 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
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*** ITTATC has reached the end of its 5-year grant, so (as of 5/15/06) this website is no longer being updated. Please be advised that the information on this site may be out of date.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 4: Structured Interview Topics
Go back to Table of Contents Go back to Section 3: Summary of Findings
Go forward to Appendix A: The Structured Interview
4.1 Interest in Accessible Design
The following question was asked in order to determine the root of the respondent's interest in accessible design:
| Question 1. We would like to characterize your interest in accessible design in a way that is not so well articulated by your work and accomplishments. More specifically, of what personal interest is accessible design to you, and where did this interest come from? What sparked your interest to head out into this new territory? |
The purpose of this question was to determine what motivated the respondents to devote vast resources and sometimes their entire careers to pursuing accessibility issues. Most respondents indicated that they recognized there was a need for accessible design either through learning about difficulties experienced by individuals with disabilities or by observing that there was a technical need in this area of design. A number of respondents indicated that it was important that everyone have equal access and opportunity with regard to technology. Almost all of the respondents indicated there was a need for products and systems designed according to accessibility design principles, although their reasons for this need varied (e.g., interactions with individuals with disabilities, lack of accessible products, and defining new technology and ideas).
Specifically, four of the respondents indicated that direct contact with a person with a disability influenced their decision to pursue a career in accessibility. Seven of the respondents traced their interest in accessible design to very early in their career. Eight of the respondents stated that the observation of some technical need caused them to go into accessibility. Four of the respondents indicated that their interest in accessibility was, in part, due to the work assignments that they were presented with over the years. Finally, four of the respondents indicated that the root of their interest in accessibility was driven by their outlook on life that everyone should have equal access to technology.
The interview data suggest exposing students and young professionals to disability issues early in their careers could generate interest in the field of accessible design. These issues could be presented by demonstrating that a pressing technological need exists (e.g., illustrating the shortcomings of current designs) and also via direct exposure to individuals in the disability community (e.g., to foster a personal interest in accessibility). It would be particularly useful to involve designers and/or product developers who have a specific disability in the training process. Such individuals could clearly demonstrate usability problems associated with current designs and facilitate the discussion of accessibility issues from the perspective of both a user and a designer. Training programs should incorporate the identification of specific problems that must be solved, with regard to accessing information technology and telecommunications equipment, early in the training schedule.
Table 1 contains a paraphrased summary of the respondents' answers.
Table 1: Response Summaries to Question 1
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Interested in inclusive design for information and communication technologies. Saw a need in the 70s, and started working on things like ATMs. |
| 2 | In engineering school, not interested in training areas represented at recruiting meetings. Determined that engineering and disability would be an interesting area. Understood the possibilities early on in career, particularly how the technologies could be used by all, not just people with disabilities. Wanted to redeem engineering from its reputation as cold and opportunistic and try to make good on the promise of benefit to humanity. |
| 3 | PhD advisor was blind, and they worked together for many years dealing with access to computing. |
| 4 | A computer science student in the late 1960's, worked some with humanities and fine arts students. The perception was that they were dumber than the engineering students, but discovered that the problem wasn't them but the bad design of the interfaces. Discovered that by making a slight design change, many disabilities could be easily accommodated. |
| 5 | The aspect of ease of use that I want to achieve in the design of the products that I'm involved with. Current focus is how software technology can be reused in a variety of environments that a network delivers that software to. |
| 6 | As a design student in the early 70s, asked to help design equipment for a girl in the community with cerebral palsy. |
| 7 | I've invented technologies that had applications in the disability field, and I wanted to find way to bring them out. I came up with the idea of making a reading machine for the blind when I was in college, and…so when I had the chance to actually start a commercial company that developed some of the core technology, I started thinking about how we could take our technology and apply it to the disability field, and my particular interest is in finding ways to overcome the fact that the economics of making accessible technology in general are very poor. |
| 8 | In the 60s, used to volunteer at a VA hospital. Dad designed voice-operated relays for quadriplegic ham radio operators. College roommate was paraplegic. Recently hired a quadriplegic programmer. |
| 9 | Works in a company that develops applications for new technologies, and develops new products based on them. Teaches product design. Goal is to reduce the need for assistive technology by making things as universally usable as possible. |
| 10 | Human factors engineer, with training in biomechanics. Accessible design is an opportunity to start developing solutions that go outside the norm. Not a solutions designer, working with programmers and other engineering teams. |
| 11 | Primary interest comes from the research perspective. The definition of new technology and new ideas is essential to addressing the problems of accessibility in IT and telecommunications. A colleague became blind, and this really started the thinking and interest relative to this area. In 1985 a network of European experts was formed. |
| 12 | Trained as a clinician (psychologist), and intrigued with technology. Designed software for individuals with disabilities. |
| 13 | Belief in equal enfranchisement for all people. Wants to ensure that technology will create new forms of access, not barriers. |
| 14 | A small part of an accessibility program was assigned to him as part of his responsibilities. Due to the success of the program he was later known as the accessibility expert within the company. In addition, this respondent indicated a strong personal interest in championing the causes of the disenfranchised. |
| 15 | Was a mayor during the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Became knowledgeable about accessibility requirements in infrastructure. Also a systems analyst and engineer. Then hired to develop technical standards and requirements for providing IT access for people with disabilities and other accessibility needs. |
| 16 | From early on, has been a strong believer in the democratization of technology. Everyone should have access to technology. |
4.2 Terminology
The following question was asked to determine if there were similarities and/or differences in the way that various terms associated with accessibility are defined:
|
Question 2. Now, before we start our exploration, let's get together on terminology. Please help us make a distinction, if one exists, between the following terms:
"accessible design" and "universal design" "accessibility" and "compatibility" |
Nearly unanimously, the interviewees differentiated between "accessible design" and "universal design" by describing the former as more narrowly defined than the latter. Stated definitions of accessible design typically focused on access by individuals with disabilities, either through accessibility features (usually added post-design to a product or service) or through compatibility with assistive technology. Universal design, in contrast, was defined as the inclusion of the needs of a wide range of individuals (including but not limited to people with disabilities) during the initial and all successive stages of the design process. In general, the comments of the interviewees converged on the observation that, while different in initial orientation, the goals of accessibility and universal design are indistinguishable.
Following this line of thinking, the comments of several visionaries suggested that it would be more fruitful as a design method to emphasize accessibility as a direct product of universal design, rather than accessibility through the provision of accessibility features. The latter design method was not considered conducive to the development of products that would appeal to the mainstream and thus it was not expected to result in the growth of the target market that is suggested by many accessibility advocates as a benefit of accessible design.
The interview data suggest training materials should incorporate the use of both of these terms, describing the differences in the two types of design but emphasizing the importance of each type. One reason that both terms should be incorporated into training is that there may be substantial overlap in relevant design principles. The interviewees generally agreed that the goals of accessible design and universal design were very similar and the terms may be used somewhat interchangeably in different settings. Also, the data indicate that, in some cases, it may be better to adopt a universal design approach during product development, marketing a given product as adhering to universal design principles (e.g., if the product is intended to be marketed to not just users with disabilities but to a wide range of users). However, specialized accommodation may be necessary in some instances and, thus, it may be appropriate to adopt an accessible design approach during the development of other products (e.g., when designing screen reading devices for blind users).
Table 2 contains a paraphrased summary of the respondents' answers when asked to differentiate between "accessible design" and "universal design."
Table 2: Response Summaries to Question 2a ("Accessible Design" and "Universal Design").
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Universal design is an ideal. Accessible (inclusive) design refers to having reasonable access, though the definition of reasonable may vary. Inclusive design is the design of mainstream products and/or services that are accessible to and useful by as many people as is reasonably possible, on a global basis in a wide variety of situations and to the greatest extent possible without the need for special adaptation of specialized design. |
| 2 | Accessible design is the process of trying to guarantee that a person with a disability can use the product. Universal design is trying to make the process of designing a product so that it can be used by more and more people. The goals of each are not in conflict, but the two concepts do have different starting points. |
| 3 | Universal design is a sugar coating, which makes accessible design palatable to large numbers of people who do user interface work. Accessible design incorporates features that may not be "visible" to anybody else except people using the assistive technology. Universal design does not focus on these "invisible" features. |
| 4 | Accessible design is making products usable for people with disabilities. Not sure what universal design means. |
| 5 | Accessible design to date tends to be focused more on how to make an existing product usable by assistive technologies. Universal design is where the product is capable of running in a variety of environments. |
| 6 | Accessible design means design conforms to guidelines for access. These are guidelines that try to overcome barriers of designs that specifically hinder people with disabilities. Universal design accommodates people of all ages and abilities, and people would want universally designed products even if the law didn't require them. |
| 7 | Universal design has to do with conceiving of the audience for a product as widely as possible, but not making changes to meet accessibility needs. It is stretching the envelope in terms of how people typically think of product design. Accessible design is making accessibility to people with disabilities an explicit design criterion. |
| 8 | Universal design is a design methodology with the objective of developing products and services which are as accessible, useful to, and usable by as many people as technically feasible without the need for adaptation or specialized design. It is impossible to develop products and services accessible to everyone. Accessible design is but one component of universal design. It simply means designing a product and/or service that is easy-to-get-to. It does not mean designing a product and/or service to be usable or useful. |
| 9 | The primary difference between accessible and universal design is the integration of the accessible features. In an accessible design, oftentimes the accessible features are "band-aids." Universal design integrates those accessible features such that they don't stand out. Universal design results in the social integration of people who use those devices. |
| 10 | Accessible design means that you're meeting the current state-of-the-art of technology and knowledge to provide access to information or access to the solution. Universal design is a concept that says the design of the solution addresses everybody and it doesn't focus specifically on accessibility. |
| 11 | Doesn't really make a distinction. Accessible design can be achieved through different methodologies. The goal is to make something accessible to the users who want to use a particular service, application, or equipment. Accessible designs may use adaptations. Universal design is the idea of accommodating a variety of users. |
| 12 | Accessible design is something that we do today to make up for the fact that our information technology is not accessible. |
| 13 | Accessible design is intended to provide minimal access to the content or the service. Universal design encompasses many of the principles of accessible design in such a way that people without identified disabilities also benefit. Universal design does not require specialized accommodation. |
| 14 | Those are two terms of which there are many more. These terms are used without there being a clear and consistent definition. Universal design means trying to build things so that, as they are created and made available, they are accessible "out of the box" such that as many people as possible can use them. Accessible design is more narrowly defined in some ways, and broader in others. Its focus really is people with disabilities; it addresses what the needs are of people who have disabilities. It ensures that products can be compatible with assistive technology. The goal of accessible design is for a mainstream product to be engineered and built in such a way that it allows assistive technology to operate it, to operate on behalf of it, using means which are supported, documented, stable, and reliable. |
| 15 | Typically, accessible design refers to providing a design that complements the needs of people with disabilities in accessing information technology. Universal design is oriented toward providing usage of information to the maximum audience possible, and is inherent in the technology. They should, however, be one in the same, though one has a somewhat broader scope. |
| 16 | There isn't a big difference. Accessible design might refer mostly to issues for people with disabilities. Universal design goes beyond people with disabilities. |
The second part of the question required interviewees to distinguish between "accessibility" and "compatibility." The interviewees generally differentiated between the "accessibility" and "compatibility" of a product by describing the latter as subsumed by the former. The accessibility of a product-defined by the interviewees as the ease with which people with disabilities can access the functions of the product-was described as possibly including compatibility with assistive technology, but also as being broader in scope. The compatibility of a product was defined more narrowly as simply the degree of compatibility with assistive devices. Some interviewees differentiated accessibility and compatibility by claiming that accessibility precludes the requirement of assistive devices. Thus, almost all interviewees indicated that they believed these terms referred to different aspects of design, suggesting they are not terms that should be used interchangeably.
Specifically, ten interviewees commented that "compatibility" was generally a technical term involving assistive technology and/or interaction between two products or system components without technical or physical conflict. Eight interviewees indicated that "accessibility," on the other hand, involved the interaction between a user and a product and the ease with which users with disabilities may use a product. Four interviewees specifically mentioned that the "accessibility" of a product implies certain features are automatically built into the design such that it is possible for users with disabilities to interact with the product.
