only allows users to effectively accomplish their goals, but also gives the perception of usability. User and task analysis is most reliable when done while observing users perform their tasks. User characteristics that must be considered include how people use a product, how physical differences may affect use of the design, and how motivated people are to change how they interact with a product. They authors provide guidance for identifying who the users actually are, understanding task analysis, and understanding the important environmental factors. They discuss the importance of site visits, and how to go about doing them. The final chapters address how to analyze the data that is collected through site visits, and how to integrate the results into interface design.


    63. Hartley, C. (personal communication [email], October 20, 1999)

      In response to a request for advice on setting up a human factors process in a medical device manufacturing company, Craig Hartley of Sun Microsystems outlined 17 actions to proactively generate the adoption of human factors principles by software and hardware product teams at Sun Microsystems. He based his recommendations on his 25 years of experience in R & D groups and 6 years with Sun Microsystems in which he has established the human factors engineering function. In his opinion, the organization must offer human factors services free of charge to the design team or that appear to be free, paid out of the overhead or paid at division or higher levels to encourage its use by design teams. He emphasizes tailoring methods to the time and resources available, co-locating human factors experts with project design teams to permit quick access, and being consistently responsive to requests for input by the time it is needed. Raising the corporate awareness of human factors is an incremental process beginning with "out-of-box" evaluations at time of product release to raise awareness and start the thinking process to plan ahead for earlier evaluations in the design cycle. He recommends “selling” human factors services within the organization by involving project engineers as subjects in usability studies, encouraging "drop-ins" to the usability labs, and creating a laboratory that is multi-purpose (i.e., evaluate mockups, conduct focus groups and competitive product assessments) to establish human factors as willing to tackle a variety of problems. Creating an incentive system tied to human factors gives tangible rewards for good design (i.e., bonuses tied to number of service calls logged during a given period). Require a "HF dashboard" on every regular project review that lists status for usability problems discovered. These recommendations illustrate that organizational behavior at Sun Microsystems was changed through a long-term campaign of effective and timely design problem solving service to design teams.


    64. Hoffman, R. R., Crandall, B., Shadbolt, N. (1998). Use of the Critical Decision Method to Elicit Expert Knowledge: A Case Study in the Methodology of Cognitive Task Analysis. Human Factors, 40 (2), 254-276.

      The Critical Decision Method (CDM) is an approach to cognitive task analysis involving multiple-pass event retrospection guided by probe questions. The session is organized around an account of a specific incident from the participant’s own experience. Three information-gathering sweeps are used: time line verification with decision point identification; progressive deepening into a comprehensive, detailed, and contextually rich account; and “what-if” queries. A full CDM procedure takes about 2 hours. The CDM has been used in diverse domains and applications, most often for applications including system development and instructional design. This article explores some methodological issues – reliability, validity, efficiency, and utility – in research utilizing CDM, as well as several strategic issues involving cognitive task analysis methods in general.


    65. Hofmann, F. (1995, November 3). Gesture recognition with SensorGloves Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://pdv.cs.tu-berlin.de/forschung/IFP_engl.html

      This article provides an overview of the research going on at the Technical University of Berlin toward developing a device for recognizing human gestures. Specifically, the functions of the existing SensorGloves device are described, as well as the challenges facing future development and future applications. Future applications include the development of a gesture-to-text or gesture-to-image telephone for hearing impaired individuals. This application first requires that certain research challenges be overcome, such as improving the precision and speed with which data received from the moving hands are gathered and analyzed. Other challenges include building a gesture database and creating graphical representations of gesture data.


    66. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (2000). Accessibility of Electronic Commerce and New Service and Information Technologies for Older Australians and People with a Disability: Report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on a reference from the Attorney-General, 31 March 2000 Retrieved January 26, 2001 from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.independentliving.org/docs4/hreo2000.html

      The Commission’s task in this reference was to examine issues affecting older Australians and people with a disability to electronic commerce and new service and information technologies. They provided the Attorney-General with an impact report of general areas where access was currently limited and concluded that digital technologies properly designed could provide access in these areas. They further concluded that disability accessibility issues are more accurately perceived in many cases as universal access issues, such that appropriate design for access by people with disabilities will improve accessibility and usability for many older people and through the community more generally. They also made recommendations for action including improvement of existing standards for on-line and automated services, encouraging universal design practices, and increased governmental role in laws and support for universal design.


    67. IBM. Identifying reasons for producing accessible content and products Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/access_ibm/reasons.html

      This web site describes reasons for producing accessible content and products for consumers with disabilities. It is written from the perspective of the commercial designer involved in the production of products used globally. This is helpful in that the content of this web site is directly applicable to addressing the concerns of commercial designers who will benefit from the development of the ITTATC program.

      Briefly, the reasons identified for producing accessible content and products are: Everyone needs accessibility; Providing accessibility increases the customer base; Worldwide regulations and standards require accessibility; The benefits of accessible technology apply to everyone.

      In summary, the commercial advantage of developing accessible content and products is that it would make products available (and thus marketable) to the hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide who have some kind of disability. In the U.S., older adults (approximately 36% of which have some sort of functional limitation) compose the fastest growing age group and these individuals do not want to lose access to the technology around which their lives have been shaped. Finally, many design implementations made for individuals with disabilities also aid individuals without disabilities.


      Accessible products should be developed so that (1) individuals with disabilities have access as well as individuals without disabilities, (2) the customer base can be maximized, (3) worldwide regulations and standards are met (6 major regulations are identified), and (4) everyone can benefit from accessible design. People with disabilities make up the largest minority group in the United States, and their needs are quite often overlooked.


    68. IBM. Interacting with people that have disabilities Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www-3.ibm.com/able/hr/interact.html

      With regards to interacting with individuals with disabilities, this IBM web site makes the following (summarized) recommendations: Make your communications and interaction accessible to the individual with a disability; Allow the individual with a disability control over the assistance you give them; Make accommodations for individuals with disabilities feel inclusive, rather than disruptive, and encourage requests for help if necessary; Allow individuals with disabilities extra time to prepare for meetings, and make the content of meeting materials accessible to whatever assistive technology the individual uses; Treat the individual’s assistive technology with care.


    69. IBM. (n.d.). Hardware accessibility Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/guidelines/hardware/accesshardware.html

      This web page provides a checklist for assessing hardware for accessibility. Detailed information on each checklist item is available through a link in the checklist entry. Evaluation items include issues related to controls and latches, keys and keyboards, drives and removable media, alternate external connections, displays, color and contrast, sounds, and documentation.


    70. IBM. (n.d.). Java accessibility Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/guidelines/java/accessjava.html

      This web page provides a checklist for assessing Java for accessibility. Detailed information on each checklist item is available through a link in the checklist entry. Evaluation items include issues related to Java accessibility API, keyboard access, object information, relationships and layouts, the display, sound and multimedia, and documentation.


    71. IBM. (n.d.). Principles for accessible software Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/access_ibm/principles.html

      This web page identifies three basic principles, including choice of input methods (including serial port support and mouseless operation), choice of output methods (including display, sound, and print), and consistency and flexibility.


    72. IBM. (n.d.). Software accessibility Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/guidelines/software/accesssoftware.html

      This web page provides a checklist for assessing software for accessibility. Detailed information on each checklist item is available through a link in the checklist entry. Evaluation items include issues related to keyboard access, object information, sounds, the display, timing, and documentation.


    73. IBM. (n.d.). Understanding disability issues when designing web sites Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/access_ibm/disability.html

      Web developers need to be aware of accessibility issues to accommodate individuals with visual, hearing, mobility, or cognitive/learning disabilities. Awareness and use of assistive technologies are the greatest means to minimize barriers to web access. Descriptions of some assistive technologies are included along with some design guidelines.


    74. IBM. (n.d.). Web accessibility Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.ibm.com/able/guidelines/web/accessweb.html

      This web page provides a checklist for assessing web sites for accessibility. Detailed information on each checklist item is available through a link in the checklist entry. Evaluation items include issues related to use of ../images, multimedia, scripts and plug-ins, forms, frames, tables and charts, hypertext links, and color and contrast.


    75. InClude. (1999, December). Handbook on Inclusive Design of Telematics Applications (Sections 1 through 3). Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/include/handbook.htm

      This handbook presents design challenges and checkpoints for telematics products within the context of industry goals and structure while maintaining usability and accessibility priorities, defined by the “Design for All” and Universal Design objectives, as the central basis for product design and marketing.
      The handbook begins by addressing common marketing and process challenges typically faced by efforts to establish and market inclusive designs. The author presents data suggesting that bases of the challenges are ill founded, and suggests a redefinition of target markets to include individuals of varying abilities and possible routes for reshaping the design process in order to more efficiently incorporate the needs of various end users.
      The author provides several checkpoints toward building accessibility into each phase of the design process, discussing justifications for each one within the context of industry needs and structure. These checkpoints are applied to each phase of the design process with the goal of maximizing inclusion.
      The third section of this handbook presents the seven Universal Design principles and design guidelines for specific telecommunications products as described by COST 219 bis.


    76. Independent Living. Report on a Priority Theme: Accessibility on the Internet. Retrieved January 24, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/UN-Report-accessibility-on-the-internet.html

      This report is a result of the lessons learned in a project to launch an electronic “Gateway” for the Division of Social Policy and Development of the United Nations Secretariat. Policy statements, definitions of terms, recommended accessibility practices, and useful accessibility information sites were included from the United States, Canada, and Singapore. A consulting firm from British Columbia, Canada assisted in the development of the site.


    77. Internet Industry Association. IIA Warns SOGOC Disability Web Decision Puts Businesses on Notice. Retrieved January 24, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.independentliving.org/docs5/sydney-olympics-blind-accessibility-decision-press-release.html

      Legal actions were filed against the Sydney Olympics Games organizing committee, which upheld the Disability Discrimination Act of 1992 requiring accessibility. A news release from the Internet Industry Association, Australia’s national body for the internet reported on the outcome of a disability discrimination complaint filed against the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games for not providing Braille copies of the information required to place orders for the Olympic Games tickets, for souvenir programs and not providing an accessible web site.


    78. Internet World. (2000, October 25). Macromedia enables creation of accessible web content. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/proom/pr/2000/accessibility.html

      This article describes Macromedia’s efforts to make web content more accessible to people using screen reader and font enlargement methods to surf the net. Its efforts involve providing free downloads of Dreamweaver and Fireworks software extensions that enable web developers to evaluate their pages for accessibility. These extensions perform an analogous function as Bobby. In addition, the article briefly describes the planned improvements to the Dreamweaver and Fireworks software. One enhancement is a developer kit including accessible design guidelines and sample code. Another enhancement includes modifications to the Flash software that will allow accessibility to (by text readers) and modifiability (e.g., size) of text within Flash (SWF) files.


    79. ITAA. (n.d.). Information Technology Association of America IT Accessibility and Regulation Task Group. Retrieved September 26, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.itaa.org/software/sec508/

      This web page provides information about the latest governmental rulings on Section 508 and the ITAA’s responses to those rulings.


    80. ITIC (2001). Voluntary Product Accessibility Template. Retrieved September 19, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.itic.org/policy/vpat.html

      This web page provides a template for corporations to use to document, for procurement officials, how well their products comply with the standards of Section 508.


    81. Jacob, R. J. K. (n.d.). Eye tracking in advanced interface design. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.eecs.tufts.edu/~jacob/papers/barfield.html

      The author proposes eye tracking as a means to increasing user-computer bandwidth, particularly in virtual environments. Eye movements are a much more natural input mechanism than pushing a button or manipulating a joystick, thus they may also facilitate an increase in cognitive load. The physiology of eye movements is discussed, as are eye-tracking technologies, which generally measure line of gaze. One difficulty with eye tracking is to differentiate intentional from non-intentional movements. Steps involved in processing raw eye movement data include local calibration, fixation recognition, and re-assignment of off-target fixations. Applications of eye tracking include interaction techniques, object selection, continuous attribute display, moving an object, eye-controlled scrolling text, and menu commands. Interfaces using eye-tracking technologies can be characterized as using implicit commands in simultaneous, parallel interactions.


    82. KADO. User needs methods. Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.kado.co.uk/unmeths.htm

      This web site describes the user needs analysis methods available to and used by the KADO consulting company. Such methods include workshops and focus groups, panel studies, brainstorming sessions, questionnaires, observation, interviews, ratings diaries, attribution analysis, projective techniques, verbal protocols and content analysis, and user trials. These methods fall into three categories: methods that involve multiple groups of individuals, a single group of individuals, or single individuals. Additionally, statistical methods for analyzing user need data are listed and briefly described. They are: factor analysis, cluster analysis, and scaling analysis.


    83. Karat, J., Lai, J., Danis, C., & Wolf, C. (1999). Speech user interface evolution. In D. Gardner-Bonneau (Ed.), Human factors and voice interactive systems (pp. 1-35). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

      This chapter describes the design process and challenges faced by a team of developers working on various types of voice interactive systems. Specifically, the design of the four IBM systems Personal Dictation, Storywriter, MedSpeak, and Conversation Machine was discussed. The primary challenges faced involved reducing word recognition errors, lag between spoken text (or corrections) and displayed text (or corrections), system confusion of dictation vs. editing commands, difficulty with which text could be selected for editing, and user training. Resolutions to these challenges are described, and lessons learned in improving the design of each system are discussed.


