 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Features:
Related Sites:
The ITTATC is not responsible for the content of external web sites.
funded by:
(grant #H133A000405)
| 
|
*** ITTATC has reached the end of its 5-year grant, so (as of 5/15/06) this website is no longer being updated. Please be advised that the information on this site may be out of date. ***
Section 3: Summary of Findings
Go back to Table of Contents Go back to Section 2: Methodology
Go forward to Section 4: Structured Interview TopicsThe following paragraphs contain a summary of the relevant findings of this research arranged by topic area.
Interest in Accessible Design
Most respondents said that they observed a need for products and systems designed according to accessibility design principles early in their careers and that they became interested in accessible design either through learning about difficulties users with disabilities experienced or by observing a specific technical need.
Terminology
Interviewees said that "accessible design" was more narrowly defined than "universal design." They defined "accessible design" as focused on access by users with disabilities, and they defined "universal design" as the inclusion of the needs of a wide range of individuals. However, the goals of "accessible design" and "universal design" were seen as indistinguishable.
"Accessibility," which was seen as broader in scope than "compatibility," was defined as the ease with which people with disabilities can access the functions of the product. "Compatibility" was defined as the degree of which product and services are designed to work in conjunction with assistive technologies. These terms were seen as not interchangeable because they refer to different aspects of design.
Federal Government Regulations
Respondents believe that 1) the application of the terms "readily achievable" and "undue burden" to commercial products will be difficult, and 2) these terms will acquire more specific definition through litigation and attempts to make compliant products.
Barriers to filing complaints with the FCC include: difficulty in understanding the complaint process; lack of knowledge that such a complaint process exists; pessimism regarding the utility of filing a complaint; and general lack of knowledge about the information and telecom technology design process.
Interviewees felt that the enforcement of Section 508 would lead to 1) the strengthening of the AT industry, and 2) a change in the current design process for IT and telecommunications products and services.
Future of Accessible Devices
Noted accessibility problems included: inaccessibility of IT and telecommunications to people with vision and hearing impairments; lack of redundancy in control options; products that cannot be configured by the user; networks and terminals that are not compatible with assistive devices; stigmatization of disability; failure to market around disability and aging; lack of a procedure with which to evaluate accessibility; and lack of experts in accessible design.
The most frequently mentioned systems requiring accessible design were self-service terminals, telephone systems, and portable devices. It was suggested that in the near future, computers would be integrated into nearly everything an individual experiences, and therefore the focus of accessible design should be embedding computer systems into larger products.
Accessible Design Process
Respondents felt that legislation would lead to improvements in accessibility of telecommunications devices and products. A few respondents said that companies are currently assigning responsibility for product accessibility to human factors experts.
Future Influences of Accessible Design
Interviewees suggested that accessibility could be increased by the influence of international competition for large purchasers; the emergence of usability as a market standard; demographic changes; negative publicity of inaccessible government technology; a reduction in cost/increase in availability of new technology; marketing philosophies that emphasize 1-to-1 marketing; and disability experienced either first-hand or indirectly by corporate leaders. Some interviewees felt that only legislation could increase accessibility.
Objectives of Accessible Design
Interviewees said that the most important technical goals of accessible design are to provide individuals with multiple display and control options; to produce an open source of technical guidelines and standards; and to recognize the promise of embedded technology.
The most important organizational goals of accessible design were to change the design process so that accessibility becomes a routine consideration occurring throughout the design process.
Another important goal was increased compassion towards, and inclusion of, people with disabilities in mainstream society. Some felt this goal was more critical than the technical or organizational goals.
Training Issues
Interviewees said that the following were important training goals:
All job candidates seeking a position where accessible design is an important goal should have a knowledge of: specific disabilities and assistive technology; where to get resources on accessibility issues; disability myths; advantages and disadvantages of different approaches; why accessibility is important; factors that influence particular design implementations; current state-of-the-art scientific and medical knowledge as it relates to accessibility; and the demographics of the customer base.
Potential managers of products with accessibility requirements should have knowledge of: long-range thinking/planning; competitors' accessibility efforts; where to draw the line between accessibility and accommodation; recognition of the market possibilities of universal design; and awareness of diverse populations.
Potential Designers/Engineers of products with accessibility requirements should have a knowledge of: advantages and disadvantages of emerging technologies from an accessibility perspective; how to work closely with human factors personnel; the uniqueness of specific disabilities; AT and compatibility issues; the design implications of federal regulations in terms of the categories laid out in the regulation; how science and knowledge drive innovation; there are no quick fixes with regards to accessibility; where and how IT will affect individuals; how to be innovative and forward thinking (and not just focus on current solutions); human factors principles; and that accessibility does not necessitate an awkward design.
Potential Human Factors/Usability Engineers of products with accessibility requirements should have knowledge of: AT and compatibility issues; specific disabilities; how to conduct accessibility evaluations with users with disabilities; how science and knowledge drive innovation; there are no quick fixes with regards to accessibility; how to grow the knowledge base as it applies to accessibility; how people have/want to access the interface; and that accessible design is really user-centered design with a broader user base than is normally considered.