These data indicate it is important to define both terms during training, given both are apparently widely used in this field. However, depending on the perspective of the trainees, it may be necessary to place greater emphasis on one term over the other when developing the training materials. For example, if the trainees have very technical backgrounds (e.g., software or hardware engineers), training should center on how compatibility between two products/systems, or two components within a system, can be improved in such a way that benefits users with disabilities. On the other hand, if the trainees have backgrounds in design and/or in human factors engineering, the training should emphasize how products may be made more accessible to users with disabilities via changes in the design of the human-machine interface.
Table 3 contains a paraphrased summary of the respondents' answers when asked to differentiate between "accessibility" and "compatibility."
Table 3: Response Summaries to Question 2b ("Accessibility" and "Compatibility").
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Compatibility is a purely technical term; the ability to interface with a mainstream device to use it with assistive technology. Accessibility means a device can be used in a reasonable manner by a person with a disability. |
| 2 | Accessibility is a mainstream product that can be used by someone with a disability because of the presence of certain features that explicitly make it easier for someone with a disability to use. Compatibility is a mainstream product that can inter-operate with a piece of assistive technology. So, in and of itself, it may not be accessible. It may have no accessibility features. Whatever it is you can plug a piece of assistive technology into it and it works. |
| 3 | I think there's a big difference between accessibility and compatibility. I think you mean compatibility with assistive technology. There are a number of accessibility things that don't have anything to do with assistive technology. For example, not using color alone to convey information, or making sure that you've got transcripts or synchronized text along with multimedia presentations…those have nothing to do with compatibility in my opinion with assistive technology. So accessibility is the key; it means access by people with disabilities, and compatibility is a part of that. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | It is not necessary to have complete compatibility with all accessible mechanisms. For example, you don't need to use a spreadsheet application while driving. Accessibility is much broader than compatibility. It's about how we use information technology services from a very broad range of devices that connect the human being with that information service. It's not just for use by people with disabilities; we all have an inability to do certain things in different environments. |
| 6 | Compatibility with assistive technology is one way to make something accessible, but there are many other ways to make things accessible. Compatibility, in combination with assistive technology, is one way to achieve universal design. |
| 7 | Accessibility means that a product can be used no matter what particular set of disabilities a person may have. Compatibility means that adaptive technology is developed as a specialized product that makes it possible to interact with an existing product. In the hardware sector, this division is fairly clear, but gets much fuzzier when talking about software. |
| 8 | Accessibility is a measure of the ease with which someone can get to a product and/or service. Compatibility describes a situation where two products work in harmony with each other without technical or physical conflict. |
| 9 | Accessibility means that any accessible features needed are built into the device. Compatible means that it has connections for assistive devices. |
| 10 | Compatibility refers to the technical compatibility between the system and the user (or the system and accessible technologies). It is a technical interface requirement. Accessibility provides the interface not only the technical connectability, but the interfaces require the human to be part of the system. From a human system standpoint, accessibility falls between compatibility and usability. |
| 11 | The first step to making something accessible is making it compatible (though this first step should eventually be eliminated). |
| 12 | Accessibility is a product development effort before the code or product design is frozen. Compatibility is the work that's done after the code or design is frozen. |
| 13 | Compatibility is a broad term that is equivalent to interoperability (pieces of technology can work together). Accessibility benefits from compatibility. |
| 14 | Accessibility is compatibility with assistive technology. So, there really isn't a distinction between the two. |
| 15 | Compatibility is when a piece of hardware or software is able to communicate at least at a basic level with another piece of hardware or software. It does not mean that you can use it effectively, however. Accessibility is a quantity of whether someone - the broadest possible audience- can use the technology. They are unrelated terms: compatibility talks about technology to technology, while accessibility talks about humans talking to technology. |
| 16 | Compatibility is the interconnectability with the technologies that people with disabilities already use. Accessibility features are built in, and can be complex or have many limitations. |
4.3 Federal Government Regulations
The following questions were asked to assess familiarity level with federal governmental regulations pertaining to accessible design:
|
Question 3: Are you familiar with Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act?
a. The terms "readily achievable"-presented in Section 255-and "undue burden"-presented in Section 508-are facing their own frontier. These terms have a long legal history but are now being applied in a novel way to IT and telecommunications. What process will occur in order for these terms to take on new meaning as they apply to Sections 255 and 508? b. We are interested in your thoughts about the enforcement of Section 255. In spite of the fact that IT and telecommunications products are in many ways inaccessible, why haven't there been more complaints filed with the FCC? c. The extent of the positive impact of Section 508 appears unclear. Some people argue that Section 508 will serve to strengthen the assistive technology industry, rather than result in the development of more accessible mainstream technology and products. Others claim that Section 508 will have its primary impact on the importance that companies place on the usability of their products or product lines. What changes do you foresee happening as a result of Section 508? d. How are Section 255 and Section 508 affecting your job? |
Nearly all interviewees were familiar with Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. This familiarity typically came out of experience with the implications of these regulations for the conception, development, and marketing/sales of commercial products. There was a great range in impact that these regulations had on the specific jobs of the interviewees, ranging from no impact to a great deal of impact in every aspect of day-to-day work.
When asked about the terms "readily achievable" (Section 255) and "undue burden" (Section 508), interviewees provided a great deal of insight on their legal context and their application to commercial products, as opposed to built environments. Most emphasized that "readily achievable" applies to constraints on the manufacturing of a product or service, whereas "undue burden" (more difficult for a company to prove than proving that something is not readily achievable) applies to the financial constraints on producing a product or service. It was noted that "readily achievable" applies to manufacturers and sellers, whereas "undue burden" applies more to purchasers.
Many interviewees emphasized the flexibility of "readily achievable" and "undue burden" with regards to the process through which IT and telecom products and services may come to meet these federal regulations, a shift away from how the terms are defined with regards to built environments. In addition, interviewees noted that the application of these terms to commercial products-manufactured on a large scale and having a relatively short shelf-life-will be difficult and will most likely acquire more specific definition through litigation and actual attempts to make compliant products. They note that the timing of product delivery plays a critical role in determining "readily achievable" or "undue burden," something that was not critical in determining compliance in previous situations with built environments. Some interviewees also noted that as technology improves and becomes much more widely available, such terms as "readily achievable" and "undue burden" will lose their meaning altogether.
Table 4 contains a paraphrased summary of the respondents' answers when asked to describe the process that must occur for the terms "readily achievable" and "undue burden" to take on new meaning as they apply to Sections 255 and 508.
Table 4: Response Summaries to Question 3a ("Readily Achievable" and "Undue Burden")
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Legislation must be phrased so that it is future proof. We need to maximize accessibility without giving industry too many loopholes. |
| 2 | Both are legal terms. With 508, the undue burden is placed on the agency that is buying the technology, not on the manufacturer. Lawsuits are expected. Readily achievable refers to the manufacturers and service providers, who do benchmarking. Access features should be added to products each year. Organizations should be making a good faith effort to do things. |
| 3 | I don't know the answer to this question, but it is my understanding that both of these phrases-undue burden and readily achievable are not new, and I think their application to IT and telecommunication is not novel. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | The definitions of these will evolve based on what is actually practically delivered. We may need to overcome some existing infrastructure and applications issues. Filling the gap for understanding the full capacities and capabilities of technology and that of what they actually have or are trying to do. Moving beyond motivation because someone has a disability, and being motivated by theoretical and practical skills in building technology. We need to have clear definitions, standards, and frameworks. Market need is growing. |
| 6 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 7 | A lot of litigation! People will realize that it is possible to improve products without undue burden, and that are easily readily achievable (psychological process). Moore's Law, which makes products more and more powerful and able to take on more and more software, is going to continue to lower the barrier to accessibility. |
| 8 | Current definitions will evolve into ones which have to take into consideration technical feasibility and economies of scale. This will result in companies exploring ways to not only benefit persons with disabilities, but everyone. |
| 9 | The term readily achievable is a moving target. Accessibility requirements ought to be viewed as a creative challenge for designers. |
| 10 | When a company sells a product to a government agency and the technology is not accessible at the time because of whatever reason and the agency has to have that technology to do business, it will enforce a warranty contract with the company that says that by such and such date and in certain conditions, when the conditions overturn, the company will change this solution to an accessible solution. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | In terms of personal computer technology and information technology, we can already do anything we need or want to do, without undue burden. Everything is readily achievable. We just need to realize this, and not be dependent on regulations to point it out to us. |
| 13 | A lot of processes will need the terms to deconstruct the gains intended by those acts. Formulas will be used when determining compliance with undue burden. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | The application of these terms to information technology will most likely be an application of the law related to physical accessibility. Not directly addressed otherwise. |
| 16 | It's an open issue. |
Interviewees were sometimes reluctant to speculate on why more complaints have not been filed with the FCC. Potential suggested barriers to filing complaints, however, included difficulty in understanding the complaint process, lack of knowledge that such a complaint process exists, and pessimism regarding the utility of filing a complaint. Another noted barrier to filing complaints with the FCC was the general lack of knowledge about the information and telecom technology design process, which could preclude individual judgment and action regarding the accessibility of a particular product. The knowledge required for such judgment could involve understanding who the individuals responsible for developing technology are, being well-versed in the latest technology that could increase accessibility and its relative availability to manufacturers, understanding the time scale along which products are developed, and being able to know ahead of time what characteristics an accessible product should have.
Specifically, with regard to FCC complaints, seven interviewees commented that there is a general lack of awareness among individuals with disabilities because they do not realize that it is possible to complain and that they have rights as consumers. If individuals are made aware, it is frequently too late in the product development process for anything to be done. Five interviewees indicated that they believed many users perceive the complaint process as too daunting, impractical, or too difficult, and complaints are not made because people doubt that changes would result. Four interviewees commented that many users with disabilities do not understand the relevant technology and lack knowledge about how technology could improve product usage for them. Finally, two interviewees commented that users probably do not know which entity is responsible for a given design (e.g., manufacturer, seller, government).
Training programs targeted toward leaders in disability organizations should emphasize ways to make individuals with disabilities more aware of their rights regarding product usability and accessibility. The interview data suggest more complaints would be filed with the FCC if people knew 1) there was a specific process by which complaints could be filed, 2) they had a right to file complaints, 3) the complaint filing process is not too difficult or impractical. Also, training for such leaders should involve general descriptive information about the relevant technology, such that these individuals can communicate this information to the rest of the disability community and users can learn why and how products can be made more accessible (thus, causing them to realize that it is possible to make some products more accessible).
Table 5 contains a paraphrased summary of the respondents' answers when asked to provide their thoughts on enforcement of Sections 255 and 508.
Table 5: Response Summaries to Question 3b (FCC Complaints)
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | People in the disability community often do not understand the technology until it is made available, at which point it is too late to provide input. |
| 2 | The principal advocacy organizations have been stripped of their most aggressive advocates. Many of those people are now in government service. Also, these advocacy organizations have many other priorities and have to keep shifting their attention. They wrongly assume that they can't do much once regulations are in place. In addition, there is a huge gap in technical awareness and understanding on the part of the disability advocacy community and the federal regulators. They don't know specifically what to complain about. |
| 3 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 4 | Lack of knowledge. |
| 5 | Human nature to be frustrated, but not act on that frustration. Making a change occur is daunting to many individuals. |
| 6 | People don't understand the whole product development process, and who is really responsible for a design. Product designers are "invisible", and there are typically multiple people involved. |
| 7 | The legal complaint process is not accessible in practical terms for the typical person with a disability. Many may not even be aware that Section 255 exists. |
| 8 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 9 | Customers are not aware of their rights. Also, in the past the complaint process hasn't been effective, so they've given up trying. There may also be confusion about how the complaint process works. |
| 10 | The disability community typically has more clout within the government industries. They don't have any clout within private or commercial industry. Until accessible technologies are more available, it will not be possible to bring a suit or negative publicity against a company. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | The majority of individuals with disabilities who could profit from current technology are not taking advantage of it. |
| 13 | People don't know they have a right to file a complaint. Perhaps they don't see complaining as an avenue to real change. Perhaps they want to maintain existing relationships with companies in order to get what gains they can. |
| 14 | It's a mystery. People are afraid of how their lives will be impacted. |
| 15 | Unlike the ADA, Section 255 has not been widely publicized. The disability community is aware of TTY issues and accessibility, but probably not general telecommunications accessibility. As technology leapfrogs forward, it doesn't have the product life cycle necessary to make 255 an effective mechanism for providing accessibility. |
| 16 | People with disabilities have long given up on being able to use these technologies. They are probably unfamiliar with the laws, and convinced that their concerns will not be addressed. They don't know how they could complain. |
With regards to changes resulting from Section 508, interviewees expressed different opinions. Generally, interviewees commented that the enforcement of Section 508 would lead to both the strengthening of the AT industry as well as a change in the current design process for IT and telecommunications products and services. Some interviewees felt that Section 508 would serve to increase the accessibility of mainstream products by calling attention to the design process, resulting in the inclusion of accessible design principles early in the design process. In addition, it was noted that the sophistication and visibility of assistive technology would increase, and greater sophistication and visibility were perceived as a positive impact of Section 508. Further, assistive technology was viewed as offering continued assistance to individuals who could not be, or were not yet, helped by mainstream accessible products.