    84. Kaye, H. S. (1997). Disability watch: The status of people with disabilities in the United States. San Francisco: Disability Rights Advocates

      Because of physical and stereotypical barriers, yet despite the number of equal rights laws that have been passed, people with disabilities continue to be discriminated against with respect to employment, education, housing, access to public accommodations, and social integration. The introduction in this report provides an excellent overview of how society currently fails the population with disabilities. Noncompliance with accessibility standards and regulations persists because ignorance regarding reasonable accommodation (including lack of appropriate education for architects) is extremely high, social integration is slow due to poor enforcement and lax implementation of policies and laws related to disabilities, and persistent prejudice. The authors provide extensive demographics on the population of people with disabilities, including employment and transportation statistics, and statistics on social integration. A number of myths and facts are provided as well. An extensive section on barriers to independence is included.


    85. Kaye, H. S. (July, 2000). Disability and the digital divide. (Disability Statistics Abstract 22). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

      Computer ownership and internet use is much greater for individuals without disabilities (statistics are provided). There are also comparisons made for educational attainment, family income, and race/ethnicity (and disability status of household members).


    86. Kaye, H. S. (March, 2000). Computer and internet use among people with disabilities (Disability Statistics Report 13). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

      This report indicates that while computers and the internet have made information much more accessible to individuals with disabilities, the gap in usage is just as great as that based on race. The Current Population Survey, while not directly addressing disability issues, can be used to extract information about computer and internet use for households with and without work disabilities. Analyses were done for computer ownership and internet use (1) by disability status and age group, (2) by disability status, (3) by disability and employment status, (4) by disability status, gender, employment status, educational attainment, and family income, and (5) by race, ethnicity, and disability status. Statistics were also reported identifying reasons why people use the internet, with email being the most common. Educational efforts need to be made to broadcast the benefits that assistive technologies can provide, and cost reduction strategies must be implemented to make these technologies affordable.


    87. Kaye, H. S. (May, 1998). Is the status of people with disabilities improving? (Disability Statistics Abstract Number 21). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.

      Despite the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, the participation of individuals with disabilities in mainstream America is still extremely limited. There has been little change in employment figures, there continues to be a gap in income for individuals with and without disabilities, and while many physical (e.g., stairs) and communication (e.g., inability to read menus or forms) barriers have been removed, individuals with disabilities are still limited in social participation. Much still needs to be done to improve the lives of people with disabilities.


    88. Kelley, J. F., Spraragen, S. L., Jones, L., Greene, S. L., & Boies, S. (1996). Extending user-centered methods beyond interface design to functional definition. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Retrieved January 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.musicman.net/itshfs69.html

      The authors have developed a tool for achieving functional definition of a design. They use four phases of application development, namely, discovery, proof of concept, pilot iteration, and application rollout. This process ensures that both functional and usability needs of the users are met.


    89. Kelly, M. J. (1999). Principles and methods of user-centered design In Preliminary Human Factors Guidelines for Traffic Management Centers (FHWA-JPO-99-042). Mclean, VA: Federal Highway Administration.

      This chapter outlines a process approach to user-centered design consisting of the following steps: conduct a mission analysis, prepare a design concept, conduct functional analysis and allocation procedures, conduct an operator task analysis, identify sources of human operator error, identify human performance constraints, design jobs, design the work environment, design and specify workstations, design and specify controls and displays, and design and specify user interfaces. Tools and techniques are provided for each of these steps. Principles of test and evaluation are also discussed.


    90. Kelly, M.J. (1975). Studies in interactive communication: Limited vocabulary natural language dialogue. (ONR Contract No. N00014-75-C-0131). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University, Department of Psychology.

      This study is an illustration of an experimental method that can be used to establish a limited vocabulary for an interactive dialogue between a person and a machine. Such a dialog can be defined for the exchange of information between any class of technology, such as hand-held telecommunications devices and a person. The method consists of two-person teams of subjects cooperatively solving real-world problems who communicate with each other only through a computer-controlled typewriter system that places limits on the vocabulary. Vocabulary size was varied from 300 to 500 words or as a baseline condition, as unlimited. The analysis approach evaluated the effectiveness of each vocabulary size in problem solving. The results indicated that it is possible to develop a vocabulary of limited size that is still efficient to use in interactive communication.


    91. Kennard, W. E. (March 8, 1998). Remarks by Chairman William E. Kennard regarding disability access to telecom equipment. Washington, D.C.

      Kennard discusses the need for equal opportunity. The needs of people are the same, regardless of the method they must use to accomplish their task. Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act mandates access of telecommunications equipment and services for people with disabilities. Many devices used by a large number of people today were invented with a specific disability in mind; the telephone is one of these devices. Thus, the population with disabilities is only part of a larger population of people who will benefit from regulations regarding accessibility. Kennard encourages consumer and disability policy organizations to provide significant input into design needs. One of his goals is to expand access to the FCC through consumer feedback.


    92. King & Thomas. (n.d.). Position papers on key processes regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/15.html

      King proposes the need to move beyond the traditional focus of the interface as an individual concern, and to elaborate on the interface as a collaborative tool as used at the "group organization, sectoral, institutional, social, and cultural levels". (p. 3) Thomas' position focuses on audio access to the national information infrastructure, including providing universality, privacy, security, usability, empowerment, responsibility, translatability, and ubiquity. Audio access through telephone lines would facilitate access for low-income individuals, as well as provide a number of other benefits to other populations. This would require technological improvements in the following areas: speech recognition, speech synthesis, picture and video understanding, natural language processing, user interface design, system integration, speaker verification, media translation, adaptive recognition, and intelligent searching.


    93. King, T. W. (1999). Assistive technology: Essential human factors. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

      This book describes the critical human factors considerations in the design of and training with assistive technology (AT). Specifically addressed is the effect of ignoring human factors in AT design and training on AT effectiveness and use.

      This book touches on the particular concerns faced by individuals with disabilities and the families, therapists, educators, and employers who support them. These concerns are typically those of which designers of inaccessible commercial products are unaware or have ignored. A primary concern addressed in King’s book that does not appear in the literature of universal design is called cosmesis (“the appearance of an item, and how it relates cosmetically to the user”). King notes that this design characteristic is fundamental in determining whether assistive technology is appealing to consumer and will be used.

      Another concern addressed in this book is the design and materials used to compose switches and controls for technology used by people with disabilities. For commercial designers who are not familiar with the ways in which individuals with disabilities must compensate for their functional limitations, this book is particularly useful for describing matter-of-factly the design issues that must be considered in universal design.

      Finally, King’s book is useful for understanding what sort of AT the user brings to occupational and leisure situations involving commercial technology. It broadly characterizes the demographics of the population using various types of AT. It is presumed that most commercial designers are unaware of the specific characteristics of this population.


    94. Ko, D. (1999). Information requirements analysis and multiple knowledge elicitation techniques: Experience with the pricing scenario system. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

      This presentation describes the use of the scenario technique as a supplement to existing needs assessment techniques (e.g., structured interviews, focus groups, etc.). The author discusses a model of knowledge acquisition and transfer, which presents different ways in which tacit and explicit knowledge are acquired, and uses it to explain how the scenario technique is useful for eliciting tacit knowledge. The author does not suggest that the scenario technique replace other needs assessment techniques, but argues that it is an extremely valuable supplement to these techniques. The other needs assessment technique are purported to be ideal for eliciting explicit knowledge where the scenario technique may be inadequate.


    95. Kolodner, E. L., Nathan, V., & Piersol, C. V. (2000). Interdisciplinary collaborative teams: A strategy for infusing universal design into professional curricula. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      The author encourages interdisciplinary training and exposure for any individual who may be involved in environmental design. For example, designers (interior, industrial, fashion, and graphic) and occupational therapists, while completely different career fields, both concern themselves with human/environment interaction. Thus, they can pool their perspectives to facilitate a more generally accessible design of any environment.


    96. Kramer, G., Walker, B., Bonebright, T., Cook, P., Flowers, J., Miner, N., Neuhoff, J., Bargar, R., Barrass, S., Berger, J., Evreinov, G., Fitch, W. T., Grohn, M., Handel, S., Kaper, H., Levkowitz, H., Lodha, S., Shinn-Cunningham, B., Simoni, M., & Tipei, S. (1997). Sonification report: Status of the field and research agenda.

      “Sonification is the use of nonspeech audio to convey information.” (p.1) This paper is intended to provide an understanding of this interdisciplinary field, an appreciation for the potential of sonification, and ideas for support of further research. The field is composed of psychological research in perception and cognition, development of sonification tools for research and application, and sonification design and application. The authors provide a proposed research agenda, as well as an overview of the three above-mentioned components of the field. The authors provide a list of suggested research topics that, if undertaken, should help in the formation of design principles.


    97. Krueger, M. W., & Gilden, D. (1997). KnowWhere: An audio/spatial interface for blind people. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD97/Kruger.PDF

      KnowWhere uses light table and video technology to analyze the location of a user’s fingertip to determine where he/she is pointing or touching. KnowWhere then provides auditory feedback to the user. A VIDEODESK serves as a direct pointing device, and users can even enlarge an area to more thoroughly explore its features. Representational sounds are used where possible, such as ocean waves or city traffic. They may take longer to recognize, however, and the system must account for this perceptual lag. While a sound is played, the system ignores other features that are touched so that the user can associate his/her position with the feedback. Five subjects tested the system to study maps. They all successfully used the system and readily learned the information provided.


    98. Lamancusa, J. S. (2000, November 16). Rapid Prototyping Primer. Retrieved January 18, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.me.psu.edu/lamancusa/rapidpro/primer/chapter2.htm

      This web site briefly presents information on rapid prototyping. It defines rapid prototyping, describes the basic process and several rapid prototyping techniques, lists the current applications of rapid prototyping, and presents future developments that will advance the current state of the technology. Rapid prototyping refers to the relatively quick construction of physical models from CAD data, which are used in the design, evaluation, and manufacturing of automotive, aerospace, medical, and consumer products. The advantage of such models is that they allow 3-dimensional representation of products, which aids in design and evaluation. Future developments in rapid prototyping technology will improve the speed with which prototypes are constructed, improve the accuracy and surface finish of the constructed prototypes, broaden the range of materials that can be used in construction, and increase the size of the products that can be constructed.


    99. Law, C. M., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1999). Tests for screening product designs prior to user testing by people with functional limitations. Presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Conference.

      The authors propose inexpensive screening tests to apply to product design for accessibility evaluation. The screening tests are designed with a naïve test subject in mind. They are designed to impose functional limitations on individuals who may not actually have an impairment. Sensory screening tests include use without vision, use with low vision, use without the ability to hear, and use with reduced ability to hear. Physical screening tests include use with one hand, use with one finger, use with a mouthstick, use with a low manipulation capability, and use with a tremor/poor coordination. Cognitive screening tests include use without the ability to read and use with limited cognitive capability.


    100. Law, C. M., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (2000). Reducing sample sizes when user testing with people who have, and how are simulating disabilities - experiences with blindness and public information kiosks. Presented at the joint conference of the International Ergonomics Association and Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

      To reduce costs, it is desirable to minimize the number of subjects required for experimentation. As the probability of finding interface problems increases, the number of required test subjects decreases. Important questions must be considered, however, before determining the best number and mix of subjects. (1) "Do people who are simulating disability have the same likelihood of problem discovery as people with genuine disabilities?" (2) "Do people who have genuine disabilities find different types of problems?" (3) "Is it valid to have a subject pool that is a mix of people with genuine disabilities, and people simulating difficulty or disabilities, as a means of reducing subject recruitment costs?" (p. 1) Fifteen blind and 15 sighted subjects were used in an experiment involving a touchscreen based public information kiosk. The results found very small differences between the groups. Further research is necessary to answer the above questions.


    101. Law, C. M., Barnicle, K., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Usability testing of people with disabilities: Where do you begin? Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      Little in the literature addresses techniques for user testing of people with disabilities. There is growing interest in this area, and the following have been identified as a means to facilitate this user testing: consider obvious problems, such as what would happen if the user were blind, evaluate the facilities for obstacles which may hinder people with various disabilities (vision, impairment, use of a wheelchair), test the process of using the designed item from the perspective of various disability conditions, and considering different severities of various disabilities.


    102. Lee, S. H. (1999). Usability testing for developing effective interactive multimedia software: Concepts, dimensions, and procedures. Educational Technology & Society 2 (2). Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_2_99/sung_heum_lee.html

      This article presents the need and describes general procedures for usability testing for multimedia products. Evaluation and data collection methods are described, along with general guidelines for conducting usability testing.