Candidates for marketing positions who must market accessible products or services should have a knowledge of: the federal regulations and terminology; the sensitivities of the market sectors; long-range view of/plan for accessibility issues; recognition that innovation and usability are an important foundation; how to understand and communicate the solutions a product provides; how to encourage people to think about disability; and the demographics of the customer base.
Candidates for sales positions of products and services that have accessibility features should have knowledge of: legal considerations of selling to the people with disabilities; the market potential of accessibility; the relationship between accessibility and usability; recognition that innovation and usability are important parts of the foundation; how to understand and communicate the solutions a product provides; and how to sell to diverse populations in a non-stigmatizing way.
Candidates for technical assistance positions related to accessibility or accessible design should have knowledge of: the different types of assistive technologies; guidelines specific to technology on which assistance is to be given; and recognition that people with disabilities have the same needs as anyone else.
Barriers to Accessible Design
The top design barriers to achieving the goals of accessible design are: providing alternative control without overloading the user with choices; lack of understanding of what accessible design is and what can be done to achieve it; lack of realistic standards and guidelines for accessible design; lack of peer reviewed research in accessible design; miniaturization of products; conflict between technological developments and usability requires creativity; and perception that accessibility interferes with design integrity.
The top organizational barriers to achieving the goals of accessible design are: poor communication across departments within companies; lack of accessibility leadership; low technological knowledge/skills on the part of decision makers; cultural barriers excluding people with disabilities; managers that do not understand the need for accessible design; corporate leadership that is not involved in accessible design; accessibility takes a remote backseat to other organizational concerns (e.g., high workload, downsizing, etc.); lack of infrastructure to support accessible design; and viewing people with disabilities as not having the same wants and needs as people without disabilities.
The top informational barriers to achieving the goals of accessible design are: accessibility features that are not communicated to those who need them; lack of appropriate and diverse information on the various impairments (especially cognitive disability); lack of knowledge of how to sell to people with disabilities; lack of medical and ergonomic information on specific disabilities; access to necessary information; lack of understanding of what can create demand-pull rather than supply-push; lack of education and creative thinking in accessible design; consumers who are not educated about their rights; and designers/engineers who are not familiar with HF/usability principles.
The top financial barriers to achieving the goals of accessible design are: cost of new technology; inadequate government funding for accessibility programs; the target market for accessible design that is not well understood and identified; funding for critical research that is not forthcoming; the business case for accessibility is weak; distribution barriers (i.e., it's hard to reach people with disabilities); expense in changing the way business is currently being done; and cost associated with implementing accessibility.
The top legal barriers to achieving the goals of accessible design are: federal regulation is a blunt instrument; not enough legislation currently exists; too much legislation currently exists; ability to contest deadlines for accessibility will generate several lawsuits brought up by industry; exploring federal requirements through litigation is time-consuming; legal departments in industry should be involved in exploring potential market opportunities but they don't know how; companies are afraid to take risks and admit what they don't know; and legislation specifies "accessible" but not universal design.
Coordination with Stakeholders
The disability community needs to understand the following about industry: product life cycles, the speed of business, and the amount of time required to add accessibility into the product development life cycle.
Interviewees varied greatly regarding what the disability community needs to understand about the government. Some interviewees stated that the disability community needs to understand the basics of accessibility legislation and that the government is fairly slow and inefficient.
The government needs to understand that industry works on competition, and right now there is no competitive advantage to providing accessibility.
The government needs to understand that the disability community is frustrated with the slow pace of change.
Industry needs to realize the political, social, and financial clout the disability community has attained, as well as the sense of urgency the disability community has with regards to issues of accessibility.
Industry needs to understand that the government is serving the public and looking out for the interests of the public.
Figure 1 is a graphical illustratation of the critical information that each stakeholder should understand about the other stakeholders as assessed by the interviewees and as described above.
Figure 1: Illustration of Stakeholder Coordination Information.
Respondents listed the following topics they would like to see in a mediated conversation between the disability community, government, and industry: shared definitions for terminology; development process for new systems and how legislation will influence this process; making disability information available; end-to-end communication; current state of people's abilities and future trends in demographics; shift from designing for disabilities to technological innovation; height of technical barriers; impact of design on behavior; objectives of stakeholders; business benefits of accessible design; and current technological capabilities.
Home
|
About ITTATC
|
User Agreement
|
Contact Us
|
Webmaster
Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center
Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access
Georgia Institute of Technology
490 10th Street NW · Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: 1-800-726-9119 (Voice/TTY) · Fax: 404-894-9320 · Email: ittatc@ittatc.org
Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center
Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access
Georgia Institute of Technology
490 10th Street NW · Atlanta, GA 30318
Telephone: 1-800-726-9119 (Voice/TTY) · Fax: 404-894-9320 · Email: ittatc@ittatc.org