Specifically, with respect to the question about Section 508 changes, three interviewees commented that Section 508 would result in the development of more accessible mainstream technology, incorporating accessible functionality into mainstream products. Three interviewees noted that assistive technology would become more sophisticated and stronger, although one interviewee disagreed, reporting that the strength of assistive technology and the importance placed on usability would not be affected by Section 508. Another interviewee agreed with this dissenting opinion, indicating that many functions provided by assistive technology vendors would become obsolete. Two interviewees commented that competition between companies would be introduced due to some product lines being more compliant with 508 than others. Two interviewees noted that the importance that companies place on the usability of their product lines would increase. Finally, it was noted by one interviewee that the assistive technological design would be incorporated into university courses, and another interviewee believed that more money would be poured into research efforts involving measurement of risk in occupational settings.
Though there were some exceptions, interviewees were optimistic regarding the impact that Sections 255 and 508 will have on the design process. More specifically, interviewees believed that these regulations would serve to facilitate the incorporation of the principles of accessible design early in the design process, rather than as an afterthought or a post-evaluation procedure. Further, interviewees were optimistic that eventually, accessibility would become a competitive standard for industrial designers. Interviewees felt this would occur through increased attention by industry leaders to accessibility issues due to threat of litigation. Interviewees that felt ambivalent toward the effect of federal regulations on changing the design process cited business pressures and competition as the real catalysts for change. In general, interviewees were pessimistic regarding the effect of federal regulation on spurring design innovation and creativity. Rather, they felt that changes in the design process as a result of threat of litigation would be more reactionary and consequence aversive than proactive.
Table 6 contains a paraphrased summary of the respondents' answers pertaining to changes they foresee happening as a result of Section 508.
Table 6: Response Summaries to Question 3c (Changes Resulting From Section 508).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 2 | Companies need to make sure that they develop products with common system technology (to ensure compatibility). They are learning to analyze their own products for general usability and accessibility. |
| 3 | Section 508 will result in the development of more accessible mainstream technology. The presence of 508 attracts executive attention which may result in acceptance that this is something that needs to be done. At my company, accessibility is being built into the whole development process. |
| 4 | Competition, because the government is going to recognize that some companies have complied with Section 508, while others haven't. |
| 5 | By removing the mystique around some of the accessibility, and providing frameworks within the technology, many of the functions currently provided by assistive technology vendors will become obsolete and change. Sophistication of assistive technologies will increase. There will be more emphasis on voice input and output, and audio output in general. Design of assistive technologies will become more incorporated into university courses. We will provide tools so that people automatically generate accessible products and designs. Greater consumer interest as the availability and cost of products become more accessible. |
| 6 | The Federal government is one of the major customers of companies that are subject to Section 508, so if they're going to change their practices and their products to meet their customer's needs, they're going to change their products across the board. Industry will learn that once you make a product more usable for people with disabilities, everybody is going to be able to use it more easily, and everybody will want it. Designers and developers will get more involved in the creative solutions of problems. |
| 7 | Strengthening of assistive technology industry. Impacting importance that companies place on the usability of their products or product lines. With 508, the most vocal groups are getting their needs met first. |
| 8 | AT and IT companies need each other. AT companies have never been able to mass market any of their products. Their design is specifically for people with a certain set of abilities. They're very expensive. They don't have the economies of scale, but they do have functionality that is not in mainstream products. Incorporating that functionality into mainstream products cannot only make those products more accessible to persons with disabilities but other consumers who have the same lack of abilities having nothing to do with disability. |
| 9 | Older, more conservative companies will make several parallel paths within their software, rather than designing separate products. The more savvy and sensitive companies will be more product specific. |
| 10 | (Doesn't agree with statement preceding question.) Government is hiring a large number of people with disabilities, increasing the purchasing power of the federal government. More money will go into research to measure risk in the different occupational areas. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | Doesn't believe 508 will impact the strength of the assistive technology industry or the importance placed on usability. |
| 13 | Intent is to encourage the creation of raw accessibility, which will not result in integrated accessibility improvements, but hooks to assistive technology devices |
| 14 | Companies starting to look at the accessibility of their products. |
| 15 | The AT industry may become better aware of the need for integration of their products with other industry products. They may develop standards and acquire resources that would allow them to evaluate product compatibility. Because of a misunderstanding about Section 508, companies, out of fear of being sued, start looking at the accessibility of their products. |
| 16 | Companies will work on making products accessible, and if that fails, work on making them compatible. |
When asked how their jobs will be affected by the passing of Sections 255 and 508, interviewees disagreed on whether or not these laws would have an impact on their work. Three interviewees believed that there would be no direct effect of Sections 255 and 508. Two interviewees, in contrast, believed that these laws are resulting in the surfacing of individual wants, needs, and preferences of consumers in the design process. Three interviewees believed that Section 508 would affect their jobs but that Section 255 would not. These respondents indicated that the legislative restrictions associated with Section 508 would affect business, and manufacturers would be forced to work closely with governmental regulators in an attempt to ensure their products are compliant with the law. One interviewee commented that the laws have already resulted in an increase in interest in automated web accessibility checking software.
Table 7 contains respondents' answers pertaining to how Sections 255 and 508 will affect their jobs.
Table 7: Response Summaries to Question 3d (How Jobs Could be Affected)
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | No direct effect. |
| 2 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 3 | Not affected by 255. 508 has resulted in a great increase in the number of hits on my website. |
| 4 | Will affect some marketing of products I have designed. |
| 5 | Not affected by 255. Legislative restrictions of 508 will start to impinge on the business. 508 is a catalyst in getting accessible design done. |
| 6 | It's affecting everything that I do in the design field. It's given some great examples about where we're headed, which has been very useful in my teaching. I'm finding myself in an informational and educational role more than ever and I'm also finding myself working directly with manufacturers and trying to do a better job. |
| 7 | Currently, almost not at all. |
| 8 | They're affecting every nook and cranny of everything that I do. We're focusing on trying to be compliant with the law, we're trying to be competitive in the global market place, and because of that, 255 and 508 are surfacing some of the individual wants, needs, and preferences of consumers we may not have thought about before. They are bringing to light some of the similarities between the average needs of a consumer in different parts of the world and persons that we class as people with disabilities. |
| 9 | Not much. Primary area of interest is in mundane devices of every day living. Impacted in that I teach an online course, for which I need to be very aware of the accessibility issues. |
| 10 | Very little support internally, making things tough. Only support comes from the division that has to sell the products to the federal sector. The retail sector is ignoring the issues. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | I'm not going to let it affect my job. I know what needs to be done and trust my instincts more than government regulations. |
| 13 | There has been a dramatic increase in interest in BOBBY. The server can be overloaded at times, and our ability to provide technical support has decreased due to the demand. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | Section 508 does. My organization works closely with federal and state regulators to try and ensure that the standards are in compliance with existing federal and state laws. |
| 16 | We've had numerous requests from government agencies for captioning and descriptive video service. There have also been many inquiries for consulting on website access. |
4.4 Future of Accessible Devices
The following question was asked to obtain opinions regarding problems that accessible systems would solve or alleviate:
| Question 4: Assume for a moment now that the course of accessibility efforts is being charted in an ideal world. That is, imagine that federal regulations are going to be taken seriously by both government and industry, and imagine that these regulations will be effectively enforced. Now, think ahead to the near future - say, 3 to 5 years after federal regulations have been in place, and have been enforced long enough to have a significant impact on the types of equipment that the Federal government owns. Imagine that, by that time, the Federal government - and maybe state governments and large corporations too - will own telephones, computers, and other information technology and telecommunications systems that comply with the principles of accessible design. In your opinion, what are the major problems of today that these new accessible systems have solved or at least alleviated? |
Interviewees had widely different views regarding the key accessibility problems that would be solved in a "perfect world." 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. In a "perfect world," the implementation of accessible design will have provided some solution to these problems. Opinions on how this would occur differed.
Most respondents believed that the development of systems that comply with the principles of accessible design would result in greater access of web sites and/or products for individuals with disabilities, resulting in greater access also for people of various ages who do not have disabilities (where educational, language, or cultural differences may exist). That is, users with disabilities will no longer be perceived as "fundamentally different" from users without disabilities with regard to web site and product usability.
Some respondents pointed out that certain groups of people with disabilities (those with visual or hearing impairments) would benefit immediately from improved accessibility. It was also pointed out that the range of products with accessibility features would become more numerous, as would the number of user-configured solutions associated with products. Finally, the idea that accessibility features will be automatically built in to product design was noted, indicating a decreased need for add-on devices in the future.
Specifically, three respondents indicated web sites would become more accessible and easier to use for everyone, not just individuals with disabilities. Three respondents commented that the number of people, and type of individual (e.g., with disability, without disability, younger, older), that would find various devices and systems usable would increase. Two respondents commented that usability would be particularly improved for individuals with specific disabilities (vision impairments, auditory impairments). Two respondents indicated that older adults would have improved access to web sites, products, and systems and that functional limitations associated with the aging process could be alleviated. Finally, two respondents indicated it would be possible to hire more workers with disabilities in the governmental work place and that it would be easier to obtain information from governmental agencies.
Table 8 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked about the major problems that will be solved or alleviated via accessible systems.
Table 8: Response Summaries to Question 4.
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Compatibility. Less cost for bandwidth at off-peak times. |
| 2 | From a technical perspective, vision and hearing impairments, for which redundancy will be the principal solution. The range of products with the features that we want will become more numerous. There will be more user-configured solutions. From a non-technical perspective, there is very little infrastructure for supporting and serving individuals with disabilities because they are not analyzed as a market sub-sector. |
| 3 | A long winded way of asking, "Why are we doing this?" The answer is that people with disabilities can use these things. |
| 4 | Number of people that products are accessible to. |
| 5 | Not defining it as a problem for people with disabilities, but a more general problem. The older population will be able to use information technology because it will fit more naturally with the real world. |
| 6 | Customers with disabilities will no longer be seen as fundamentally different from other customers. The line between disability and non-disability and older and younger is going to disappear. Products and physical environments and anything that's designed for people to use will be designed for all people to use. This is a change in attitude, and in marketing awareness. |
| 7 | Controls and operations of different devices will come out of the box more accessible. A lot of change in the innate accessibility of products. New product groups will think that accessibility is something that they have to deal with. |
| 8 | Designing corporate web sites using all text in an appropriate way. Using simplified English to help the page become more understandable to a person with cognitive disabilities. |
| 9 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 10 | The first to be solved will be vision, low vision, and color blindness, followed closely by auditory disabilities. Society needs to put much more money into research before they will be able to solve much else. |
| 11 | With software and other products, there are always updates and new releases. When Product A comes out, someone needs to work to adapt the product to make it accessible. Then, Product A, Revision 1 is released, and we have to do this all over again. Compliance with accessible design should mean that adaptations are not necessary every time a new product is released, but rather the accessibility features are built in to each product such that backward compatibility is also accounted for. |
| 12 | Functional limitations as a result of the aging process. |
| 13 | All web sites will be accessible to almost anybody. Government workplaces will be structured such that a person with almost any kind of disability could be hired without concern. |
| 14 | Decline in unemployment among people with disabilities. Reduced prejudicial beliefs about people with disabilities. |
| 15 | The biggest issue of today that those accessibility systems will have solved is usability. This includes the usability by people with disabilities (potential employment opportunities), and the provision for an infrastructure for addressing other accessibility concerns (language barriers, cultural and educational differences). |
| 16 | The most lasting and largest impact of Section 508 will be in accessible web sites and the ability to readily get government information. Any video produced for the government will be captioned and described. |
The following question was also asked to obtain information about the kinds of telecommunications devices and services that require accessible design:
| Question 8: Now let's talk about the information technology and telecommunications devices and services that will be most affected by accessible design. It seems that telephones and computers come to mind to almost everyone as examples of devices that will be affected by accessible design requirements. Web sites that offer documents for downloading are a good example of services that will be affected by these requirements, because they may have to offer alternative formats of some documents in order for them to be accessible by everyone. There are a lot more things that will be affected other than phones and computers and web sites. Please describe for me some specific IT or telecommunications devices and services that you think require accessible design. If you have any thoughts on how those devices or services should be redesigned, please share these as well. Your examples are not limited to things that already exist, but may include new things that will exist in the near future. |
There were two primary trends in suggestions regarding specific IT or telecom devices and services that require accessible design (other than telephones, computers, and web sites). The first trend in responses involved listing particular devices of interest. For example, several interviewees suggested that public transportation and public terminals and kiosks require the most immediate attention to accessibility. Computer networks, office and home appliances, portable devices, and voice interactive menus were also mentioned.