    103. Leibe, B., Minnen, D., Weeks, J., & Starner, T. (2001). Integration of Wireless Gesture Tracking, Object Tracking, and 3D Reconstruction in the Perceptive Workbench International Conference on Computer Vision Systems, July, 2001, Vancouver, Canada (pp. 73-92). Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.vision.ethz.ch/leibe/papers/leibe-perceptive-icvs01.pdf

      “The Perceptive Workbench endeavors to create a spontaneous andunimpeded interface between the physical and virtual worlds. Its vision-basedmethods for interaction constitute an alternative to wired input devices and tetheredtracking. Objects are recognized and tracked when placed on the displaysurface. By using multiple infrared light sources, the object’s 3D shape can becaptured and inserted into the virtual interface. This ability permits spontaneitysince either preloaded objects or those objects selected at run-time by the usercan become physical icons. Integrated into the same vision-based interface is theability to identify 3D hand position, pointing direction, and sweeping arm gestures.Such gestures can enhance selection, manipulation, and navigation tasks.In previous publications, the Perceptive Workbench has demonstrated its utilityfor a variety of applications, including augmented reality gaming and terrain navigation.This paper will focus on the implementation and performance aspectsand will introduce recent enhancements to the system.”


    104. Legarce. (Forthcoming, 2002). Beyond ADA: A guide to universal design. John Wiley & Sons.


    105. Leplâtre, G., & Brewster, S. A. (2000). Designing non-speech sounds to support navigation to mobile phone menus. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2000/PDFs/Leplatre.pdf

      “This paper describes a framework for using non-speech audio to support navigation in menu-based interfaces such as mobile phone interfaces where the visual feedback is limited. (p.1) Previous research as demonstrated that people are capable of recalling a 25-node hierarchy of earcons. People improve at menu navigation through exploration, acquisition of display-based knowledge, and practice. Design principles incorporated into the study include: distinctiveness of main menu sounds, homogeneity of sonification, distinctiveness and gradation of each menu level, use of brief sounds, and distribution of sound weights. The experimenters found significant benefit for use of non-speech sounds. Users used fewer keypresses and completed tasks more successfully. Future research will address levels of sonification.


    106. Leung, Y. K., Smith, S., Parker, S., & Martin, R. (1997). Learning and retention of auditory warnings. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD97/Leung.pdf

      Abstract sound warnings are much more difficult to learn and retain than speech warnings and auditory icons. Auditory warnings are prevalent in hospital and military aircraft environments. The disadvantage of speech warnings is that they can be easily masked by background speech. The experiment focused on the military aircraft environment. The auditory warnings dealt with eight possible events. Experimenters measured number of trials required to reach criterion performance and number of errors. Speech auditory warnings were most easy to learn, though the number of trials was not significantly different from that for icons. There was a significant difference for learning and retaining abstract sounds. Natural icon-event associations can enhance learning and retention.


    107. Linda, T. K., Corrigan, J.M., and Donaldson, M.S. (Eds.). (2000). To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

      A primary commitment of the ongoing effort to improve the quality of health care delivery systems is identifying and learning from errors. In order to enable this learning process, the primary requirement is to create an environment that encourages organizations to identify errors, evaluate causes and take appropriate actions to improve performance in the future. External reporting systems represent one mechanism to enhance our understanding of errors and the underlying factors that contribute to them. Although committing errors in the use of telecommunication devices is not usually associated with life threatening consequences (aside from 911 calling), errors in device usage can at a minimum, lead to decreased use of the product. Useful distinctions established for evaluating medical device errors are also potentially distinctions for other devices. Classifying errors committed in the use of a device during a standard procedure, such as dialing or looking up an information item can assist in the allocation of design resources to correct the root cause of the error. For example errors can be classified as preventable, random events, or lost opportunities (the user is required to repeat the failed operation over). The general approach to a systemic change is establishing a knowledgeable population of users who create sufficient pressure to make errors costly to the providers so they are compelled to take action to improve their products.


    108. Lumsden, J., Brewster, S.A., Crease, M. and Gray, P.D. (2002). Guidelines for audio-enhancement of graphical user interface widgets. Proceedings of British HCI, Vol II (pp. 6-9). London: BCS. Retrieved June 30, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~stephen/papers/HCI2002-lumsden.pdf

      The authors provide guidelines related to earcons – the production of sound, designing earcons, and combining simultaneous earcons. They provide a total of 21 guidelines related to earcons, preceded by a brief background and design goals.


    109. Lund, A. M., & Tschirgi, J. E. Designing for people: Integrating human factors into the product realization process. Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ameritech.com/corporate/testtown/library/articles/design.html

      This web site describes the role of human factors in the Product Realization Process. Specifically, an example of an iterative design process for developing a multi-media collaborative workstation is presented. The role of human factors in the needs analysis, needs clarification, development, and testing phases of the design process are outlined and described. The human factors practitioner is expected to serve as the representative of the user, of the user’s needs and the user’s perceptions of their needs. Information about the user is gathered through focus groups, usability testing, and empirical analysis.


    110. Macromedia. (2000, October). Accessibility at Macromedia. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibility/

      This web site describes Macromedia’s accessibility policy. The policy includes Macromedia’s efforts to involve individuals with disabilities in the design and evaluation of its software, provide accessibility guidelines with its software, provide documentation on the accessibility features of its web authoring products, support R&D of related assistive technology, and support the implementation of international accessibility standards. The company seeks to promote accessibility awareness among its employees and to include individuals with disabilities in its hiring practices.


    111. Mane, A., Boyce, S., Karis, D., & Yankelovich, N. (1996). Designing the user interface for speech recognition applications: A CHI workshop. SIGCHI, 28 (4). Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~steven/sigchi/bulletin/1996.4/boyce.html

      This workshop coordinated the efforts of individuals from academia, the computer industry, telecommunication providers, and vendors of speech technology toward assessing the current state and challenges in speech user interfaces (SUIs). The design implications of this effort for future SUI applications were also discussed. Currently, SUI design is centered on available technology, rather than user needs. Further, laboratory evidence suggesting the superiority of a particular design has proved to be uninformative when designs are tried out commercially, perhaps because the variable according to which success is scaled in the laboratory (i.e., recognition accuracy) is not the critical variable in commercial applications (i.e., rejection). Additional issues regarding the design of future interfaces are discussed.


    112. Mankoff, J. Rapid Prototyping. Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/people/home/jmankoff/hci/rapid-prototyping.html

      This web site briefly describes the different dimensions and styles of rapid prototyping. There are four dimensions along which prototypes differ: the degree to which the system representation is visual, the computational complexity (or scope), the degree to which the prototype can be “run”, and the stages of development (revolutionary or evolutionary). There were several styles of rapid prototyping listed, among them are horizontal (shallow, broad sampling of system features), vertical (narrow, in-depth sampling of system features), high and low fidelity, chauffeured (where the user is escorted), and Wizard of Oz (where a third party simulates system functions).


    113. Martin, P., Crabbe, F., Adams, S., Baatz, E., & Yankelovich, N. (1996, July). SpeechActs: A spoken language framework. Computer, 29 (7), 33-40. Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.computer.org/computer/co1996/r7033abs.htm

      This article describes a voice-interactive system using continuous speech, called SpeechActs. Simply put, the SpeechActs system allows phone-in access to an automated personal assistant using continuous speech. The article describes its functionality and the challenges yet faced by this technology. The challenges include making pauses in the speech output of the system more indicative of system functioning (i.e., busy vs. waiting), developing an error-correction specialist generic across the applications used in the system, and tapered user prompting to reduce the duration of system use. Other difficulties faced by the system include developing a lexicon that is general across applications but does not increase the perplexity of the system (and, thus, errors in recognition).


    114. McMillan, G. R., Eggleston, R. G., & Anderson, T. R. (1997). Nonconventional controls. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. (pp. 729-771). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

      This handbook chapter describes several nonconventional controls, their potential application and utility, and future directions for research and development. Of particular interest were the speech-based controls and the gesture-based controls, for their obvious application to telecommunications technology. There have been several developments in both of these areas, though there is a great deal of work to be done before these technologies will be easy to use and incorporate into mainstream technology. The most difficult challenges that speech-based controls face at this time are the diversity of the environments in which speech must be recognized, the size of the vocabulary that must be recognized, and the complexity of the grammar that must be recognized. The most difficult challenges that gesture-based controls face are the speed and precision with which gestures must be recognized. Some brief, general design guidelines for these technologies are presented.


    115. McNeese, M., Zaff, B., Peio, K., Snyder, D., Duncan, J., McFarren, M. (1992). Concept mapping: A pilot’s view of the mission. In An Advanced Knowledge and Design Methodology: Application for the Pilot’s Associate. (pp. 21-60) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. (NTIS No. AAMRL-TR-90-060).

      Concept mapping is an interactive interview technique that provides both the expert and the knowledge engineer a medium for communication, and a means of knowing what information was communicated through the visual representation of concepts and their relationships that is created during the interview. This allows the domain expert to quickly correct any misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the domain by the knowledge expert. The authors conducted research with fighter pilots for the purpose of designing a decision support system intended to aid in the performance activities within this specific domain. The methodology and techniques used in the fighter pilot research are presented in detail. They found that concept mapping is an effective method for transferring information in the field of knowledge acquisition.


    116. McNeil, J. M. (1997). Americans with disabilities: 1994-95. U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration. Retrieved March 13, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/p70-61.pdf

      This report relates disability status to a range of other variables including income, employment, health insurance coverage, and the receipt of program benefits. The estimates in this report are based on data collected during the period October 1994 to January 1995.


    117. Meister, D. Human Factors Test and Evaluation in the Twenty First Century. (1996) In O’Brien, T.G. , Charlton, S.G. (Eds.). Handbook of Human Factors Testing and Evaluation. (pp 313-322) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Inc.

      The increasing sophistication of technology is eroding the distinction between traditional held distinctions between person and machine. The advent of computers has shifted the role of the human operator from a direct performer/operator to that of supervisor/diagnostician. These present new challenges for designing and testing the human factors in highly automated systems. Three specific issues that emerge are greater emphasis on purely cognitive tasks, a changed concept of what is error and how it is measured, and a much greater emphasis on self-report data in the testing process. Because the focus of operator behavior in these advanced systems will be on information acquisition and interpretation, there will be many fewer fixed step-by-step procedures to serve as error criteria for the operator performance. Under these circumstances it may be necessary to establish a standard of reasonable behavior that is determined through subject matter expert consensus. Although it will be possible to measure personnel performance through objective means alone by ignoring self-report data, the information secured will be minimal and will not indicate what needs to be redesigned in the common cases of inadequate system design. Protocol analysis of verbal report and constructs to elaborate troubleshooting behavior of operators (i.e., monitoring, detection, problem solving, corrective action) and the characteristics of errors will need to reflect these evolving system requirements.


    118. Mercinelli, M. (COST219). Guidelines—Accessibility requirements for new telecommunication equipment. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.stakes.fi/cost219/smartphones.htm

      This short set of guidelines provides a brief, general set of recommendations for designing telecommunications products (e.g., smart phones, palmtop PCs, Windows CE sub-notebooks, PDAs, and TV set top boxes) that have not been produced yet. It addresses briefly the goals and business implications of designing telecommunications products for accessibility to the widest range of user capabilities. After characterizing key components of physical interaction with lightweight telematic terminals, Mercinelli suggests ways to design the display, visual indicators, acoustic output devices, keys, pointing devices, switches/knobs, slots/external connections, and microphones of such terminals. When discussing keys, Mercinelli also presents guidelines for designing touchscreen keys. Finally, a brief list of general design guidelines for facilitating the interaction between users and technology is presented. It includes very general suggestions regarding the relief of memory load, cancellation of selections, and provision of on-line help.


    119. Meyers, B. A. (1997). User interface software tools. Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/bam/www/toolnames.html

      This web site provides a list of tools available for rapid prototyping and the contact information for acquiring the tools. Other tool information provided is the cost of the tool, the platform or environment on which it is run, and classification information (provided by Meyers).


    120. Microsoft. Accessibility Homepage. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

      This page provides access to a set of pages describing Microsoft’s policies, efforts, options, and guidelines regarding accessibility. More specifically, the pages present a description of the company’s efforts to train its staff in accessible design (Accessibility Day 1998) and the guidelines for design and evaluation that the company has developed. In addition, they provide a characterization of disability in the U.S., indicating that nearly 1 in 5 people are disabled in this country. The pages describe why accessibility is necessary, both from a legal and business standpoint. In addition, the pages provide basic training materials for individuals who wish to make the most of Microsoft’s accessibility options, and provide links to other accessibility resources.
      In short, this set of pages is an excellent example of the integration of accessibility into the design of mainstream products. It shows how a company has attempted to train its employees to efficiently incorporate the principles of universal design in each phase of the design process. It shows the efforts that a company can make to educate its consumers on the accessibility options provided by its product. Finally, it shows how a company can strive to educate others by making its efforts an example that’s available on the World Wide Web.


    121. Microsoft. (n.d.). Microsoft Windows guidelines for accessible software design. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.microsoft.com/enable/dev/guidelines/software.htm

      This document addresses the need for accessible design, how computers can be more accessible, assistive technology, and statistics and information about disabilities. It provides guidelines for creating accessible applications, for interface design, and for multitasking, as well for verifying accessibility. Some guidelines are provided an impact rating based on the number of people affected by the adaptation, the impact the adaptation has on software usability, the impact of the adaptation on the user’s ability to carry out important tasks, and the frequency with which the user might benefit from the adaptation.


