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


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.html?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.html?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.html?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.html?ID=34
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices and strategies for individuals with hearing impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices and strategies for persons with visual impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices for persons with physical impairments: Conversation, writing, and computer access. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive devices for persons with physical impairments: Input interface techniques. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C. (n.d.). Assistive techniques and devices for persons with cognitive and language impairments. In Design for Human Disability and Aging.
Vanderheiden, G. C., Law, C. M., & Barnicle, K. (n.d.). Cross disability telecollaboration systems. Proceedings, Designing for the 21st Century II: An International Conference on Universal Design. Boston: Adaptive Environments Center.
Wilson, L. (October, 1996, revision by Pishney, J.). Assistive technology for the disabled computer user. Retrieved January 2, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.unc.edu/cit/guides/irg-20.html

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



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

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




G: Government Regulations

 Introduction



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

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

 G-1. What is required by Section 255?



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

 G-2. What is required by Section 508?



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

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



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

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



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

 G-5. What is the current compliance approach?



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

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

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



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


H: Organizational Behavior

 Introduction



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

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

 H-1. What are the current barriers?



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

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

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

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

 

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



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

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

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

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

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

 

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



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

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





I: Principles/Guidelines of Accessible Design

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

     Introduction



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




    K: Training Methods and Materials

     Introduction



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

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

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

     K-1. Who are the consumers of training?



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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




    L: Accessible Design Processes and Resources

     Introduction



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

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

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

     L-1. What are the current design processes?



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

     L-4. What tools are available to designers?



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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    M: User-Centered Design

     Introduction



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





     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?



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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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



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