The second trend in responses involved a slightly different perspective. In their responses several other interviewees suggested that, in the near future, computers are going to be integrated into nearly everything that is experienced by an individual. These interviewees claimed that the accessible design of all products should be a subject of focus, and that computer systems embedded into larger products should be the target of accessible design.
Specifically, the most frequently mentioned systems that require accessible design were self-service terminals or kiosks (four respondents), telephone systems (four respondents), and personal digital assistants (four respondents). Three respondents commented that web site applications should comply with accessible design principles. Three respondents commented that groupware and network capabilities should be accessible. Finally, two respondents mentioned that the design of "smart" cards and other "smart" products should be accessible.
Table 9 contains a summary of respondents' answers to the question involving devices and services that will require accessible design.
Table 9: Response Summaries to Question 8.
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Self service terminals (ticket selling machines in railway stations, public transport). Smart cards. |
| 2 | Web sites, hardware products with LCDs (photo copiers). We need a task analysis to understand what technologies people are using now and will be using in 3-5 years. Group-ware, mobility terminals (Blackberry pager and other wireless technology), hosted applications. |
| 3 | Web accessibility. Protocols and techniques of the web are moving into usage in more and more things, such as phones, voting machines, kiosks, Microsoft Windows dialogues, and maybe in the future small appliances. Technology is becoming more integrated. |
| 4 | Computers, information appliances, PDAs…anything that has a human interface. Things that will exist…direct mental connections and neural implants. |
| 5 | We will see the arrival of accessible products in new areas. Network capabilities will be significantly extended. Voice interaction will become much more integrated into society as a whole. |
| 6 | Everything that is electrical is going to be governed by computer intelligence. These things will be more usable by people with disabilities by virtue of the fact that the same guidelines are being applied to them, and the same designers are designing them. |
| 7 | There's an increasing movement in the mass market from having us adapt to the computer to having the computer adapt to us. Portable device area needs a lot of consideration. For example, having a PDA with a built-in camera that could recognize text in the environment speaking to the user. Increasing network capabilities, which will replace, augment, or extend what have traditionally been very expensive local products. Subscription services might be able to reach a much larger audience than specialized hardware does. |
| 8 | Handheld internet appliances, kiosks, and ATMs. |
| 9 | Automobiles. Smart products (scanning bar codes to generate a shopping list, e.g.). Home system networks. |
| 10 | Has a systems and people view, not that of enabling technologies. There is tremendous opportunity in public and private transportation for accessible technology and accessible design. Computer systems are a subset of this. There is also tremendous opportunity in the living and environmental systems. |
| 11 | Computers and telephones will disappear, and a new environment will emerge in which these things will be embedded within our environment such that we won't need to explore a screen menu or use a mouse. We can compute while performing our everyday tasks without it being a distinct action. Technology will be much less intrusive. |
| 12 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 13 | Telephones with respect to translating, particularly for people with cognitive and learning disabilities. |
| 14 | General purpose computers, PDAs, handheld computers, telephones, cellular phones, pagers, web sites. The problem is that the distinction between consumer electronics and intelligent equipment is becoming quite blurred. We need a standard for interfacing with smart devices. We need to make sure that all data file formats contain enough information, and the right kind of information, so that the data file itself can be considered accessible, can be transformed in the way people with disabilities need, can be manipulated by tools in an automated fashion, and can be translated to accommodate different language needs. |
| 15 | Web-based applications. They can be made accessible through the W3C web content guidelines. Kiosk-based information technology machines. V2 could provide standards to help address these issues. Also, voting systems accessibility and integrated computer-based telephone systems. |
| 16 | Mobile wireless technology and PDAs. More and more alternate ways of accessing these devices will become necessary. |
4.5 Accessible Design Process
The following question was asked to obtain opinions regarding changes in the design of technology and products after Sections 255 and 508 take effect:
| Question 5: Will Section 255 and Section 508 really change the process by which technology and products are currently being designed? If so, what changes in the design process are you seeing? |
Most respondents felt the governmental regulations would have a positive and significant impact. The general consensus was that this legislation would lead to improvements in accessibility of telecommunications devices and products eventually, if not immediately, for individuals with disabilities. A few respondents, however, expressed doubt that these laws would have a substantial impact on the design process. For example, it was noted that accessibility problems are not relevant to a large portion of the population, and thus the general design process for most products will not change if governmental regulations are relevant to only a small subset of products.
Specifically, four respondents commented that companies are currently professionalizing human factors work more (or will be) by assigning responsibility for product accessibility to human factors experts and/or by incorporating inclusive design concepts into early stages of design. Two respondents indicated that they believed the design process would improve in the area of accessibility as the requirements for doing so became mandatory or increased. One respondent believed that initially a few groups would adopt the guidelines, and their application of them to their products would create competition in the market, thereby encouraging other groups to begin adopting the same guidelines. One respondent believed that Section 255 would not significantly impact design but that Section 508 would (e.g., increase in the amount of interaction between industry and the accessibility community).
In contrast, four respondents expressed concern or doubt that the laws would improve current designs. One respondent did not foresee any significant change and attributed this to the fact that a large part of the population does not care about accessible design because it is not relevant to them. Another respondent commented that legislation will increase the awareness of the problem but would not solve all aspects of the problem. Two respondents commented that there would be minimal change in the process (e.g., nominal attention will be given during the purchasing process).
The data indicate that training should emphasize awareness of accessibility issues, and how improving the accessibility of various products can improve the general usability of those products by many types of users.
Table 10 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked how the design process would be changed by Sections 255 and 508.
Table 10: Response Summaries to Question 5.
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | No, they improve the process. Companies appear interested in inclusive design, but still aren't incorporating the concepts early enough in the design process. Britain is starting to have industry forums. |
| 2 | The process by which products are being designed is changing. There is a professionalization of a sub-specialty of human factors work within companies, by which someone is assigned responsibility for product accessibility. Improvements will continue as long as someone's income depends on it. |
| 3 | Building accessibility into the entire development process. Increased emphasis on the importance of accessibility as part of usability and product offerings. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Not really. There are areas that don't need to be changed because they really are not directly related. A large population of the market doesn't care about accessible design. We need to become more proactive than reactive.. |
| 6 | Legislation by itself is not going to solve everything. It forces people to evaluate the issue and how it affects them. People will realize that, "Wow, we should have done this all along!" |
| 7 | It will change gradually. A few groups will adopt these guidelines, and use them as a competitive weapon, and eventually others will be forced to follow suit. The design process will change, as the requirements list changes to meet these regulations. |
| 8 | No, 255 and 508 are catalyst for change. They're catalyst for doing things that you have to do, and often doing the minimum that you have to do and maybe even less than that and trying to justify it through exceptions. I think that business drivers will change the process in which technology and products are currently being designed. |
| 9 | Attention to the needs of human factors specialists. A much broader diversity of individuals will be heard. |
| 10 | In a schizophrenic way, yes. The regulations are not going to spur innovation and creation, but will add a step to the development process. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 13 | There will be a nominal attention to the accessibility of a product during the purchasing process. |
| 14 | It will have a minimal change on the process. Organizations are taking the time to look at accessibility issues and address what they need to do about them. |
| 15 | Section 255 has not had, nor will it have a significant impact on how products are designed. Section 508 will. There will be an increase in the amount of interaction between industry and the accessibility community. Large companies will take the lead in developing accessibility inherent to their products. It will increase accessibility within a product. |
| 16 | Question not directly addressed. |
4.6 Future Influences of Accessible Design
The following question was asked to obtain opinions regarding non-governmental factors that could increase accessibility:
| Question 6: So far we have only discussed the impact of government regulations on accessible design, but surely product design can be influenced in other ways. For example, due to an aging population, increased awareness of disability could result in the addition of accessibility training to engineering and design curricula, which would influence the way products are designed in the future. Though training will be discussed in more detail later, what are some other factors that might serve to increase accessibility, independent of government regulations? |
There were a wide variety of factors offered by respondents. For example, accessibility could be increased via the influence of international competition for large purchasers; the emergence of usability as a competitive standard; demographic changes (i.e., an aging population); 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 also disability experienced either first-hand or indirectly by corporate leaders. Some interviewees believed that legislation is the only way to increase accessibility, while other interviewees felt that legislation would have no influence on accessibility.
Specifically, four respondents commented that personal experiences (or knowledge of others' experiences) by executives and decision makers should serve to increase awareness, stimulating the application of accessible design principles. Five respondents indicated that marketing and advertising would contribute to an increase in accessibility. Two respondents believed that the aging process would increase accessibility, generally. Two respondents suggested that the influence of technology itself, as experienced in daily living, would increase accessibility. One respondent commented that negative media attention and the promise of positive media attention would serve to increase accessibility.
One respondent indicated that accessibility would be increased if industry could be convinced that it is not necessarily more costly to make accessible products. Other respondents suggested accessibility could be increased via increased awareness, peer pressure in organizations, employment of individuals with disabilities, and adopting evaluation of accessibility during product reviews as a standard practice.
Table 11 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked about non-governmental factors that could increase accessibility.
Table 11: Response Summaries to Question 6.
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Influence on large purchasers. Trying to appeal to the better nature of industry. Convince industry that it won't cost more to make a redesigned, accessible product. Move away from short product life cycles. Someone needs to provide training. |
| 2 | Consumers will begin to demand more in the way of usability simply because of aging. Component manufacturers will become more sensitive to their capabilities, and begin to market their accessible technology. |
| 3 | The increased market potential, and the fact that it's the right thing to do. |
| 4 | Training and engineering. Books (Human Interface) and other means of getting information out to the public and into curricula. Marketing and advertising. |
| 5 | Influences of technology itself, and the technology of the network, and the technology of being able to embed devices in many different things. |
| 6 | The aging population. Many times it's a higher up in a company having a personal experience, which motivates a change in business philosophy. |
| 7 | I guess the only thing that I think will influence that is if some people make significant market success by incorporating it. Then, others will follow suit when they realize that it is a good business decision to make these accommodations in their designs. |
| 8 | The current marketing philosophy used by most major corporations, one-to-one marketing. Companies need to design with flexibility in mind, via accessibility. |
| 9 | The marketing force. |
| 10 | There might be some freak occurrences that might spawn something, like a CEO having an accident and developing a disability as a result. They would then champion from within their company to change the way things are done. Not much will happen unless there is some major backing in the federal sector. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | The pervasiveness of technology, and its general integration into day to day life. |
| 13 | Increased awareness. Increased use and understanding of usability. |
| 14 | Increased employment of people with disabilities in organizations which produce technology. The presence of executive and decision makers who have disabilities. Creating peer pressure with organizations. Evaluation of accessibility in product reviews, as a standard practice. An increasing amount of consumer demand. The threat of negative PR; the promise of positive PR. |
| 15 | The most important driving factor in any product design is sales. If all aspects of disability are considered, there is a significant business case for providing accessibility. There must also be compliance with international requirements. |
| 16 | Globalization. The aging of decision makers. CEO's becoming users of system technology. |
4.7 Objectives of Accessible Design
The following questions were asked to obtain information about important objectives or goals as they apply to information technology and telecommunications systems and services:
|
Question 7: As we continue work on charting the frontier of accessible design, we must have an idea of where we want to go.
a. What is the single most important technical objective (or goal) of accessible design as it applies to information technology or telecommunications systems and services? b. What is the single most important organizational objective (or goal) of accessible design as it applies to information technology or telecommunications systems and services? c. What are the other very important objectives or goals of accessible design as they apply to information technology or telecommunications systems and services? |
There was a great deal of diversity regarding the most important goals of accessible design. However, three common themes emerged. First, it was noted by most interviewees that the most important technical goals of accessible design are to provide individuals with multiple display and control options (both through design and the development of new technology), to produce an open source of technical guidelines and standards, and to recognize the promise of embedded technology. Notably, a technical goal of accessible design recognized by the interviewees was to serve as a catalyst for technical innovation, the development of products for which accessibility need not be considered, as the design is, to a large extent, all-inclusive.