    122. Microsoft. (n.d.). Today's assistive technology, tomorrow's everyday convenience. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://microsoft.com/enable/news/ada99.aspx

      This article discusses Microsoft's role in improving access for individuals with disabilities. Many features of Microsoft products were tested on people with disabilities (eager to be guinea pigs in hopes of simplifying their own lives), resulting in development of a number of features desirable by and useful to all individuals. In fact, individuals without disabilities use many features designed specifically for individuals with disabilities. Microsoft products provide a number of accessibility features as well as some customization that allows greater flexibility in use of their applications. Microsoft formed an international advisory council to get input from the community of people with disabilities on prioritization needs for accessibility development.


    123. Middendorf, L., & Johnson, P. (2000). Meta-universal design. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      Meta-universal design emphasizes designing for people, not disabilities. It addresses not only accessibility, but also accommodation and transgenerational considerations. The model for meta-universal design draws from an extensive group of disciplines and supports use of information templates.


    124. Mitsopoulos, E. N., & Edwards, A. D. N. (1997). Auditory scene analysis as the basis for designing auditory widgets. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD97/Mitsopoulos.pdf

      Auditory information can be presented “at an instant” or over time. The structure used is determined by the associated tasks. Visual interfaces are fairly static, in contrast to the auditory system, which in itself creates a complex issue to overcome in designing alternative formats for browsing the web. Auditory organization can be either primitive or schema-based. Experimentation is being done involving different tasks and rates of presentation.


    125. Monterey Technologies, Inc. (September 9, 1996). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Submitted to EIA-EIF Committee on Product Accessibility, A Joint Venture of the Electronic Industries Association and the Electronic Industries Foundation.

      This document provides both an executive’s and a designer’s guide to accessible design, as well as a reference of design guidelines. The authors review some government regulations that have been enacted with respect to accessibility. They also discuss a number of benefits of accessible design. Eight general design principles for consumer electronics are provided: know the user, make it adjustable, provide alternatives/redundancies, make functions conspicuous, provide adequate feedback, make the design forgiving, strive for accessibility followed by compatibility, and always evaluate each design. Functional limitations that are addressed include mobility/dexterity, deafness/hearing loss, blindness/low vision, perceptual/cognitive and speech/language. A roadmap to applicable design guideline, based on limitations, is provided, and some design evaluation techniques are described.


    126. Montoya-Weiss, M., Mueller, J., & Story, M. (2000). Measuring universal design. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      Performance measures were developed with input from consumers, marketing professionals, commercial designers, and product testing experts. They can be used for pre-purchase product evaluation, design development, marketing, and product testing and evaluation. The outcome of the research was a 29-question evaluation survey, with versions for both consumer and designer. Results of the pilot test were unavailable at the time of publication.


    127. Moray, N. (1994). Error reduction as a systems problem. In M.S. Bogner (Ed.), Human Error in Medicine. (pp. 67-91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

      One approach to error reduction in industries, organizations, or settings where error is common is to emphasize the role of the individual in making errors. This approach recommends training, admonition, supervision, and tighter, more detailed rules as key to error reduction. In contrast, this article looks at the role of the systems of which people are a part in eliciting errors. Although individuals make errors, those individuals work within systems composed of people, things, information and the relations and interaction among them. The author argues that the designs of systems are often responsible for the errors that users make. These system-induced errors result from inadequate or incomplete consideration of the how the objects themselves convey their design use as well as the activities, procedures, and patterns of behaviors in their use. There are many places in any system at which to intervene and many ways to intervene to prevent future errors. A systems approach emphasizes greater versatility in creating solutions, and shows that ever-tightening local constraints can leave the system increasingly vulnerable to unforeseen events.


    128. Morrow, R. (2000). Inclusion as a critical tool in design education. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      The field of architecture is in many ways resistant to the use of inclusive design. This article identifies a few possible reasons for this resistance. More documentation is required to explicitly identify the role of the user in various environments. Architects perceive inclusive design as an "extra" which a client may not be willing to pay extra for, despite the needs of the end user. The thinking used in the architectural culture needs to be reshaped to include the bigger picture (more than were the doors are going to go). Architects need to think outside their box, and not be afraid to try something a bit different than the norm.


    129. Mynatt, E. D. (1994). Designing with auditory icons: How well do we identify auditory cues? Proceedings of the CHI '94 Conference Companion. Boston.

      This article identifies a brief methodology for designing auditory icons. The methodology consists of: (1) Choose short sounds which have a wide bandwidth, and where length, intensity, and sound quality are roughly equal. (2) Evaluate the identifiability of the auditory cues using free-form answers. (3) Evaluate the learnability of the auditory cues which are not readily identified. (4) Test possible conceptual mappings for the auditory cues using a repeated measures design where the independent variable is the concept that the cue will represent. (5) Evaluate possible sets of auditory icons for potential problems with masking, discriminability and conflicting mappings. (6) Conduct usability experiments with interfaces using the auditory icons.


    130. Namioka & Fisher. (n.d.). Position papers on application areas regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/13.html

      Namioka focuses on community computing projects. He reviews policy and design guidelines identified by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. Important design principles considerations include universal access, freedom to communicate, vital civic sector, diverse and competitive marketplace, equitable workplace, privacy, democratic policy making, and functional integrity. These communities should provide free email, a stable interface, topic-focused search engines, and public access centers. Fischer is interested in lifelong learning. "We need computational environments to support ‘new’ frameworks for education such as lifelong learning, the integration of working and learning, learning on demand, authentic problems, self-directed learning information conceptualized to the task at hand, (intrinsic) motivation, collaborative learning, and organizational learning". (p.7) A number of myths and misconceptions are identified that we need to overcome for progress to occur. Cleary supports learning in communities of practice.


    131. National Science Foundation Workshop Report. (1996, April). Research opportunities in engineering design. Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://asudesign.eas.asu.edu/events/NSF/report.html

      This report summarizes the efforts of the NSF in collaboration with educators, researchers, and industry representatives to characterize the current state and future direction of research in engineering design. Briefly, the report concludes that research in engineering design is failing to address the problems and needs of industrial engineering design. Further, education in engineering design is not preparing graduates for teamwork and problem solving in industry. While the report concludes that the relevance of research and education to real world engineering design is increasing, there is still a gap yet that needs to be filled. The report recommends that design be stressed throughout the engineering curriculum and that research efforts be directed toward meeting design problems faced in industry.


    132. NCD. Comments to the Federal Communications Commission. (June 30, 1998). National Council on Disability. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/correspondence/fcc_6-30-98.html

      The authors provide commentary on various sections of Section 255 that they feel will, if implemented, greatly increase the effectiveness of Section 255.


    133. NCDDR. (1996). A review of the literature on dissemination and knowledge utilization. National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/litreview.pdf

      To facilitate dissemination efforts, it is important to begin to move away from the agricultural extension model, to become more familiar with knowledge use, to develop coordination and reduce competition, and to switch to a more bottom up, problem-solving approach. Four types of dissemination include spread, choice, exchange, and implementation. It has come to be understood that knowledge use is an active learning process (constructivism). Humans are constantly trying to make sense of their environment, to integrate new knowledge into their existing understanding of the world.


    134. NCDDR. (n.d.). Improving links between research and practice: Approaches to the effective dissemination of disability research. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/guide1.html

      There is a difficult path to travel from research to development. Dissemination (also called knowledge utilization) of information can facilitate the process, but the dissemination process needs to be better developed and understood. Dissemination is particularly difficult in cases that require behavioral changes. Traditional dissemination methods focused on the message and the medium of dissemination. It is now better understood, however, that the user of the new information needs to be the focus of dissemination efforts; we must evaluate beliefs, needs, and expectations, to name a few. It is important to first collect information that can be used to better understand the user. This is followed by involving users in the research process, and building a relationship with the users.


    135. NCDDR. (n.d.). Improving the usefulness of disability research: A toolbox of dissemination strategies. Retrieved January 25, 2001 from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.ncddr.org/du/products/guide2.html

      Research results are generally available to all individuals, but not readily accessible. Dissemination involves more than "getting the word out", and significantly greater efforts need to be made to share the wealth of information that exists in the world. Key elements to successful dissemination are the dissemination source, content of message, the medium, and knowledge of the intended user. These ideas are further expanded on in this article.


    136. NCR. (2001, January). Access for all. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncr.com/solutions/self-service/access_for_all.htm

      This web site describes NCR’s efforts to design ATM equipment to be accessible by the maximum amount of users. It briefly notes federal regulations regarding accessibility, and presents some of the accessibility features that NCR has incorporated into its products. These features include consistent interfaces across machines, touch screens, media entry indicators, Braille keypads, private voice assisted lead through, audio echo, tactile keyboards, and functional display key (FDK) mapping.


    137. Neil, R. J., Hendershot, G. E., LeClere, F., Howie, L. J., & Adler, M. (1997, November 13). Trends and differential use of assistive technology devices: United States, 1994. Advance Data, Number 292. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

      This government document presents estimates of assistive technology device use in the U.S. non-institutionalized population, based on the National Health Interview Survey, Phase I (1994) results. The authors conclude that from 1980-1994 the use of assistive technology devices has increased dramatically for multiple reasons (i.e., the aging of the population, increased funding for AT, improved medical treatment for disease or illness that was previously fatal). It was estimated that AT is most commonly used to compensate for mobility impairments (7.4 million), followed by hearing aids (4.2 million) and back braces (1.7 million). Canes, estimated to be used by 4.8 million was the most commonly used AT device.


    138. Nielsen, J. (1994). Guerilla HCI: Using discount usability engineering to penetrate the intimidation barrier. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/guerrilla_hci.html

      Usability engineering techniques are perceived to be costly, and often not used. The author proposes a "discount" usability engineering approach, which provides good practices, but is not exhaustive. This includes use of scenarios, simplified thinking aloud, and heuristic evaluation. The author describes ways to validate discount usability engineering, and provides a case study of a cost-benefit analysis of heuristic evaluation. Guidelines are provided for doing a benefit estimation for use of these techniques. These estimates are based on subjective judgments of experts. The author also provides some perceptions of the need for usability engineering that various organizations have had over the years.


    139. Nielsen, J. (1997). The use and misuse of focus groups. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/focusgroups.html

      In a focus group, six to nine people, in the presence of a moderator, discuss issues and concerns about features of a user interface or other product. Focus groups should be supplemented by other usability evaluation methods. Focus groups are best used for discovering what types of features people desire. Interpreting focus group input can be tricky because people often do not express ideas consistent with how they actually use items. Focus group participants may also be unable to accurately express what they feel they need.


    140. Nielsen, J. (n.d.). Characteristics of usability problems found by heuristic evaluation. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/usability_problems.html

      Minor usability problems tend to be dominant in heuristic evaluation. "Usability problems can be located in a dialogue in four different ways: at a single location in the interface, at two or more locations that have to be compared to find the problem, as a problem with the overall structure of the interface, and finally as something that ought to be included in the interface but is currently missing." (p.1) Missing items are harder to find in paper prototypes. Heuristic evaluation and user testing can be alternated to supplement the findings of each.


    141. Nielsen, J. (n.d.). How to conduct a heuristic evaluation. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_evaluation.html

      Defines heuristic evaluation as a method for identifying usability problems with a user interface design so that they can be assessed through iterative design. It generally involves a team of evaluators, since individuals tend to focus on and identify different issues. Three to five evaluators are recommended, and they initially work independently. Evaluators are provided a list of usability principles to compare their findings against. Evaluators should be specific in identifying problems and should explain why (with respect to the heuristics provided) each usability problem exists. Design advice is not generally an outcome of heuristic evaluation, though necessary changes are often obvious. Debriefing can be used to identify design solutions. Some guidance is provided for evaluating cost/benefit in identifying the number of evaluators to use.


    142. Nielsen, J. (n.d.). Ten usability heuristics. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

      These include visibility of system status, match between system and real world, user control and freedom, consistency and standards, error prevention, recognition rather than recall, flexibility and efficiency of use, aesthetic and minimalist design, help in recognizing/diagnosing/recovering from errors, and help and documentation.


    143. Nielson, J. (1997). Usability testing. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd Ed., pp. 1543-1568). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

      This chapter describes the goals and procedures and presents guidelines for conducting usability testing. Specifically, the chapter describes how to acquire and choose test participants and experimenters, how to choose test tasks, the steps of a usability test, how to assess performance/choose dependent variables, and various techniques for gathering performance data.


    144. NIST. (2003). The NIST Rotating-Wheel Based Refreshable Braille Display. The NIST Refreshable Tactile Graphic Display. Retrieved September 25, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div895/isis/braille.html

      NIST has developed a unique refreshable Braille technology that can reduce cost by a factor of 10 or more. It will make possible high performance Braille displays for $1000 or less, and enable high speed reading devices about the size of a portable CD player. While existing displays put Braille on a linear array of dots, this design puts the Braille on the rim of a rotating wheel, which moves the text past the user's fingers. Users can adjust wheel speed, or can pause the wheel for stationary reading. Tests thus far indicate a high degree of readability. With advice from many Braille users and accessibility organizations, a working second-generation prototype was first shown at the Electronic Book 2000 conference in September, 2000, hosted by Victor McCrary.

