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