Second, it was generally stated that the most important organizational goals of accessible design are to change the design process so that accessibility becomes a routine consideration occurring throughout the design process. A final theme around which the goals of accessible design appeared to cluster was primarily social in nature. That is, interviewees labeled increased compassion towards and inclusion of people with disabilities in mainstream society as critical social goals of accessible design. Many interviewees reported this social goal as more critical than the technical and organizational goals. Table 12 provides a summary of the important technical, organizational, and other objectives and goals as they apply to information technology or telecommunications systems and services.
Table 12. Summary of important objectives/goals of accessible design.
| Objective/Goal Type | Objective/Goal Description |
| Technical | Combining network and terminal features of technology; Full integration of speech technology/voice recognition; Minimize training and maximize usability of speech technology/voice recognition; Accessibility of products and services for people with disabilities, people who are illiterate, older adults, and other special groups; Technology should be built on accessibility foundation; Having open knowledge source and technology base that extends to multiple platforms; Flexibility to use multiple modes of input/output; Adaptation of technology to users; Development of an interface access protocol; Flexibility or personalization of technology; Development tools that allow easy automation of accessibility features |
| Organizational | Affordability; Cohesive legislation; Greater role of human factors; Accessibility becomes a part of the development process of an organization; Promote accessibility design/principles; Integration of people with disabilities into product/system test and evaluation process; Inter-company sharing that facilitates achieving accessibility; Focus on improving design for everyone, without focusing on disabilities; Sensitivity to, appreciation for, and valuing of human diversity; Holistic thinking with regard to multiple functions and applications, intercommunication across departments; Industry works to improve humanity in general; Adoption of design techniques usable throughout the IT industry; Mandates for accessible design come from higher levels of management but managed at all levels in a company |
| Other | Training; Provision of guidelines; Integration of accessibility into general usability; Making technology easy and simple to use; Apply accessible design principles toward universal design solutions; Mainstreaming people with disabilities; Equal opportunity and access; Society becomes more compassionate and recognizes that everybody can be potentially productive in society; Raising awareness of the human condition, whether someone has a disability or not; To expand the definition; Clearer accessibility standards and testing methodologies |
Specifically, regarding technical goals, four interviewees commented on the importance of developing technology that would be adaptive to the needs of different users, instead of requiring users to adapt to the technology (i.e., systems need to have more intelligence and be more easily personalized). Two interviewees also commented that the software should be capable of automatically adapting to the necessary requirements of the hardware and/or the developer's design. Full integration of speech recognition technology (both input and output) was recognized as being an important technical goal by two interviewees and general flexibility in the technology used (multiple modes possible, input and output) were commented as being important by two other interviewees. The other interviewees identified important technical goals such as having an open source of knowledge and technology base applicable to multiple platforms, developing an interface access protocol, and having equal access of technology for people with and without disabilities.
Regarding organizational goals, four respondents believed it was important to integrate accessibility into the standards and practices of a company, so that accessibility is an aspect of all products and services, managed at all company levels. Two respondents indicated that sharing among companies, or across departments within a company, could facilitate the achievement of accessibility. One respondent indicated design techniques that are well known in the IT industry (iterative design, modeling) should be adopted. Another respondent believed it was important to integrate people with disabilities into the testing/evaluation and design process. Another respondent reported engineering, marketing, and sales should focus on general access, without focusing specifically on disabilities.
Two respondents believed sensitivity to, appreciation for, and valuing of human diversity (e.g., getting away from addressing user groups of single functions or single applications) were important organizational goals. Two respondents believed that an important goal involved understanding that people with disabilities are just as capable of doing jobs as people without disabilities. Other organizational goals mentioned by respondents were affordability of accessible products and services, cohesive legislation, and human factors exerting a greater force in the design process.
Five respondents also reported they believed an important goal was the achievement of equal opportunity and access for all individuals in society, using interest in accessible design to lead to more universal design solutions. Two respondents suggested raising awareness about disabilities, and about the human condition in general, were important goals. Two respondents suggested normalizing the issue of accessibility by integrating it into general usability, and thereby mainstreaming people with disabilities. One respondent believed there should be training and a provision of relevant guidelines, while another reported accessibility should be made meaningful to human beings (making technology simple and easy to use). Finally, one respondent reported it was important to expand the definition of accessibility and have clearer accessibility standards and testing methodologies.
Table 13 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked about technical objectives/goals. Table 14 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked about organizational objectives/goals. Table 15 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked about other objectives/goals.
Table 13: Response Summaries to Question 7a (Technical Objectives/Goals).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Combining the framework for network and terminal aspects of technology. |
| 2 | Full integration of speech technology (input and output) in everything. |
| 3 | We can't expect all developers and companies and designers to understand what it means to be accessible. The most difficult technical problem is getting realistic descriptions of the right things to do and not to do in order to have accessible products. There need to be written standards that products have to meet to be usable by people with disabilities. |
| 4 | People should be able to use the equipment with as close to, or with at least equal, efficiency as people without disabilities. |
| 5 | Technology building blocks must have accessibility foundations built into them. The GUI should automatically generate the right attributes to interact with the necessary requirements of both the device and the developer's design. |
| 6 | To get voice recognition to the point where it will be 100 percent reliable with no training and for all people. To increase the availability of alternative control. |
| 7 | Having an open source body of knowledge and technology base that can extend to multiple platforms. |
| 8 | To design products that are accessible, usable, and useful to consumers who: are 65 and older, use ESL or EFL, are illiterate, and are low bandwidth friendly. |
| 9 | Flexibility to use any mode (visual, tactile, audible) or multiple modes for both input and output. |
| 10 | Catalyst for innovation. |
| 11 | Introducing the possibility of technology adapting itself to the needs of different users, rather than the users needing to adapt to the technology. Systems need to have more intelligence. |
| 12 | Nothing, really. We're already on the right path. |
| 13 | Semantics- information technology should be built around a semantic infrastructure so that content can be created in such a way that the computer understands it in ways they don't currently, and can manipulate it to suit the needs of the users. Also, interoperability - hardware and software devices need to conform to open standards. |
| 14 | To build development tools that make it as easy as possible to automate the inclusion of accessibility in product design. |
| 15 | Development of an interface access protocol. |
| 16 | Flexibility or personalization of the technology itself. |
Table 14: Response Summaries to Question 7b (Organizational Objectives/Goals)
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Affordability. Cohesive legislation. |
| 2 | Human factors has to be a greater force in making changes happen. |
| 3 | Building accessibility into the development process of the organization. |
| 4 | Make it known. |
| 5 | Economic consumer market dynamics will drive organizational change. |
| 6 | Soliciting and using and applying more input from people who do have disabilities, instead of trying to imagine what it's like to have a certain disability. Integrate people with disabilities into the evaluation and design process. |
| 7 | Sharing among companies to facilitate achieving accessibility. Understanding that people with disabilities are just as capable of doing jobs as anyone else. |
| 8 | Engineering, marketing, and sales focus on broad based access, and weaving this into the fabric of all processes, without focusing on disabilities. |
| 9 | Sensitivity to, appreciation for, and valuing of human diversity. |
| 10 | There won't be changes in the private sector. There won't be accommodation to specific individuals that need it. |
| 11 | Holistic thinking. Getting away from addressing user groups of single functions or single applications. Communication across departments. |
| 12 | Companies figuring out for themselves what their unique contribution is, and applying that to improving humanity in general. |
| 13 | To adopt design techniques that are well known in the IT industry (iterative design, modeling). |
| 14 | To integrate accessibility into their standards and practices, so that accessibility is not a built in feature, but is an aspect of everything they design. Organizations need to identify the accessibility problems, determine how to fix them, and ensure that they don't happen in the future. |
| 15 | Accessibility is almost always done on a project basis, rather than as an inherent component of design throughout an organization. |
| 16 | The mandate for doing accessible design has to come from on high, and it has to be managed through all levels of a company. |
Table 15: Response Summaries to Question 7c (Other Objectives/Goals).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Training. Provision of guidelines. |
| 2 | Normalizing the issue of accessibility so that it's an integrated part of general usability. Redundancy. |
| 3 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Make it meaningful to human beings. Technology needs to be simple and easy to use. |
| 6 | To use the interest in accessible design to point people toward more universal design solutions. |
| 7 | Mainstreaming people with disabilities. |
| 8 | There has to be mass benefit, not only people with disabilities. To achieve economies of scale, low cost, competitive advantage, high acceptance, and market leadership. |
| 9 | Equal opportunity. Equal access. |
| 10 | For society to be more compassionate, and recognize that everybody potentially has a productive role in society. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | Getting better at understanding the human condition. Raising awareness. |
| 13 | Every person should have equivalent access to participation in society. |
| 14 | This question was skipped because of a communication problem regarding the intent of the question. |
| 15 | To expand the definition of accessibility. It should be a design goal. There need to be clearer accessibility standards, and testing methodologies. |
| 16 | Empathy. Awareness- for people to see and experience how a person with a disability uses a technology. |
4.8 Training Issues
The following questions were asked to obtain opinions about the kinds of accessibility knowledge and skills that job candidates should have:
|
Question 9: Imagine that you are asked to consult on the development of a curriculum geared towards educating future management, design/engineering, human factors, marketing, sales, and technical assistance personnel in accessibility issues. The curriculum developers are interested in your input regarding the accessibility knowledge and skills that will be required by the work of these potential employees in accessibility in the next 3 to 5 years.
a. What accessibility knowledge and skills should be shared by all job candidates? b. What accessibility knowledge and skills should potential management candidates possess? c. What accessibility knowledge and skills should potential designer/engineering candidates possess? d. What accessibility knowledge and skills should potential human factors or usability engineering candidates possess? e. What accessibility knowledge and skills should potential marketing candidates possess? f. What accessibility knowledge and skills should potential sales position candidates possess? g. What accessibility knowledge and skills should potential technical assistance candidates possess? |
Interviewees had a number of different suggestions regarding the accessibility knowledge and skills they believed should be required for individuals interested in becoming viable job candidates for various positions in industry.
Table 16 provides a summary of the types of accessibility knowledge and skills important for future job candidates across the different types of positions.
Table 16: Summary of Required Accessibility Knowledge and Skills for Future Job Candidates
| Job Position | Required Knowledge and Skills |
| General | Knowledge of specific disabilities and assistive technology; Knowledge of where to get resources on accessibility issues; Knowledge of disability myths; Broad understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches; Understanding of why accessibility is important; Knowledge of factors that influence particular design implementations; Knowledge of current state-of-the-art scientific and medical knowledge as it relates to accessibility; Thorough knowledge of the demographics of the customer base |
| Management | Long-range thinking/planning; Knowledge of competitors' accessibility efforts; Understanding of where to draw the line between accessibility and accommodation; Recognition of the market possibilities of UD; International business background; Awareness of diverse populations |
| Designer/Engineer | Advantages and disadvantages of emerging technologies from an accessibility perspective; Ability to work closely with human factors personnel; Knowledge of the competition; Understanding of the uniqueness of specific disabilities; Understanding of AT and compatibility issues; Knowledge of the design implications of federal regulations in terms of the categories laid out in the regulations; Understanding of how science and knowledge drive innovation; Recognition that there are no quick fixes with regards to accessibility; Knowledge of where and how IT will affect individuals; Ability to be innovative and forward thinking, and not just focus on current solutions; More knowledge of human factors principles; Recognition that accessibility does not necessitate an ugly design |
| Human Factors/Usability Engineer | Knowledge of how to evaluate accessibility; Understanding of AT and compatibility issues; Uniqueness of specific disabilities; Ability to conduct accessibility evaluations with real people; Understanding of how science and knowledge drive innovation; Recognition that there are no quick fixes with regards to accessibility; Ability to grow the knowledge base as it applies to accessibility; Knowledge of how people have/want to access the interface; Understanding that accessible design is really user-centered design with a broader user population |
| Marketing | Knowledge of the federal regulations and terminology; Knowledge of product accessibility ins and outs; Knowledge of the sensitivities of the market sectors; Long-range view of/plan for accessibility issues; Recognition that innovation and usability are an important foundation; Ability to understand and communicate the solutions a product provides; Knowledge of how to encourage people to think about disability; Thorough knowledge of the demographics of the customer base |
| Sales | Knowledge of legal considerations of selling to the people with disabilities; Understanding of the market potential of accessibility/the relationship between accessibility and usability; Recognition that innovation and usability are an important foundation; Ability to understand and communicate the solutions a product provides; Ability to sell to diverse populations in a non-stigmatizing way |
| Technical Assistance | Knowledge of the different types of AT; Patience; Listening; Knowledge of guidelines specific to technology on which assistance is to be given; Recognition that people with disabilities have the same needs as anyone else |
Five people felt it was important to understand assistive technology, as it exists. This included ways that people are currently using assistive technology and what is presently achievable with assistive technology. Four of those interviewed felt that all job candidates should know about demographics and the diversity of all people. Three of those interviewed believed that all job candidates should have a solid awareness of disability including the fact that people with disabilities are employable and can be very successful
Table 17 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked what type of accessibility knowledge and skills should be shared by all future job candidates.