      NIST has also developed a new refreshable tactile graphic technology that allows blind and visually impaired users to view ../images using the sense of touch. Unlike current devices that make a permanent record on plastic sheets or heavy duty paper, the NIST device has a reusable surface made up of thousands of rounded pins, which can display a succession of ../images without the cost and disposal problems of printouts. This capability is highly important to users who need to view a large number of ../images, or who need to be able to modify ../images. Future applications include viewing web graphics, science, engineering, mathematics, education, and design (both technical and artistic). By using a passive pin locking mechanism, it is believed that this technology will make possible tactile displays initially in the range of $2000 to $3000, up to a factor of twenty less expensive than performing a similar function using conventional piezoelectric technology. This new technology is to be publicly announced by Deputy Secretary of Commerce Samuel Bodman and Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, on October 24, 2002.

      The rotating wheel Braille display and the refreshable tactile graphic display are being developed in cooperation with the National Federation of the Blind. NIST has filed patents, and is in discussion with manufacturers to add this technology to their product lines.

    145. NIST. WebCAT Category Analysis Tool. Retrieved January 2, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://zing.ncsl.nist.gov/webmet/cat/webcat-process.html

      WebCAT is an interactive process of categorizing and analyzing information based upon traditional card sorting techniques, used to test a Web site’s categorization scheme to determine how well it is understood by users. After the matching exercise and baseline are created, the user performs the exercise in two passes. WebCAT then processes the data, performs a comparison with the baseline, and presents the results in html and ASCII comma delimited text.


    146. Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer: Why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

      This book discusses why and how technology fails us, and subsequently why it is important to move from technology-centered to human-centered design. Ease of use, an essential component of human-centered design, requires that the user maintain a sense of control, a good conceptual model, and knowledge of what is happening with the product being used. One approach to human-centered design is called contextual design. The process consists of talking to customers, interpreting data, consolidating data, inventing solutions, structuring the system, performing iterations with the customer, and designing the product. All human-centered development should consist of the following: assess user needs, study the market, describe user needs based on needs assessment and market evaluation, create mock-ups, write a manual (as needed), start the design process, and test and revise. Observation of users is the most important factor in designing good products, a process Norman refers to as rapid ethnography. The process of successful human-centered design requires cooperation, interaction, and iteration. It is also dependent on equal emphasis on a multidisciplinary team consisting of marketing, technology, and user experience. Many companies do not practice human-centered design, and in order to adopt it, they must develop total corporate commitment, organizational changes, a formal human-centered product process, and an engineering discipline of human-centered development. User-centered design expertise can be found in field studies, behavioral designers, model builders and rapid prototyping specialists, user testers, graphical and industrial designers, and technical writers. This list does not include focus groups, a common component in user-centered design, because Norman believes they can be misleading. Norman believes that to simplify products for the user, devices must become more complex. The computer, which was designed to perform many tasks, has become too complex, and information appliances may be a better technological solution to accomplishing what the user needs. They would be targeted to specific tasks, and would be designed such that the technology would essentially be invisible.

    147. Pacific Bell Network. (1996, June). Universal design policy. Retrieved January 4, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/pacbell_ud/agpd.htm

      This web site presents one company’s efforts to generate awareness of universal design and to respond to the design recommendations that are revealed by the awareness. The company first called together an advisory group (the Pacific Bell Advisory Group for People with Disabilities AGPD), which reviewed plans for future telecommunications products and presented design recommendations based on the need to increase accessibility to such products. The company then presented responses to each recommendation, recognizing the need to address accessibility issues by initiating training for their employees in universal design and documenting ways in which its products could be made more accessible in the future. Together, the AGPD and the company managers and officers recognized that expansion of the market segment through accessibility and its implications for revenue play a key role in meeting the needs of both consumers and producers.


    148. Perlman, L. G. (Electronics Industries Foundation). (1993, August). Making technology useable: The views of consumers with learning disabilities, mental retardation, and their caregivers. (H133E80029). Retrieved January 4, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://codi.buffalo.edu/graph_based/.universal/.kiss

      This web site presents the general findings of a set of focus groups conducted by the Rehabilitation Engineering Center of the Electronics Industries Foundation. The 60 participants in the focus groups were mentally retarded, caregivers of the mentally retarded, or learning disabled, and were from Allentown, PA, Lansing, MI, and Washington, DC. The goal of the conducting the groups was to determine the needs and wishes of people with cognitive disabilities for both mainstream and assistive technology. The primary findings indicated that individuals with cognitive disabilities desired interfaces with a simpler layout and fewer knobs and dials, alternative (i.e., non-text) indications of control functions, and product instructions that were easier to read and understand. In addition, it was found that some individuals could not obtain the technology they needed due to prohibitive pricing or lack of awareness that the products were available.


    149. Petrucci, L. S., Harth, E., Roth, P., Assimacopoulos, A., & Pun, T. (2000). WebSound: A generic Web sonification tool, and its application to an auditory Web browser for blind and visually impaired users. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD2000/PDFs/PetrucciPHRAP.pdf

      "Our approach tries to validate the hypothesis that a 3D immersive virtual sound navigable environment combined with haptic manipulation of the audio environment can enable blind user to construct a mental representation of the spatial document". Text-to-speech devices are not capable of relaying spatial information or emphasis information (underline, bold, color).


    150. Poulson, D, Ashby, M., & Richardson, S. (Eds.). (1996). USERfit: A Practical Handbook on User-Centered Design for Assistive Technology. Brussels-Luxembourg: ECSC-EC-EAEC.

      Provides guidance on several general AT product design issues, but is geared toward user interface issues. In the introduction to usability the authors point out the shortcomings of designing for the average user. Products should be designed that are effective, efficient, safe, and comfortable. USERfit methodologies are user centered, system oriented, and iterative. The methodologies consist of user, activity, and product analysis; environmental context; product environment; functional specification; and usability evaluation. Once this information is gathered, it can be used in the design process consisting of problem definition, functional specification, building, and testing. USERfit tools and techniques include user mapping, brainstorming, task analysis, direct observation, diary methods, questionnaires, interviews, group discussions, empathic modeling, user trials, field trials, and expert opinion. A section of the handbook covers general design recommendations for people with disabilities and the elderly. In addition, there are 276 design recommendations in the USERfit handbook. They cover general issues, computers, telecommunication terminals, and consumer products.


    151. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., & Carey, T. (n.d.). Methods for user-centered design. Retrieved January 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://iea.fmi.uni-sofia.bh/hci/Book/c18/

      The authors review a number of approaches to user-centered design. Easton's consists of four development stages: planning for the system, designing it, implementing it, and managing it. Soft systems methodology provides a holistic view of human-computer systems. It involves identifying the problem situation, expressing the problem situation, providing root definitions of relevant systems, building conceptual models, comparing conceptual models with the expressed problem situation, identifying feasible and desirable changes, and taking action to improve the situation. Cooperative design can be either participative or sociotechnical. It aims to identify what happens in a working environment when new technology is introduced. Mulitview consists of analyzing human activity, analyzing information, analyzing and designing sociotechnical aspects, designing the human computer interface, and designing technical aspects. One HCI design approach, referred to as the star life cycle emphasizes that a strict order to the design process is not necessary, and can be harmful. It consists of task and function analysis, requirements specification, conceptual and formal design, implementation, prototyping, and evaluation.



    152. Preiser, W. F. E. (2000).Universal Design Evaluation. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      The author defines the concept of universal design evaluation. Incorporation of ADA standards is important for determining compliance, but does nothing for determining usability of a setting for users with different needs. Universal design methods incorporate interviews, surveys, and other data collection tools. Universal design of buildings must account for health, safety, and security; function, efficiency, and work process; and, social, psychological, cultural, and aesthetic performance. The concepts of universal design need to be heavily incorporated into education and training programs.


    153. Preiser, W. F. E., & Ostroff, E. (Eds.) (Forthcoming, 2001). Universal design handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.



    154. Public Service Commission of Canada. Building the Site. Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://canada.gc.ca/programs/guide/3_1_4e.html

      The government of Canada has developed an internet guide that includes guidelines for Universal accessibility that can be used like an accessibility checklist for web designers. It includes definitions of end-user and rationale for designing in advance rather than retro-fitting sites for accessibility, information design practices, guidelines and specific recommendations on handling ../images, layout, multimedia content and interactivity. This initiative follows a successful Canadian Access Working Group workshop entitled: Persons with Disabilities and the Use of Electronics Networks. The Public Service Commission of Canada, which runs an Employment Equity Positive Measures Program, built a web page accessibility evaluation self-test for web page authors. It runs on Javascript and can be downloaded as a text file.


    155. Qualcomm. (1999). Creating possibilities with accessibility. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.qualcomm.com/corporate/accessibility/index.html

      This collection of web sites generally describes the efforts that Qualcomm has made to increase the accessibility of its products and their corresponding documentation. The company has developed an Accessibility Core Team, which is responsible for designing and implementing company-wide procedures that address compliance with federal accessibility guidelines. In addition, the Qualcomm has devoted a web site to providing information about accessible products and features and provides accessible telecommunications equipment to its employees. Future plans to increase compliance include personnel training, corporate web site redesign for accessibility, alternative-format marketing brochures and collateral, and the development of relationships with local disability advocacy groups.


    156. Red Hat. (1997, March 28). LINUX Access HOWTO. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.europe.redhat.com/documentation/HOWTO/Access-HOWTO.php3

      This online resource provides information to both to people with disabilities and to LINUX developers about the accessibility options compatible with LINUX programs. It describes the general impairments that people with vision, auditory, and physical disabilities face and the assistive technology that these people use to access information on the computer. It also describes the software that provides a link between computers using LINUX and assistive technology. This web site also provides guidelines for LINUX developers so that they might make their products more accessible to people with disabilities.


    157. Roe, D. B., & Wilpon, J. G. (Eds.) (1994). Voice communication between humans and machines. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

      This book, based on the National Academy of Sciences’ Colloquium on Human-Machine Communication by Voice, presents and describes several aspects of the state-of-the-art in voice interactive technology. Specifically, it includes chapters that deal with the technologies involved in computerized speech production, human speech recognition, and natural language understanding, applications of speech-based technology, scientific bases of speech-based technology, and future directions of speech-based technology research. In general, the chapters describe the state-of-the-art in various voice interactive technologies, endorse or critique the current status of the technologies, and assess the future challenges that must be met in order for such technology to survive in the commercial market and meet long-term functionality goals.


    158. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. (Fourth Edition). New York: The Free Press.

      "The diffusion of innovations is essentially a social process in which subjectively perceived information about a new idea is communicated." (p. xvii) Diffusion can be either planned or spontaneous. The primary elements of diffusion of innovations (DI) are the innovation, communication channels, time, and the social system. Innovations are based on perceived newness, and newness may be expressed in terms of knowledge, persuasion, or a decision to adopt. Characteristics of innovations that may impact the rate of adoption include relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Homophily facilitates diffusion, but some component of heterophily is necessary to ensure newness. DI consists of a process of reducing the uncertainty of innovation, and results in either adoption or rejection of the new idea. Those who adopt the ideas are called adopters, and can be categorized as either innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, or laggards. They tend to differ in personality, socioeconomic status, and communication behavior. Innovation decisions can be optional, collective, or authoritative. Chapter 2 discusses the history of diffusion research, and identifies eight main types. The strength of DI lies it its relevance to numerous disciplines, study of the process of change over time, consolidation of research and resulting generalizations, and easy methodology. Major criticisms include DI's pro-innovative bias, individual-blame bias, the recall problem (when things were adopted), and the issue of equality. Consequences of DI are categorized as desirable vs. undesirable, direct vs. indirect, or and anticipated vs. unanticipated. Additional chapters in the book focus on details of the innovation decision process (knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation), diffusion networks, and the role of change agents.


    159. Royal National Institute for the Blind. (2000, November 12). Accessible web design. Retrieved December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital/hints.htm

      This web site describes current problems in design that make web sites inaccessible to visually impaired individuals. Fundamentally, the problem is that 1) web designers are unaware of the needs/capabilities of visually impaired people and, consequently; 2) web sites are not designed in a manner that makes them accessible to the browsers used by people with visual impairments. The web site provides several WAI guidelines on organizing and programming web sites in order to make them readable by text-only browsers. Essentially, accessible design requires that for every non-text element on the site, a non-text alternative is provided. In addition, the textual elements of a site must be well organized and clearly labeled so that they make sense when accessed in text-only format.


    160. Royal National Institute for the Blind. (Nov, 2000). “RNIB Approved” UK Websites which are accessible to everyone. Retrieved January 11, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.rnib.org.uk/access/accessible.htm

      This website lists the winners of the RNIB Access Website Awards as well as other web sites that are recognized for their accessibility to blind and visually impaired individuals. Among the pages are: Inland Revenue, BBC Online ‘BETSIE’, Community Justice National Training Organisation, Nystagmus Network, and Hampshire County Council, as well as several European Blind Union websites. This web site provides a short commentary about, and links to, all of the approved pages.


    161. Scherer, M. J., & Galvin, J. C. (1997). Assistive technology. In S. Kumar (Ed.), Perspectives in rehabilitation ergonomics. (pp.273-301). London: Taylor & Francis.

      Though geared towards the selection and use of assistive (as opposed to mainstream) technology, this chapter concludes that a major factor determining the use or non-use of a device is the appropriate matching of the individual to the technology they are expected to use. Noting that the rejection of AT is both costly and wasteful, the chapter presents basic guidelines for determining the needs of the user and tools for assessing the performance/quality of life outcomes of using the device. These guidelines are also applicable to mainstream technology that has been designed for all, particularly as the line between assistive and mainstream technology becomes increasingly blurred. The chapter is helpful in that it presents the broad demographics of the population of people with disabilities and begins to characterize the needs of people using assistive technology. For project managers in design in industry, knowledge of the needs and preferences of this population is essential for creating products that are not only designed for all but used by all.


    162. Section508.gov. (n.d.). 508 Law. Retrieved September 3, 2003, from the World Wide Web: http://www.section508.gov/index.php?FuseAction=Content&ID=3

      This web site provides an overview of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act as well as links to the standards; Federal Acquisition Regulations; the 1998 amendment to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act; and other relevant laws and regulations. Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new opportunities for people with disabilities, and to encourage development of technologies that will help achieve these goals. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and information technology. Under Section 508 (29 U.S.C. § 794d), agencies must give disabled employees and members of the public access to information that is comparable to the access available to others.


    163. Shaviv, B. D. (n.d.). The design and improvement of an eye controlled interface. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web (link updated September 23, 2003): http://www.cs.sunysb.edu/~vislab/projects/eye/Reports/report/report.pdf

      Some severely disabled individuals are only able to control their eye muscles. An eye-controlled interface would allow these individuals to do more for themselves. Hardware and software tools to facilitate this are under development. Electro-oculography provides one tool, but has many disadvantages. The author reminds us that while manual dexterity is extremely important in "real-world" tasks, vision is the prime component of interaction with a GUI. The author reviews a couple existing technologies that use visual input. He proposes using a wink or wink pattern to indicate intention to the computer.


    164. Simpson, J. (1996). How people who use electronic augmentative and alternative communication devices utilize telephony. An RERC Report. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://tap.gallaudet.edu/UCPA/default.htm

      This comprehensive report was designed to conduct a general survey of user needs and competency with telecommunications devices, and make recommendations for improving the accessibility of such devices. The users population represented included both children and adults who were hearing or physically impaired and had experience using Alternative and Augmentative Communication (AAC) devices. The general findings of the report were that user preferences for type of communication medium (phone, fax, email, etc.) were constrained by the technology available to them and that a majority had had unsatisfactory experiences with various telecommunications products. In addition, an overwhelming majority expressed an interest in using the internet and satisfaction with using email (those who had access to it). Several recommendations were made. Comprehensive results were presented. The survey and needs assessment materials were presented and described.


    165. Srinivasan, M. A., Basdogan, C., & Ho, C. (1999). Haptic interactions in the real and virtual worlds. In D. J. Duke & A. Puerta (Eds.), Design, specification, and verification of interactive systems ’99 (pp. 1-16). Austria: Springer-Verlag/Wien.

      The chapter broadly summarizes the research in haptic interfaces at MIT. It briefly defines haptic interfaces and their technology, as well as their future applications. The authors describe human haptics, and how technology (machine and computer haptics) must simulate the human ability to procure tactile and kinesthetic information from the environment. There has been two texture rendering techniques developed at this point: force perturbation and displacement mapping. Both techniques allow several different ways to simulate tactile experiences through specialized gloves and other equipment.


    166. Steinfeld, E. (1994). The concept of universal design. Buffalo, NY: E. Steinfeld. Retrieved January 3, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.arch.buffalo.edu/~idea/publications/free_pubs/pubs_cud.html

      The author distinguishes between universal and accessible design. Provides six reasons why universal design has become more popular, including the increasing populations of the elderly and people with disabilities, as well as their increasing economic power. People are also becoming more sensitive to the fact that accessible design places stigma on various populations, while universal design should limit that tendency. Universal design has the potential to be much more aesthetic than accessible design, and also more flexibility for accommodating people with a range of abilities. Universal design should follow these four principles: insuring a wide range of anthropometric fit, reducing energy expenditure, clarifying the environment, and using the systems approach. Universal design promotes social integration.


    167. Strategic Policy Research. (1998). An evaluation of the Access Board’s accessibility guidelines. Bethesda, MD: Strategic Policy Research.

      The authors define five problems that they perceive to be associated with implementation of Section 255 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act: slowing innovation, biasing firm size, exporting jobs, encouraging development of hard to use equipment, and compliance costs. They review the areas of disability that are most prevalent. Equity and market concerns created by accessibility needs include transaction cost problems, deficiencies in training designers, information failures at the time of purchase, affordability for uncommon cases, and perception of individuals with disabilities. The primary focus of this report is the critique of Section 255, accompanied by some recommendations they believe would make implementation of Section 255 more successful.


    168. Sun Microsystems. (n.d.). Removing barriers: Sun Microsystems, Inc.’s Java platform will give people with disabilities greater access to computing and the Web. Retrieved January 8, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sun.com/980316/enablingtech/

      The authors describe a number of assistive technologies. The focus of the article is Java Accessibility Application Programming Interfaces (API), which is being incorporated into the Java platform to be available to developers. One important feature of this is the ability to customize an application without restarting it. These applications will aid in satisfying federal regulations and will increase the marketability of products. Development issues for Java Accessibility API are described in brief.


    169. Sun Microsystems. (2000). Accessibility Program. Retrieved January 9, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sun.com/access/general/overview.html

      This web site describes Sun Microsystems’ accessibility program and provides resources for designers to make their technology (particularly Java-based architecture) more accessible to people with vision, hearing, and mobility impairments. The primary focus of the Sun Microsystems accessibility team is to improve the accessibility of Java architecture in several ways. In addition, the team is making attempts to improve general accessibility through guideline development, increased compliance with federal regulations, and specification of accessibility requirements for products. The resources provided are web-based guides, articles, papers, and talks. In addition, the web site briefly describes how Sun earned the “Americans with Disabilities Act” Eagle Award for promotion of accessibility both within the company and out in the community.


    170. T9 Text Input Home Page. (n.d). How to Type on Your Phone. Retrieved from the World Wide Web September 26, 2003: http://www.t9.com/t9_learnhow.html

      This web site describes the functionality of a typical predictive text input system.


    171. Tanaka, D. (2000, October 23). Speech next user interface, says IBM. Canada Computer Paper, Inc. Retrieved January 16, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.hubcanada.com/story_4348_20

      This article describes recent industry research and development efforts to design speech user interfaces (SUI), particularly at IBM. Individuals from the IBM Watson Research Center, Voice Systems Group, commented on how telecommunications devices such as smart phones and palm pilots will be best used if they have a SUI, as they are rapidly becoming too small to use with a keyboard. Other applications, such as Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems for acquiring movie listings and multi-modal interfaces are also discussed.


    172. Tannen, R. S. (1998). Breaking the sound barrier: Designing auditory displays for global usability. Fourth Conference on Human Factors and the Web. Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.research.att.com/conf/hfweb/proceedings/tannen/

      The author feels that auditory displays can be used to help web users deal with the increasingly rich visual environment, particularly for those who multitask. The author sees web browsing as being comprised of two tasks: content acquisition and background process monitoring. The author reviews some research in auditory display design. The author proposes a hypothetical auditory display that can, for example, represent downloading and uploading of information through representation as rising and falling pulses of information.


    173. Taylor, H. (June 7, 2000). How the internet is improving the lives of Americans with disabilities. The Harris Poll. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=93

      An online poll of over 1000 people, with and without disabilities, showed that the internet is improving the quality of life for individuals with disabilities, providing a means to be better informed about world issues, better connected to others, and more in touch with people with similar experiences. Adults with disabilities tend to spend more time online than those without.


    174. Tedeschi, B. (2001, January 1). E-Commerce Report. New York Times

      This article describes the issue of accessibility in e-commerce web sites. It was reported that due to incompatibilities between the text format used for designing web sites and the “screen reader” assistive devices used by people with vision impairments, up to 50% of e-commerce web sites are inaccessible. In addition, it was reported that people with hearing and motor impairments also experienced accessibility limitations due to crowded links and audio messaging. The article reports that the necessary programming to make web sites more accessible is not hard to do, if it is done in the initial phase of page design; retrofitting web sites with accessibility options is much more difficult. The article discusses the current and potential future ramifications of failing to design web sites with users with disabilities in mind.


    175. The Center for Universal Design. (n.d.). Education and training. Retrieved January 22, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/ed_train/edu_train.htm

      CUD employs teaching strategies that raise awareness of issues facing people with disabilities and the elderly. These strategies include freshman seminars (for exposure to the issues), simulation activities, lectures, and studio review and critiques. Training requires a cross disability perspective, knowledge beyond what can be gained through simulations, and credibility.


    176. Thomas, J. C., Basson, S., & Gardner-Bonneau, D. (1999). Universal access and assistive technology. In D. Gardner-Bonneau (Ed.), Human factors and voice interactive systems (pp. 135-146). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

      This book chapter describes the basic human factors issues that decrease the accessibility of voice interactive technology to people with disabilities. The two technologies focused on in this chapter were Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) and Synthetic Speech. The primary problems with these technologies were the limitations that they put on natural speech in natural environments. That is, the systems to date are too “fussy” to be useful in the myriad situations in which people make speech commands (e.g., when they have a cold, when it is noisy in the environment). In addition, Synthetic Speech systems are yet incapable of conveying the emotions of the speaker. Due to these limitations, assistive technologies in which voice interactive systems have been incorporated are often discarded. The author notes, however, that the demand for an effective voice interactive system is quite high.


    177. TIA Access. (1996, November). Resource guide for accessible design of consumer electronics. Electronic Industries Alliance/Electronic Industries Foundation. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/guide.html

      This guidebook provides a valuable resource to telecommunications producers/designers, discussing several topics in accessible design. These topics include federal initiatives necessitating accessible design, general characteristics of the population of people with disabilities, industrial response to the call for accessible design, general principles of accessible design, tools and tips for design evaluation, and general guidelines for accessible design. The guidebook also presents an example of a clock radio that has been designed and evaluated for maximal accessibility.


    178. TIA Access. (1999, July 13). SHHH selects Motorola as National Access Award winner. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/news.php?ID=31

      This article briefly announces the presentation of the SHHH National Access Award to Motorola. Motorola earned this award in recognition of its leading efforts in developing products that are accessible to individuals with hearing impairments and providing training to hearing-impaired consumers on how to use Motorola products.


    179. TIA Access. (1999, June 30). Nokia recognized for innovations in access technology. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/news.php?ID=35

      This web site announces the presentation of the TIA Access Innovation Award to Nokia, for the Nokia LPS-1 Loopset, compatible with Nokia 6100 and Nokia 5100 series phones. The loopset accessory is designed to improve sound quality in digital mobile phones for individuals using hearing aids. Inductive technology is used to transmit sound from the phone to the T-coil. Nokia’s presence in the international market is briefly discussed.


    180. TIA Access. (1999, September 23). Mobile phones for the deaf: Telesta offers real-time-text exchange for hearing- and speech-impaired. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/news.php?ID=34

      This article briefly describes the development of a technology that would allow real-time text conversations between individuals using Nokia 9000il Communicator smart phones. The developer of this technology is Telesta, Inc., in Sweden. Telesta emphasizes that text-based conversations on GSM mobile telephone networks will benefit not only hearing/speech-impaired individuals, but also those wishing to communicate silently in particular (e.g., meeting, library) environments. The company also notes that the technology will be expanded for use on phones other than the Nokia 9000il Communicator smart phones.



    181. TIA Access. (1999, September 29). Assistive technology. Williams, J. M. Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.tiaonline.org/access/news.php?ID=38

      This article describes the NASA-developed web search tool, called “Iliad” (Internet Library Information Access Device). Iliad helps visually impaired individuals conduct web searches by performing a keyword-based search that quickly delivers text-based information via email. The text-based information can then be magnified by text enlargement programs, printed out in Braille, or read by screen readers. The user submits keyword queries via email, which are then sent to multiple search engines.

    182. TIA. (1997). Proposal for FCC guidelines for implementing Section 255 of the Communications Act. Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.

      Definitions of accessible, compatible, manufacturer, disability, and readily achievable are provided, as well as general guidelines for manufacturers. The document also defines how complaints will be processed. Accessibility guidelines and compatibility issues are also addressed.


    183. TIA. (1998). Reply comments of the Telecommunications Industry Association. (August 14, 1998). Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.

      TIA is composed of over 900 companies who manufacture telecommunications products. In this report, TIA expands on their concept of the product line approach to implementation of Section 255, and reiterates the need to revise some definitions. They also discuss what they believe to be the appropriate scope of Section 255.