Table 17: Response Summaries to Question 9a (All Job Candidates).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Who makes up the community which would benefit from accessibility, what is disability, what are the different types of disability, what role do multiple disabilities play. Types of things that can be achieved, costs, and penalties associated with different approaches. Where to get information on how to design for accessibility. |
| 2 | What is disability? How do different disabilities affect people? What are some of the demographics? What are some worldwide issues? Demonstrations of assistive technology. |
| 3 | Practical guidelines for developers on what to do and what not to do. How people who have disabilities use technology. The why of what needs to be done. |
| 4 | Basic ergonomic and cognitive facts. Human reaction time, what foveal vision is, and how it changes with various eye diseases. How much pressure does a hand apply, and how does that change with age. How long people retain things in short term memory. Why modes on computers cause people to make errors. |
| 5 | Understanding the needs of the human being's interaction with information technology. |
| 6 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 7 | Disability awareness, knowledge of how large a fraction of the population has disabilities, the variety of disabilities, the fact that people with disabilities aren't fundamentally different from everyone else. |
| 8 | Cultural, political, economic, educational, technological and human demographics of target market. |
| 9 | Fundamental understanding that people vary widely. |
| 10 | Understand concepts in human system design. Understand current state-of-the-art knowledge in the whole area of accessibility, including scientific and medical knowledge. In the near future, there are going to be significant innovations and changes. |
| 11 | Anyone dealing with assistive technology needs to understand what the technology is, what is available, and how it can be used. |
| 12 | Understanding the human condition. |
| 13 | Awareness of the importance of accessibility, and what accessibility looks like. Training on the techniques of accessibility. |
| 14 | Understand and appreciate the value of diversity in our society. Understand and appreciate, at a high level, the variations of human processes and abilities. Understand that people with disabilities are employable. Understand that addressing accessibility issues has a short term positive impact on organizations, not just a long term social impact. |
| 15 | Understand that people with disabilities have difficulties with information technology. Know that a barrier exists, what some barriers are, and that there is a mechanism for dealing with these barriers. The ability to identify accessibility resources. |
| 16 | Understand how people use technologies in alternate ways. |
Five of the interviewees felt that management candidates needed a thorough understanding of the laws and regulations surrounding accessibility and disability issues with regard to the products and services provided by their companies. Two of those interviewed believed that management candidates needed an awareness of diverse populations and their purchasing power.
Table 18 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked what type of accessibility knowledge and skills should be shared by potential management job candidates.
Table 18: Response Summaries to Question 9b (Management Candidates)
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Knowledge of importance of how products impact people with impairments. Process guidelines. |
| 2 | Legal and regulatory issues. Specific implications for the kind of product their company makes. This is a cross-functional responsibility. Have ability to analyze their own products for accessibility as well as the advantages and disadvantages their competitor's products have. Need to be able to plan product portfolios to make efficient use of resources and continually improve accessibility. |
| 3 | Not specifically addressed. |
| 4 | Know about the existence of the needs, and make sure that the employees can implement the appropriate procedures to accomplish the task. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 7 | Understand that it is easy to design in accessibility features, and that universal design can make the product more usable, thus increasing market size. |
| 8 | Strong international business background with an understanding of the above, with the technical knowledge being the least important. |
| 9 | Awareness of diverse populations and of the buying power of these groups. An understanding of the need for broad-based marketing research, and usability studies. The need to market without stigmatizing. |
| 10 | Understand where to draw the line when making decisions between accessibility and accommodation. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 13 | What the technology is capable of, and how it changes or enhances the product. |
| 14 | An understanding of the legal and ethical requirements in dealing with employees with disabilities. Also understand the specific issues an employee with a disability encounters day to day. Understand where industry is going in terms of accessibility, and do appropriate long term planning. |
| 15 | They need to have a thorough understanding of the law and policies of the law, and knowledge of how to handle accommodation requests. They must also understand the business case of accessibility. |
| 16 | Understand the general nature of the access industry: the available resources, what competitors have done, what government regulations exist, and the history of the regulations. Be aware of examples of successful and unsuccessful technologies. |
Four respondents indicated it was important for designers and engineers to be knowledgeable about technical resources dealing with disability issues and accessibility issues. Three responses indicated a need for designers and engineers to have an understanding of disability. Two responses indicated that designers and engineers needed to know how to design products with multiple ways to input data and multiple ways to receive output.
Table 19 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked what type of accessibility knowledge and skills should be shared by potential designer/engineering job candidates.
Table 19: Response Summaries for Question 9c (Designer/Engineering Candidates)
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Introduction modules on disability, including an understanding of disability (through use of simulation suits, for example), and the extent to which people may be classified as having a disability (minor impairments provide great obstacles for some people). Train them to incorporate reconfigurable capabilities. |
| 2 | An understanding of the linkage between disabilities and solutions and between regulations and solutions. Understand what emerging technology is offering in the way of solutions. Understand the kind of component they will be using in the near future, and what the advantages and disadvantages are from an accessibility perspective. Understand competitor's products very well. They need to work more closely with the human factors and usability people. Understand system technology. |
| 3 | An understanding of what people with disabilities deal with in using information technology, and specifics related to the area being worked in, such as telecom, software, development, hardware, etc. |
| 4 | Accessibility knowledge and skills. |
| 5 | Understanding the environment where information is useful. |
| 6 | An understanding of demographics, how disabilities affect abilities, and what assistive technology is about. |
| 7 | Accessibility is not equivalent to ugly. People with disabilities really impact the UI design, and it is good to provide multiple ways of getting to different capabilities both on the input and on the output. |
| 8 | Exposure to the range of how persons with disability access IT and telecom and what their problems, wants, needs, and desires are. |
| 9 | An understanding of human factors principles and techniques, and an understanding of the different visibility groups that need to be accommodated. |
| 10 | Understand the state-of-the-art of the science and knowledge in detail. Understand what the processes are behind driving innovation. Quick fixes are no good. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 13 | What to do and not to do. |
| 14 | Understand what is important and valuable to people with disabilities, and appreciate the variability of humans. Understand the specifics of how to address those needs. |
| 15 | An understanding of the technical mechanisms and standards for implementing accessibility. Also, a good knowledge of the technical resources available for accessibility. |
| 16 | They need to understand alternate inputs and outputs, and how other people use technology aside from their own experience. They need to look at the underlying operating systems of devices as well as computers and understand the barriers and the access points for accessible technology. They also need to understand why some things in the underlying code present problems, and some don't. |
Four responses indicated that human factors and usability engineers need a better understanding of testing issues and of how to do usability testing on real people with a range of disabilities. Two of those interviewed felt that human factors and usability engineers needed to understand existing barriers that face the disability community and how to overcome them. Two of the responses addressed having a greater knowledge of the populations below 5th percentile and above 95th percentile.
Table 20 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked what type of accessibility knowledge and skills should be shared by potential human factors or usability engineering job candidates.
Table 20: Response Summaries for Question 9d (Human Factors/Usability Engineering Candidates)
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | What is needed, what can be achieved, what the mechanism is to achieve it, and how to evaluate. |
| 2 | Understand how to do testing for usability. Understand how accessibility is similar and how it's different, what its unique aspects are. Understand system technology and compatibility issues. |
| 3 | How usability and accessibility intertwine. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | An understanding of disability and aging, rather than simply an understanding of the average individual. |
| 7 | People with disabilities really impact the UI design, and it is good to provide multiple ways of getting to different capabilities both on the input and on the output. |
| 8 | How accessibility is affected by cultural, political, economic, educational, technological and human demographics of target market. An understanding of how people want to use or have to use human computer interfaces. Understand that different types of disabilities require different access methods. |
| 9 | Greater knowledge of the populations at the limits of their ranges, beyond the 5th to 95th percentile. |
| 10 | Understand the state-of-the-art of the science and knowledge in detail. Understand what the processes are behind driving innovation. Quick fixes are no good. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 13 | What to do and not to do. |
| 14 | An understanding of the range of users, how to interact with them, and how they interact with the types of products that the organization produces. How to recruit test candidates who have disabilities, and how to set up the situation in the lab for usability testing. |
| 15 | They need to be specialists in what the barriers are and how they are overcome. They need to be able to effectively communicate the technical needs necessary to accommodate the human component. |
| 16 | They need to understand how their designs have presented barriers, and how they have intentionally or inadvertently successfully created accessible technology. |
Four responses indicated that marketing candidates needed a greater knowledge of demographics to understand market segments that included older people and people with disabilities. Three responses indicated that marketing candidates needed a greater sensitivity to issues of disability. Two responses indicated that these candidates needed a heightened awareness of the revenue potential of the disability community.
Table 21 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked what type of accessibility knowledge and skills should be shared by potential marketing job candidates.
Table 21: Response Summaries for Question 9e (Marketing Candidates)
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | We don't know the answer. They are the most impenetrable. |
| 2 | Regulations, marketing communications, terminology to use and avoid. Have a long range view of the issues so they can plan. Need to know how to specify accessibility features so that engineering can implement them. Need to master the special sensitivities of the different markets. |
| 3 | Legal considerations, how usability and accessibility intertwine. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | Market segments are changing as people age and live with disability (demographics). |
| 7 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 8 | How accessibility is affected by cultural, political, economic, educational, technological and human demographics of target market. Understand the business benefits of 1:1 marketing, as well as differences in learning styles, preferences, skill levels, and experience. |
| 9 | Know how to gather data from diverse populations, how to do usability testing with diverse populations, and how to sell to diverse populations without stigmatizing the product. |
| 10 | They need to market and sell based on innovation and usability, not accessibility. Accessibility within commercial industry is only addressed because it's the law. Need to learn to address the business models that your products are solving, and how much money you can make, and how much better off the customer will be. |
| 11 | The products being marketed are different from normal products. They are marketing something which has to do with the consumer's perception of him or herself and his or her interaction with the outside world. |
| 12 | Incremental revenue. |
| 13 | What the needs of people with specific disabilities are and how the features of their products can help. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | An understanding of the demographics of accessibility, and the potential market value of providing accessibility. They also need to have sensitivity to people with disabilities. |
| 16 | Sensitivity to reality versus hype. They need to understand how their technologies work and fail, and they need to be shown that by consumers. |
Five responses indicated that sales candidates need to have a high level of understanding of the accessibility features of their products. They also need to know how to discuss the accessibility features. Four of those interviewed felt that sales candidates need a thorough knowledge of the market they will be working with. Three responses suggested that sales candidates should be familiar with the legal considerations of accessibility.
Table 22 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked what type of accessibility knowledge and skills should be shared by potential sales job candidates.