    184. TIA. Comments of the Telecommunications Industry Association. (June 30, 1998). Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.

      TIA believes Section 255 can more successfully implemented through market competition than government regulation. This has been evidenced by the array of devices available today that benefit people with disabilities (e.g., vibrating pagers). A product line approach would facilitate research and development rather than tying up resources for documentation of why Section 255 can't be met. TIA believes Section 255 should apply to telecommunications services, not information services, and a number of Section 255 definitions should be revised. TIA believes a dispute resolution process would be much more effective than the fast track process proposed by the FCC.

    185. TIA. Correspondence from the Telecommunications Industry Association. (January 8, 1999). Washington, D.C.: Telecommunications Industry Association.

      This document provides clarification on TIA's definition of the product line approach of Section 255 and if its position concerning compliance. It is believed that this approach will provide manufacturers with greater flexibility and result in greater access than a product-by-product approach. TIA recommends a “fast track” process for complaints, with a statute of limitations, and which safeguards confidentiality. They feel that with a product-by-product approach manufacturers will demonstrate attempts to promote access without actually marketing products that will increase accessibility.


    186. Trace Center. Universal design research project. Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/univ_design_res_proj/udrp.htm

      This web site describes the findings from the first year of a three-year study whose purpose was to identify both the factors determining the adoption of universal design in industry and the factors acting as barriers to the adoption of universal design. Further, the project sought to identify what outside-industry individuals can do to facilitate the adoption of universal design in corporate practices. Five factors appeared to play a critical role in determining whether a company would adopt universal design: company size, perceived cost, access to research and development in universal design, regulation, and outside support. Positive and negative internal influences on the adoption of universal design are listed, as well as a set of recommendations for facilitating the successful adoption of universal design by industry.


    187. University of Washington. World wide web access: Accessible web design. Retrieved December 15, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Technology/universal.design.html

      This web site summarizes general guidelines for creating web sites that are more accessible to text-based assistive technology (e.g., screen readers) or individuals who do not download ../images due to equipment limitations. It cites the relevant federal regulations regarding universal accessibility and lists the programming languages that are best suited for making web sites accessible. The guidelines presented are geared not only toward making web sites with ../images more accessible but also toward web sites that have poor organization or limiting design (e.g., small buttons that are hard for people with motor impairments to target).


    188. Vanderheiden, G. C. (1997). Design for people with functional limitations resulting from disability, aging, and circumstance. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd Ed., pp. 2010-2052). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

      This chapter in G. Salvendy’s Handbook of human factors and ergonomics describes the goals of universal design, characterizes the demographics of the population benefiting from universal design, and provides several guidelines and suggestions for the design of accessible products and their corresponding instructional materials. An important point of this chapter is that everyone will experience some kind of functional limitation. A limitation can arise from long-term physical disability (e.g., cerebral palsy) or short-term disabilities (e.g., broken leg) or circumstances (e.g., arms full of grocery bags). Because anyone, at any time, can experience functional limitations, the goal of universal design is to maximize the range of people that can access and use technology.

      The chapter organizes major impairment groups not by the nature or type of the disability, but instead by the functional limitations that arise from having the disability. This is intended to describe the range of individual functioning in terms of the categories of functions that technology must aid or accommodate. The major impairment groups that Vanderheiden describes are: visual, hearing, physical, cognitive or language, seizure disorders, and multiple impairments. Each type of impairment has implications for the design of product output and displays, product controls, the ease with which a product can be manipulated or assembled, related product documentation, and safety signals. Specific design guidelines and suggestions are provided for each of these design challenges in order to maximize the range of functioning that can be accommodated by a product.


    189. Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990). Thirty-something million: Should they be exceptions? Human Factors, 32, 383-396.

      It is typical to design for the average person (those in the 95th percentile). However, when discussion disabilities, there are many dimensions, and the people in one extreme for a particular dimension are not typically the same people in the tail for another dimension. Thus, the concept of designing for the 95th percentile is faulty. This demonstrates the difficulty in applying the concept of universal design, though the author does point the impracticality of trying to apply universal design to all things (e.g., a stereo system would not be useful for a deaf individual). The author provides a number of statistics related to disabilities. Designing mass-market products to accommodate people with disabilities and the elderly can be both economical and practically feasible.


    190. Vanderheiden, G. C. (In print). Telecommunications - accessibility and future directions. In Abascal, J., & Nicolle, C. (Eds.), Inclusive guidelines for HCI.

      This chapter discusses hypothetical technologies that could be used to aid people with impairments. It also provides a list of basic principles and strategies for access to electronic products.


    191. Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices and strategies for individuals with hearing impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.

      The author describes strategies that can be used to enhance residual hearing. Devices that use these strategies are reviewed (hearing aids, extended volume range products, assistive listening devices, and cochlear implants. There are also devices that can present information in alternative formats (alarm and alerting systems, personal communication systems, phone communication systems, audiovisual access devices, computer access systems, and techniques for providing access to auditory-based information).


    192. Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices and strategies for persons with visual impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.

      This chapter reviews different reading aids (non-technical strategies, optical reading aids, CCTV, Braille, raised lettering and raised line drawings, optical to tactical converter, optical character recognition, books on tape, and electronic information), writing aids (non-technical approaches, electronic writing aids, and Braille writing aids), use of computers that do or do not rely on vision, use of appliances, and entertainment issues.


    193. Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices for persons with physical impairments: Conversation, writing, and computer access. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.

      Amplifiers, artificial larynxes, and speech clarifiers can be used to facilitate oral speech. For those without (clear) speech, there are augmentative communication aids. The important thing to remember about writing aids is that they must be portable. Communication aids readily facilitate computer access, demonstrating the overlap that various aids can provide.


    194. Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices for persons with physical impairments: Input interface techniques. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.

      Techniques to facilitate access to devices by people with physical disabilities include proper seating and positioning, stabilization, delay activation, delayed recovery, damping, practice, use of special switches and controls, selection alternatives, and acceleration techniques. Feedback is the most important factor for facilitating successful use of assistive devices.

    195. Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive techniques and devices for persons with cognitive and language impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.

      Cognitive and language impairments can be somewhat overcome with the use of memory aids, wandering aids, emergency/call systems, aids to sequencing, reading aids, conversation/writing aids, aids to learning, and problem solving aids.


    196. Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Cognitive and language impairments and their implications. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.

      This chapter is written to help a product designer understand some psychological terminology and have a better grasp of the types of problems cognitive and language-impaired individuals may encounter.

    197. Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Hearing impairments and their implications. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.

      This chapter is written to help a product designer understand some auditory terminology and have a better grasp of the types of problems hearing-impaired individuals may encounter.


    198. Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Physical impairments and their implications. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.

      This chapter is written to help a product designer understand some medical terminology and have a better grasp of the types of problems physically impaired individuals may encounter.

    199. Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Visual impairments and their implications. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.

      This chapter is written to help a product designer understand some vision terminology and have a better grasp of the types of problems visually impaired individuals may encounter.


    200. Vanderheiden, G. C., Law, C. M., & Barnicle, K. (2000). Cross disability telecollaboration systems. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      A great need exists to translate information from one sensory modality to another. Technological advances in this area could, for example, facilitate "on-demand" sign language interpretation. This could be a great boon to telecollaboration, but the technologies could also be useful for face-to-face communications.

    201. Vanderheiden, G., Vanderheiden, K., & Tobias, J. (2000). Universal design motivators and facilitators. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      Surveys and interviews were used to determine why various companies do or do not use universal design. Accessible design is used if it is determined to be profitable, and if required by government regulations. Positive perceptions within management facilitate use of accessible design. Knowledge of universal design issues is also a big facilitator or hindrance for implementation. Not all companies have in residence someone who is knowledgeable about various accessibility issues. Consumer groups can be very effective at encouraging companies to incorporate universal design changes.


    202. Web Accessibility Initiative. (2000, November 3). Planning Web Accessibility Training. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.w3.org/WAI/training/

      This web site, geared towards experienced trainers, provides a set of guidelines for delivering web accessibility training to a variety of audiences (e.g., student designers, industry designers, senior managers, etc.). The focus is on providing W3C Web accessibility solutions, in particular. Broadly, the guidelines are relevant to performing a needs assessment and establishing learning objectives, developing curricula tailored for particular audiences, and choosing training modules to match particular learning objectives. Tips and suggestions from other trainers are provided. Advice on advance preparation for training is also given, suggesting that resources be ordered and arranged before the training is to occur.

    203. Weiser, Maybury, Shedroff, Winograd, Siewiorek, & Tognazzini. (n.d.). Position papers on interface specifics regarding every-citizen interfaces in the nation's information infrastructure. Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://stills.nap.edu/html/screen/11.html

      Weiser believes every-citizen interfaces should be invisible, ubiquitous, and supportive of a large number of multi-way real-time interactive connections. Challenges for developing invisibility are provided. Maybury identifies the following challenges to more intelligent interfaces: lack of standards, lack of design principles, and lack of tools for sharing information across domains. An action plan is provided for developing more common facilities. Shedroff believes qualities of computers need to become more human (have awareness, offer help when needed); research areas to facilitate these needs are outlined. Interfaces need to be more compatible across media and cultures. Winograd's position expands on the idea of the interface, and refers to the inter-space, which includes, in addition to the person and the machine, multiple people, workstations, servers, and other devices engaging in complex interactions. Suggested research areas to address the concept of the inter-space are provided. Siewiorek says that mobile access will become increasingly popular, through such means as a wearable computer. Tognazzini discusses the need for accommodating the ordinary citizen, rather than pleasing the techno-geeks. Cole discusses stumbling blocks for the development of spoken language systems: (1) insufficient focus on interactive systems by speech researchers, (2) limitations of statistical modeling approaches, and (3) lack of tools for research and technology transfer. Feiner identifies the following necessary interface characteristics: multimedia, adaptive, integrated, collaborative, instructable, responsive, and empowering. Vanderheiden says the every-citizen interface must be equally accessible to those who have any combination of difficulties with vision, hearing, reading, head or arm movement, speech, feeling with fingers, height or wheelchair use, memory, learning, technological ability, or none of the above. The interfaces must also be accessible in an number of different environments. Accessible systems must be designed as perceivable, operable, and understandable.


    204. Welch, P. (Ed.). (1995). Strategies for teaching universal design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.

      This book is the result of a Universal Design Education Project in which design schools were asked to submit proposals for incorporating accessible design into their curricula. Important factors to remember are that an interdisciplinary approach (interior design, architecture, landscape architecture, industrial design) is best suited for teaching accessible design principles, and special groups (people with disabilities, elderly) should not be treated as separate subjects. Accessible design education requires a holistic approach. It is important to expose people to the theoretical, social, psychological, cultural, legal, and ergonomic issues associated with mainstreaming people with disabilities into society. Trainers and teachers are most effective if they have a disability themselves (or at least have had some exposure to disabling experiences), have knowledge of the range of disabilities and their resulting limitations, and have knowledge of disability rights legislation. The best approaches to teaching accessible design were found to be interaction with people with disabilities (visiting lecturers or consultants) and simulations in which students are able to experience what it’s like to have a disability. Teaching techniques should also include interviews, collecting print ads for discussion, field trips to discuss accessibility of different buildings/products, showing video tapes and examples of good and bad design, and being an escort for someone with a disability. The first step in teaching about universal design is simply to raise awareness of the issues. Instruction is best done with a team approach that includes significant participatory learning.

    205. Wexelblat, A. (1998). Research challenges in gesture: Open issues and unsolved problems. In I. Wachsmuth & M. Fröhlich (Eds.), Gesture and sign language in human-computer interaction, Proceedings of the International Gesture Workshop, September, 1997, Bielefeld, Germany. (pp. 1-12). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

      This chapter summarizes the current state in research toward the design and construction of gesture-based interfaces. The primary challenges to research, according to the author, are the lack of coordination among gesture researchers, lack of a true understanding and taxonomy of gesture types, lack of integration with multiple research fields that could inform gesture research, and failure to improve the accuracy of gesture-recognition devices in the previous two decades. The author states that if practical, applicable solutions to these challenges do not arrive within the next ten years, the field may not survive, and gesture will not become a viable control alternative or enhancement for multi-modal interfaces.


    206. Wilson, L. (October, 1996, revision by Pishney, J.). Assistive technology for the disabled computer user. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.unc.edu/cit/guides/irg-20.html

      This article defines assistive technology, and identifies some areas of computer access that create problems for various users with disabilities: disk drive, keyboard, mouse, and monitor. Five areas of human functioning need to be accommodated in designing assistive technologies: vision, hearing, free movement, speech, and learning. Within these areas of human functioning are a number of factors that can determine the most appropriate technological modification for a particular individual (e.g., large print displays and Braille displays are two options depending on the severity of the visual disability). Visual technologies include screen reading programs, large print screen displays, and Braille systems. Mobility technologies include modified keyboards, ability switches, and pointing devices. Speech, language, and learning technologies include software for speech therapy and word prediction.