Table 22: Response Summaries for Question 9f (Sales Candidates)
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | We don't know the answer. They are the most impenetrable. |
| 2 | Regulations and how to make the opposite numbers job easier. |
| 3 | Legal considerations, market potential for people with disabilities |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 7 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 8 | Be familiar with the features, functions, and benefits as they apply to the people they're selling their products to. |
| 9 | Recognizing the needs of diverse populations, and selling products in a non-stigmatizing way. |
| 10 | They need to market and sell based on innovation and usability, not accessibility. Accessibility within commercial industry is only addressed because it's the law. Need to learn to address the business models that your products are solving, and how much money you can make, and how much better off the customer will be. |
| 11 | In this field, it may not be possible to follow the classical strategy for selling things. |
| 12 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 13 | Need to know their audience. A high level of understanding of what the accessibility features of a product are. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | An ability to communicate the accessibility of their products. They need to understand the accessibility features. |
| 16 | Sensitivity to reality versus hype. They need to understand how their technologies work and fail, and they need to be shown that by consumers. |
Five responses indicated that technical assistance candidates needed a high level of respect and patience for the people they will be serving. Four responses suggested that technical assistance candidates must be intimately familiar with the product, the accessibility features of the product, and the combination of ways the product and features can be used. Additionally, technical assistance candidates must have a thorough knowledge of accessible technology including where to find it, how to use it, and how to find out about it.
Table 23 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked what type of accessibility knowledge and skills should be shared by potential technical assistance job candidates.
Table 23: Response Summaries for Question 9g (Technical Assistance Candidates)
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Specific guidelines. |
| 2 | Know how to communicate with people with disabilities. How to identify accessibility features in their products. They need to know when they don't know enough. They need to address disability issues without knowing or needing to know whether the customer has a disability. |
| 3 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 4 | Hands on experience. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 7 | People with disabilities are not less intelligent. These are users whose needs are ninety percent the same needs as every other user of that product, and the accessibility needs tend to be a lot less of the focus then just the basic sets, and so they should be ready to answer questions as they would with anyone. |
| 8 | Patience, ability to listen. |
| 9 | They have to be educated to respect everyone on the other end of the line, and do everything they can help anybody no matter what they're difficulty is. Secondly, they've got to know a lot about the various ways the products can be used. If the product is actually accessible or universally useable, the technical assistance people have to know about those features, and why they work the way they do, and how they can be used and the different ways in which they can be used. And if it is compatible with other devices, they need to know what those are. If there are Braille overlays available, for example, they need to know what they are; they need to know where to get them; they need to know where to send people; they need to be able to actually help someone who calls on the phone and says "I need an overlay" or something rather than sending them back and forth. |
| 10 | Not sure. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 13 | A high level of understanding of what the accessibility features of a product are. Also, understanding enough to ask meaningful questions. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | An understanding of the barriers that people experience. Also, an understanding of the specific assistive technologies used by their organization. |
| 16 | Question not directly addressed. |
4.9 Barriers to Accessible Design
The following questions were asked regarding barriers that must be overcome to develop devices and services that comply with the principles of accessible design:
|
Question 10: Now I want you to think about the barriers that must be overcome in order to actually develop the devices and services that comply with principles of accessible design. These barriers could be technological - that is, there may need to be developments in areas like speech recognition or eye tracking in order to achieve the requirements of accessible design. Barriers could also be organizational, financial, or even legal.
a. What are the top design barriers to achieving the goals of accessible design? b. What are the top organizational barriers to achieving the goals of accessible design? c. What are the top informational barriers to achieving the goals of accessible design? d. What are the top financial barriers to achieving the goals of accessible design? e. What are the top legal barriers to achieving the goals of accessible design? f. Perhaps you might even want to relate specific experiences where a barrier was encountered. If so, please describe the barrier(s) and how you dealt with them. |
Interviewees acknowledged a number of barriers to accessible design, falling along the categories described in Table 24. There was some disagreement among interviewee responses as to what the key barriers to accessible design were.
Table 24: Summary of Responses Regarding Barriers to Accessibility
| Barrier Type | Description |
| Design | 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; Perception that accessibility interferes with design integrity |
| Organizational | 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 don't understand the need for accessible design; Corporate leadership 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; Viewing people with disabilities as not having the same wants and needs as people without disabilities |
| Informational | Accessibility features 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 not easy or apparent; Lack of understanding of what can create demand-pull rather than supply-push; Lack of education and creative thinking in accessible design; Consumers are not educated about their rights; Designers/Engineers are not familiar with HF/usability principles |
| Financial | Cost of new technology; Financial provision from government is not adequate; The target market for accessible design is not well understood and identified; Funding for critical research is not forthcoming; Business case for accessibility is weak; There are distribution barriers (i.e., it's hard to reach people with disabilities); Expense in changing the way business is currently being done is crippling; Cost associated with implementing accessibility |
| Legal | 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; Legislation specifies "accessible" but not universal design |
Design Barriers
Five responses agreed that the top design barrier to achieving accessible design is a lack of research, understanding, information and knowledge. Designers often don't know that they don't know. All other responses were different and varied ranging from one response that there are no design barriers to another that indicated there are always design barriers.
Table 25 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked about design barriers associated with achieving the goals of accessible design.
Table 25: Response Summaries for Question 10a (Design Barriers)
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Global differences between markets and companies. |
| 2 | Data communication and wireless standards. Overloading the user with choices in the interest of giving the user ways of customizing the use of the product. Accessibility features are typically either new options or extended versions of existing options, adding complication to the user interface. |
| 3 | Lack of understanding that there's a problem. Lack of information about what can be done. Lack of realistic standards and guidelines for developers to follow. Lack of understanding that there are benefits of making things accessible. Having realistic things that developers must do to make their products accessible. |
| 4 | Indifference, ignorance, stupidity. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | Those not at the economic and technological cutting edge are at risk of being designed out. Designers need to account for backward compatibility. |
| 7 | Vague requirements relating to developmental disabilities. |
| 8 | There are few design barriers. They are mostly barriers of a lack of education, and lack of understanding the market. Mental barriers. |
| 9 | Lack of expertise in designing accessible products. A conflict between what is technologically possible, and what is needed by users. Sacrificing usability for cool technology. |
| 10 | Lack of knowledge and research. Scientifically grounded research. |
| 11 | The ability to design a user interface which is good for all people. |
| 12 | No barriers because it's easy to make products accessible. We're not really good at usability, and at understanding the human condition. |
| 13 | Designers aren't necessarily thinking accessibility, thus unwittingly creating inaccessible designs. The belief that creating accessible design interferes with the integrity (artistic vision) of a design. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | Lack of interoperability of assistive technology and information technology. |
| 16 | People not having a single point of entry and a single mode of operation. |
Organizational Barriers
Four of those interviewed believed that executive awareness, acceptance and support are the biggest organizational barriers facing accessible design. If the concept is supported at the top of the organization, that support will trickle down and have bearing on the rest of the company. Two responses indicated that a more structured design process that puts accessibility at the forefront rather than as an extra element to be considered later is the largest organizational barrier to achieving accessible design.
Table 26 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked about organizational barriers associated with achieving the goals of accessible design.
Table 26: Response Summaries for Question 10b (Organizational Barriers).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Developing the culture within a company to embrace the philosophy surrounding accessibility. |
| 2 | Poor communication within an organization. Lack of organizational leadership, very low technical skills on the part of people making authoritative decisions in government and companies. The people with the technical skills don't have the power to get things done. When companies merge or there are different divisions, the individual groups do not have the same goals or accessibility to information. |
| 3 | Executive awareness and executive acceptance of accessibility. |
| 4 | Lack of belief that it will affect the bottom line in a positive way. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 7 | Understanding that people with disabilities are just as capable of doing jobs as anyone else. The distribution channel for reaching consumers with disabilities. |
| 8 | Viewing people with disabilities as having different wants, needs, and desires from everyone else. |
| 9 | Companies don't have a way to evaluate their own products to determine whether they comply. Lack of compliance tools. Need to be much more consumer sensitive. Lack of communication between departments. |
| 10 | Organizations do not understand someone, for example, who cannot distinguish colors on a display. They can only understand things they can see, like someone who cannot walk. Organizations are so fast-paced, so accessibility is going to take a back seat if it even gets considered. |
| 11 | Companies being willing to work together to discuss an approach to new applications, services, and equipment which are inherently accessible to everyone. |
| 12 | None because companies can make a good case for why they would want to make their products more accessible, or to market them more to people with disabilities. |
| 13 | Awareness. Lack of emphasis of importance of accessibility. Lack of structured design processes. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | People with disabilities as a unit are difficult to justify from a business standpoint. However, the number of people with some sort of limitation (language, technology access, etc.) is actually incredibly large, and can generate the critical mass necessary to justify a significant business case for creating accessible products. Industry still perceives, however, that the numbers don't represent potential customers. Utilization of a project based or ad hoc accessibility approach. |
| 16 | Getting over the notion that it is a government mandate, and recognizing that consumer demand is a driving force. They need to look at accessibility as a design and marketplace challenge. |
Informational Barriers
Three responses indicated that there is a need for information, standards and guidelines to be readily available. This lack of information is the largest information barrier to accessible design. Two responses indicated a need for training, education, and understanding of disabilities and accessibility. Two responses indicated that there is a lack of information and understanding about the size of the accessibility market.
Table 27 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked about informational barriers associated with achieving the goals of accessible design.
Table 27: Response Summaries for Question 10c (Informational Barriers).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Lack of appropriate information. Lack of education, particularly regarding intellectual impairment, dyslexia, and other disabilities that are less easy to measure. |
| 2 | Consumers underestimate the accessibility of products. Consumers are pessimistic. Engineers don't know what accessibility features could be added at little or no cost; they don't know what accessibility features are in their line of products. Marketing people don't know the size of the market that would benefit from a particular accessibility feature. Teachers don't know how to turn on accessibility features. |
| 3 | Lack of understanding that there's a problem. Lack of information about what can be done. Lack of realistic standards and guidelines for developers to follow. Lack of understanding that there are benefits of making things accessible. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Having to learn certain techniques, skills, and jargon to use some products |
| 6 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 7 | Companies not being aware of the extent of disabilities, that they go beyond being deaf or blind. There are a number of developmental disabilities that tend to go unnoticed. Marketing products to the disability community, particularly to those who are not part of larger organizations who may be more informed about the availability of products. |
| 8 | Lack of demand-pull. Lack of understanding of the business reasons. Lack of course to teach these. |
| 9 | The management of the company needs to understand the number of people they are excluding. The designers need to understand the human factors involved as well as the limitations of potential user's abilities. The management of the company also needs to know their responsibilities under these two laws for making things accessible. Consumers need to be educated about their rights and what they are entitled to, how they can go about complaining, what the possible remedies are. |
| 10 | Medical, perceptual, learning, and behavioral information. |
| 11 | Convincing the social environment that people with disabilities are not different people who have to be put somewhere and assisted. They have different ways of performing some function, but they are equal members of society. |
| 12 | Having all the information readily available and at hand to answer any possible questions, some of which you may never have imagined. |
| 13 | Awareness. Understanding of how to create something that is accessible. Lack of knowledge that standards exist, and how to support them. |
| 14 | Ran out of time. To be rescheduled. |
| 15 | Academia is resistant to include accessibility in its mainstream curricula. Knowledge of IT accessibility. |
| 16 | People doing things the way they've always been done without thinking about new ways to solve these problems. Companies have too much information, and don't know what to believe. |
Financial Barriers
Four responses felt that the business case for accessibility is still weak and there is no obvious return on the bottom line. Three of those interviewed felt that it is expensive to change the way companies are currently doing business and that is the largest financial barrier to accessible design. Two of those interviewed felt that if accessibility is added early in the product design cycle then the cost is nominal.
Table 28 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked about financial barriers associated with achieving the goals of accessible design.
Table 28: Response Summaries for Question 10d (Financial Barriers).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Determining who is responsible for paying for the device or service. |
| 2 | Cost. For example, there is speech technology that can do everything you want, but can you put it into a $20 appliance? Accessibility adds uncertainty, which concerns companies financially. Difficulty in quantifying cost. Cost/benefit analysis for the cost of assistive technology versus the usage of it. |
| 3 | None |
| 4 | Lack of belief that it will affect the bottom line in a positive way. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 7 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 8 | Thinking small market rather than mass market. |
| 9 | Expense involved in changing the way business is done now…changing the technologies that are used, getting up to speed with new technologies, retooling, building new molds, etc. |
| 10 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | The business case not being well fleshed out. |
| 13 | There is a cost to implementing accessibility. Lack of visible return on investment during the design phase. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | Projects are under-funded. |
| 16 | No. |
Legal Barriers
Four of those interviewed believed there are no legal barriers to accessible design. Two responses indicated that the biggest legal barrier to accessible design is that the laws have yet to be tested through litigation and this could take a while to happen.