    207. Workforce Investment Act of 1998: Section 508. Electronic and Information Technology. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508law.html

      Section 508 describes the accessibility requirements for electronic and information technology with regards to both Federal employees and the general public attempting to access government information and services. It states that individuals with disabilities shall have equal access to information and services that individuals without disabilities have, unless undue burden would be imposed on the department or agency attempting to provide access. If undue burden is imposed, the department or agency is required under Section 508 to provide an alternative means of access. The regulations specified in this act are applicable to electronic and information technology that is procured by the government 2 years or more after the date of enactment of this section.

    208. Wynblatt, M., Benson, D., & Hsu, A. (1997). Browsing the World Wide Web in a non-visual environment. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Auditory Display. Retrieved October 7, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.icad.org/websiteV2.0/Conferences/ICAD97/Wynblatt.pdf

      In addition to aiding visually impaired individuals gain access to the Internet, an audio based browser will allow all individuals to browse the web will doing other tasks (such as driving), ultimately improving productivity. In addition to designing this non-visual browser, a method for rendering HTML documents using sound is required to achieve this goal. One of the most difficult issues to overcome is relaying context for the accompanying text. This proposed system distinguishes navigation and content sections based on the density of links. Use of voice changes, pauses, and bells help to segment the content of a web page. This system also provides buttons and knobs to control input, in place of the keyboard and mouse. Different browsing modes are available to enable the user to parse the content accordingly.






    Section 4: Web Resources

    1. ABLEDATA is a federally funded database of assistive technology products.
      http://www.abledata.com

    2. Adobe provides accessibility tools to enable those with visual impairments to use PDF files.
      http://access.adobe.com

    3. Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access (CATEA), housed at the Georgia Institute of Technology, focuses on the development, evaluation, and utilization of assistive technology, and the design and development of accessible environments.
      http://www.catea.org/

    4. Closing the Gap is an organization that is interested in computer technology for people with disabilities. They publish a bi-monthly newspaper, and host an annual international conference. Their website has a wealth of information on technology access.
      http://www.closingthegap.com/

    5. CODI provides a variety of information on disabilities, including information on universal design and assistive technologies.
      http://codi.buffalo.edu

    6. COST is a European group interested in coordinating scientific research activities. One objective is to increase availability of telecommunications to people with disabilities and the elderly.
      http://www.stakes.fi/cost219

    7. DisabilityResources.org is a nonprofit organization concerned with independent living. They provide extensive information for finding disability information on the internet.
      http://www.disabilityresources.org/

    8. Disability Statistics Center, housed at the University of California, San Francisco, produces statistics related to disabilities and monitors how, if at all, the living conditions of the people with disabilities change over time. The statistics are published in reports available online, and they provided good facts related to disabilities.
      http://www.dsc.ucsf.edu/

    9. EASI (Equal Access to Software and Information) is an organization that provides information and resources to professionals with disabilities regarding accessibility to computer technology and learning programs.
      http://www.rit.edu/~easi

    10. Empowerment Zone is a website devoted to "helping individuals and communities achieve self actualization and full citizenship." It has an extensive list of links to a variety of information, much of which is directed at the community of people with disabilities. Issues addressed include politics, employment, technology, civil rights, education, independent living, and much more.
      http://www.empowermentzone.com

    11. ENABLEnet is a collection of links related to enabling services and technologies for people with disabilities. The links are a wide collection of service organizations in Singapore and abroad for support for those with disabilities and include reference documents for design of accessible web sites. The Disabled People’s Association of Singapore developed ENABLEnet.
      http://www.dpa.org.sg

    12. Gallaudet University's Technology Access Program was developed to help eliminate communication barriers faced by people with hearing impairments. They address a number of telecommunication issues.
      http://tap.gallaudet.edu/

    13. IBM provides information on products developed for people with disabilities as well as information for HR groups to make information more accessible to employees. A number of accessibility checklists are provided.
      http://www.ibm.com/able

    14. InClude (INCLUsion of Elderly and Disabled people in telematics) is European organization that provides information and guidelines for complying with Design for All principles to an international audience.
      http://www.stakes.fi/include/

    15. Institute on Independent Living, a Swedish based organization, hosts a wonderful website with an extensive document library. It directly addresses universal design, as well as other related topics.
      http://www.independentliving.org/

    16. Lighthouse International provides rehabilitation services to people with visual impairments. They have a number of publications available online, as well as information on their education and training programs.
      http://www.lighthouse.org/

    17. Macromedia provides a number of resources for making web sites more accessible.
      http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibility

    18. Microsoft has made extensive efforts to make their products accessible. Their site provides a number of guidelines for developing accessible technology, training resources, and product and documentation information.
      http://www.microsoft.com/enable

    19. National Association of the Deaf protects the civil rights of people with hearing impairments. Their site has an extensive information center on issues related to the deaf community. They also post position papers associated with legislative action.
      http://www.nad.org

    20. National Center for Health Statistics has created a survey on disabilities. Reports from the survey results are published on this website.
      http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/about/major/nhis_dis/nhis_dis.htm

    21. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, part of the Department of Education, does research to facilitate full participation in society by people with disabilities.
      http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers/nidrr/index.html

    22. National Organization on Disability is an organization dedicated to mainstreaming the population of people with disabilities and significantly improving their access to all aspects of life. Their website includes a FAQ, as well as publications and information on their programs dedicated to their mission.
      http://www.nod.org/

    23. NCR is a company that produces technology and solutions for data procurement and storage in industry. This website describes their Access for All policy and their current resources for accessible products.
      http://www.ncr.com/solutions/self-service/access_for_all.htm

    24. Qualcomm is a software company interested in creating accessible products. They review a number of issues associated with Section 255.
      http://www.qualcomm.com/corporate/accessibility

    25. Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America serves to promote research and development of assistive technologies. They provide extensive information on disability legislation within and across states.
      http://www.resna.org/

    26. Royal National Institute for the Blind is devoted to providing assistance to the vision impaired in the UK.
      http://www.rnib.org.uk

    27. SHHH, Self Help for Hard of Hearing People, provides help on assessing hearing and understanding hearing loss.
      http://www.shhh.org/

    28. Sun Microsystems has developed a program for promoting accessibility of their products. Their website provides information on their development tools, government regulations, and a number of papers related to accessibility.
      http://www.sun.com/access

    29. TDI provides education and advocacy for people with hearing impairments.
      http://www.tdi-online.org/

    30. The Access Board is a federal agency formed to promote accessible design. They are responsible for the passage of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Their website provides accessibility rules and guidelines, technical assistance and training information, enforcement procedures, and access to publications.
      http://www.access-board.gov

    31. The American Foundation for the Blind provides information on vision impairment, access to publications, and access to organizations that provide services for people with visual impairments.
      http://www.afb.org

    32. The Center for Universal Design, housed at North Carolina State University, promotes universal design in housing and other built environments.
      http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/

    33. The Department of Justice provides access to the guidelines and compliance issues associated with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
      http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508

    34. The Federal Communications Commission includes a disabilities rights office, which is interested in increasing access to telecommunications in part through Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act.
      http://www.fcc.gov/

    35. The Trace Center, housed at the University of Wisconsin, is doing extensive research to make telecommunications and other information technologies more accessible to all. They have federal funding to study universal design issues.
      http://www.trace.wisc.edu

    36. TIA Access, developed by the Telecommunications Industry Association, provides information on federal regulations and design of consumer electronics.
      http://www.tiaonline.org/access

    37. Tiresias is an information resource for people interested in visual disabilities. They provide access to a number of publications and other information which address devices and interface design issues for people with visual impairments.
      http://www.tiresias.org

    38. U.S. Census Bureau provides extensive statistical information on disabilities.
      http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability.html

    39. Useit.com is the creation of Jakob Nielsen, who is an expert on web usability.
      http://www.useit.com

    40. Web Accessibility Initiative part of the World Wide Web Consortium, is committed to providing tools and guidelines to obtain and maintain access to web sites, particularly with today's rapidly changing technology.
      http://www.w3.org/WAI/

    41. WGBH, a public broadcasting station in Boston, is part of the National Center for Accessible Media. The web site provides access to NCAM, as well as information on captioning and descriptive video.
      http://main.wgbh.org/wgbh/access/

    42. White House Forum: Technologies for Successful Aging brings together industry, government, and academia to address the issue of more fully integrating the population of people with disabilities into society. The site provides some reports that were presented at the forum.
      http://www.vard.org/register/register.htm




    Section 5: Editor's Notes

    At the time of the last review (September 26, 2003), the following links provided in this document could not be verified:


    Section 2 Question A-2; Section 3 Item 108: (server not found)
    Lumsden, J., Brewster, S.A., Crease, M. and Gray, P.D. (2002). Guidelines for audio-enhancement of graphical user interface widgets Proceedings of British HCI, Vol II (pp. 6-9). London: BCS. Retrieved June 30, 2003 from the World Wide Web: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~stephen/papers/HCI2002-lumsden.pdf

    Section 2 Questions D-1 and F-1; Section 3 Ite m 206: (document not found)
    Wilson, L. (October, 1996, revision by Pishney, J.). Assistive technology for the disabled computer user Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.unc.edu/cit/guides/irg-20.html

    Section 2 Questions D-3 and F-1; Section 3 Item 155: (document not found)
    Qualcomm. (1999). Creating possibilities with accessibility Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.qualcomm.com/corporate/accessibility/index.html

    Section 2 Question D-3, I-1, and L5; Section 3 Item 159: (document not found)
    Royal National Institute for the Blind. (2000, November 12). Accessible web design Retrieved December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital/hints.htm

    Section 2 Questions D-4, L-4, and L-5; Section 3 Item 154: (server not found)
    Public Service Commission of Canada. Building the Site Retrieved January 25, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://canada.gc.ca/programs/guide/3_1_4e.html

    Section 2 Question F-1; Section 3 Item 17: (server not found)
    Becker, D. (1999). Some dedicated people are helping the disabled participate in the computer revolution. TechWeek Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.techweek.com/articles/5-17-99/access.htm

    Section 2 Question F-1; Section 3 Item 160: (document not found)
    Royal National Institute for the Blind. (Nov, 2000). “RNIB Approved” UK Websites which are accessible to everyone Retrieved January 11, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.rnib.org.uk/access/accessible.htm

    Section 2 Questions G-2 and G-3; Section 3 Item 36: (server not found)
    EITAAC Report (June 9, 1999). Retrieved January 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cot.org/dreport.htm

    Section 2 Question G-4; Section 3 Item 5: (document not found)
    Access Board. Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/bulletin.txt (Informal guidance on Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.)

    Section 2 Question I-1; Section 3 Item 121: (document not found)
    Microsoft. (n.d.). Microsoft Windows guidelines for accessible software design Retrieved December 12, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.microsoft.com/enable/dev/guidelines/software.htm

    Section 2 Questions L-1 and M-1; Section 3 Item 109: (server not found)
    Lund, A. M., & Tschirgi, J. E. Designing for people: Integrating human factors into the product realization process Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ameritech.com/corporate/testtown/library/articles/design.html

    Section 2 Questions L-5 and M-3; Section 3 Item 68: (document not found)
    IBM. Interacting with people that have disabilities Retrieved, December 15, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www-3.ibm.com/able/hr/interact.html

    Section 2 Question M-1; Section 3 Item 11: (document not found)
    American Foundation for the Blind. (2000). AFB Presents 2000 Access Awards Retrieved January 9, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.afb.org/afbnews_2000accessawards_summer.asp

    Section 2 Question M-1; Section 3 Item 151: (server not found)
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., & Carey, T. (n.d.). Methods for user-centered design Retrieved January 18, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://iea.fmi.uni-sofia.bh/hci/Book/c18/

    Section 2 Question M-3; Section 3 Item 82: (document not found)
    KADO. User needs methods Retrieved January 23, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.kado.co.uk/unmeths.htm







    List of Tables

    The following tables appear in the body of the document. Clicking on one of the links below will take you immediately to that table. You can then scroll forward and backward to view the context.






    Authors

    This is a publication of the Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center that is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the U.S. Department of Education under grant number H133A000405. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Education.

    The research reported in this document was performed for the Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access (CATEA). Ms. Mimi Kessler of Georgia Tech's CATEA is the Project Director for the Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center (ITTATC) project, under which the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) has received tasking to perform a needs assessment and to provide engineering support. W. Bradley Fain of GTRI is the Principal Investigator for GTRI's portion of the project. Researchers in GTRI's Electronic Systems Laboratory (ELSYS) performed the work documented in this report. Those researchers include W. Bradley Fain, Tonya M. Whaley, Anna Cianciolo, Dennis J. Folds, and Jeffrey M. Gerth.

    This document was reviewed and updated in August - September of 2003. Additional sources were added to the document to clarify key points or to address the concerns of the reviewers. However, the literature review has not been substantially updated since its original publication date of April 2001.



    For additional information about this report please contact:

    Brad Fain
    Georgia Tech Research Institute
    ELSYS/SEV/HSEB Mail Code 0840
    Atlanta, GA 30332-0840
    Voice (404) 894-7261
    Fax (404) 894-8636
    brad.fain@gtri.gatech.edu