Table 29 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked about legal barriers associated with achieving the goals of accessible design.
Table 29: Response Summaries for Question 10e (Legal Barriers).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Lack of appropriate legislation. |
| 2 | Confusion, under-enforcement, over-enforcement. Regulations are poorly drafted and poorly defined, but unwillingness to refine them. |
| 3 | None |
| 4 | The law has yet to be tested. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | When we pass a law, we kind of defacto put those two groups on opposite sides of the legal fence and while there are benefits to passing that legislation, there are drawbacks, too; you don't want to make them adversaries, but it's something that can still happen. |
| 7 | Exploring what regulations really mean through litigation is a time consuming process. |
| 8 | I don't know. |
| 9 | Companies may be afraid to take a risk. Sometimes the legislation requires something that is accessible, but not universal, creating a conflict in benefiting one group of people while hindering another. |
| 10 | Companies will contest some of the warranties that the federal agencies are going to form. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | None. |
| 13 | A company thinking it is easier to not design something than to deal with the legalities. Organizations are concerned about a lawsuit stemming from their claim of having an accessible product. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | Companies will plan compliance with Section 508, and fight vigorously to prevent any kind of testing methodology for conformance of 508 so that they can't be challenged on a procurement basis to provide documentation as to how they meet the requirements. Section 508 is only a procurement law. If it allowed for saying "this product is more accessible than that product," then it would create a competitive advantage for providing accessible products. People don't understand civil rights legislation. There is almost no disability law in the average JD program. |
| 16 | Companies don't have legal barriers. Understanding the regulations and where they came from is a challenge. |
Barriers Experienced by the Interviewees
Two responses indicated that there is inadequate communication between the involved communities - government, industry and the disability community.
Table 30 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked about specific barriers associated with achieving the goals of accessible design that may have been experienced.
Table 30: Response Summaries for Question 10f (Specific Barriers).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 2 | In school systems, the cost of an adaptive workstation for one student which costs $6000, compared to the $2000 workstations for all other students. Resentment from the higher ups that the school could have two additional workstations if not for the needs of one student. Lack of centralization of knowledge within companies. For example, there may be multiple groups working on accessibility, but the people don't know each other, or what the others are working on (distributed product development process). |
| 3 | There was a part of a company that I was trying to alert to the problems that they had with the product, and the problems were very serious and they were affecting all of their employees who were blind or had low vision and I got absolutely no response. I just couldn't get them to listen, and ended up getting angry and ended up being told I shouldn't work with them anymore because I got too angry. But eventually, that part of the company, with proper executive mandates from the top turned around and is doing the right thing. That's a case where trying to work from the inside is difficult without the support of the management. |
| 4 | Example… a product that I designed in the late 80s for a Japanese company that has a whole division for working with people who have disabilities. I designed something for their typewriting division but I had also designed it such that people who were totally blind could use it without any changes from the version used by sighted people. And I went to the VA Administrations Hospital in Palo Alto and we tested it on a number of, on a whole room full of, blind people. And sure enough, they could use it just fine. It was the exact same product used by sighted and by blind people. I said, good. Now, let's see if we can do this. So I went to the company and said why doesn't your other division start using this product also? And the answer I got back was "we design our own products in our division we don't use products from other divisions." That was really upsetting. You want to help people with disabilities, here's a product that the company is already making that works just fine and they said, no, we're not interested; we only develop our own products. We don't take products from other divisions. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 7 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 8 | No specific examples, though inadequate communication between the communities is a definite barrier. |
| 9 | In designing a scooter, wanted large horn buttons, but only small buttons were readily available, making the cost of the desired component too high. Components that we need to assemble something economically may not exist. |
| 10 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 13 | Designers who don't understand accessibility. Identifying all the problems to do a retrofit, and determining how to prioritize them. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | I went through a lot of process and pain to create an accessibility architecture, and then as budget cuts came, the group I lead was dropped. |
| 16 | Question not directly addressed. |
4.10 Coordination with Stakeholders
The following questions were asked regarding inadequate communication between the government, industry, and disability communities:
|
Question 11: One of the apparent barriers to achieving the goals of accessible design is inadequate communication between (lack of a common language shared by) the government, industry, and disability communities.
a. What does the disability community need to understand about industry? b. What does the disability community need to understand about government? c. What does the government need to understand about industry? d. What does the government need to understand about the disability community? e. What does the industry need to understand about the disability community? f. What does industry need to understand about government? g. If you were in charge of mediating a discussion of accessibility between industry, government and the disabled community what would be the main topics that you would like to discuss? |
There was a surprising amount of agreement regarding the type of communication that is needed among the stakeholders regarding the needs and constraints of each group. Table 31 provides information about stakeholders and their needs and constraints.
Table 31: Summary of Needs and Constraints of Project Stakeholders
| Project Stakeholder | Needs and Constraints |
| Industry | Speed of technological development; Reality of a global economy; Goal is to generate revenue; Technology and technological solutions are not well understood outside industry; Industry cannot afford the necessary R&D to achieve the goals of accessible design; Product life cycles are very short; Market size of disability community is consistently overestimated by accessibility advocates; Industry talks in terms of business cases; Competitive advantage can't be regulated; There are financial implications of change; Big changes are time consuming; Lack of awareness is not the same thing as resistance |
| Disability Community | Regulation geared towards accessibility may affect people with disabilities in unexpected ways; Many people with disabilities are frustrated and feeling helpless; People with disabilities are individuals and would like to be treated as such; Disability advocates typically have axes to grind that may not represent the typical needs of a person with disabilities; There are different factions represented by disability advocates that may have a limited understanding of each other and the issues; Disability community has a great deal of political clout; People with disabilities are potential customers, not adversaries and crazed litigants; Government stereotypes of people with disabilities because of particular advocates are not representative of the typical person with a disability; Disability community does not speak with one voice |
| Government | Regulatory framework of telecommunications; The federal government plays a critical role in the international market which can have an effect on the design of international products and have a potentially long-term influence; Government is a big lumbering animal and not a logical institution; The government is trying to represent the people and is attributed too much selfish motivation |
When discussing the most desired topics of conversation in a mediated discussion between government, industry, and the disability community, interviewees generally listed the following:
- Development of shared definitions for the terminology used in federal regulations
- Development of a level playing field among project stakeholders
- The development process for new systems and how regulation/legislation will influence this process
- The critical role of making disability information available
- End-to-end communication
- Where we are in the current state of knowledge of people's abilities, future trends in demographics
- Shift from emphasis on designing for disability to technological innovation
- The actual (rather than exaggerated) height of technical barriers to accessible design
- The impact of design on behavior
- Uncover the objectives of each stakeholder and identify the similarities among them
- A list of business benefits of accessible design and the global competitive advantage of such design
- Identify what is currently technically possible and how to take advantage of current technical prowess
Table 32 contains a summary of respondents' answers involving what the disability community needs to understand about industry.
Table 32: Response Summaries for Question 11a (What Disability Community Needs to Understand About Industry).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Understanding of how the real world works, and the speed at which technology is developed. |
| 2 | Industry is clunky and inefficient. |
| 3 | The disability community understands industry. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | What product life cycles are about, what world competition means. |
| 7 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 8 | Industry does not have an excess of discretionary income with which to develop accessible products. Industry needs a business reason to design accessibility, and the market is just not that large. |
| 9 | The financial effects of change. Needing to be patient as companies making change. |
| 10 | How technology solutions are designed, and the process it goes through. Industry exists to make money. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | That this is about business, not human rights. The language of industry. |
| 13 | The difficulty of incorporating accessibility later in the design process. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | Industry, despite their ability to move very quickly to react to market forces, has an inherent knowledge deficit of accessibility. Accessibility is a whole set of requirements that none of these people who are doing the work have ever been taught. Accessibility is a broad design requirement which requires a certain amount of ramp up time to do right; it is a process. |
| 16 | Question not directly addressed. |
There was not a consensus opinion among those interviewed with regards to what the disability community needs to understand about 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.
Table 33 contains a summary of respondents' answers involving what the disability community needs to understand about government.
Table 33: Response Summaries for Question 11b (What Disability Community Needs to Understand About Government).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | The telecommunications regulatory framework. Realization that often those writing regulations are not familiar with the issues. |
| 2 | Federal agencies as purchasers are no more motivated to make 508 succeed than the companies are because it's a pain in the neck for them to have to develop yet another set of policies. The government is a "very sick old friend:" Regulators are very different from agency heads, and there are many conflicting motivations. Government is very hierarchical. Government is clunky and inefficient. |
| 3 | The disability community understands the government. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | The disability community understands the government. |
| 7 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 8 | I don't know. |
| 9 | It's a big lumbering animal, but not a logical institution. Many different processes have an effect on government legislation. |
| 10 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | The difference between Democrat and Republican policy. |
| 13 | Government laws are not going to be as strong as we would like them to be, because the government needs to be not too heavy handed. Government needs to be in a middle ground area between the different interest parties. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | They need to understand what Section 508 is and isn't. It's a procurement law, not a civil rights law. The government has limited resources. |
| 16 | Question not directly addressed. |
Three responses indicated that government needs to better understand that industry works on competition, and right now, there is not a competitive advantage to providing accessibility from industry's perspective. Two responses indicated that government understands industry very well.
Table 34 contains a summary of respondents' answers involving what the government needs to understand about industry.
Table 34: Response Summaries for Question 11c (What Government Needs to Understand About Industry).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Industry must make money. |
| 2 | How products come to be, how political inside of companies are, how many priorities companies have to balance. They need to understand how to partner with industry and that they themselves are customers and should be respected by industry, and that as customers they have more rights with the company than they would as advocates. Speed and competitiveness are important drivers. |
| 3 | Question not directly addresed. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | Government understands industry. |
| 7 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 8 | Industry needs to be left to their creative talents. Government cannot legislate how to go about making products accessible. |
| 9 | The financial effects of change. Needing to be patient as companies making change. |
| 10 | The government understands industry pretty well. Government can't expect industry to pay for all R&D related to understanding what the opportunities are in the technology development areas. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | The product development process. |
| 13 | The difficulty of incorporating accessibility later in the design process. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | Industry isn't ready for Section 508. Industry does not work well without competitive advantage. They need an economic benefit. |
| 16 | Question not directly addressed. |
Three responses indicated that the government needs to understand that the disability community is frustrated with the slow pace of change. They've been asking for change for a long time.
Table 35 contains a summary of respondents' answers involving what the government needs to understand about the disability community.
Table 35: Response Summaries for Question 11d (What Government Needs to Understand About Disability Community).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | The effects that regulations will have on the disability community. |
| 2 | How advocacy works. It's impossible to stand up in public against the disability community. There is a big difference between advocacy groups and their supposed constituencies. |
| 3 | An understanding of what the problem really is. Preferably some hands on understanding. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | An understanding of the disability community as customers, not potential litigates or adversaries. |
| 7 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 8 | Individuals in the disability community are no different than anyone else. |
| 9 | The types of things the disability community takes for granted. The disability community is a complex animal, and does not speak with one voice. Many in the disability community are not organized, and do not even characterize themselves as having a disability (e.g., the elderly). |
| 10 | Where to draw the lines between what is a political desire versus something that is really needed. |
| 11 | They are equal members of society who need a different means for functioning within society. |
| 12 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 13 | How strong the need for accessibility is for people who work within a disability organization. The daily impact inaccessible design creates on a person's life. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | The disability community has been talking about these issues for years and has gotten very little response. The disability community is looking to the Federal government to exercise it's buying power to improve the accessibility of components and provide accessible services. |
| 16 | Question not directly addressed. |
Three responses indicated that industry needs to realize the political, social and financial clout that the disability community has attained. Two responses indicated a need for industry to recognize the sense of urgency the disability community has with regards to issues of accessibility and where this urgency comes from.
Table 36 contains a summary of respondents' answers involving what industry needs to understand about the disability community.
Table 36: Response Summaries for Question 11e (What Industry Needs to Understand About Disability Community).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | How to talk to a person with a disability. That some organizations represent themselves more than the people with disabilities that they claim to represent. |
| 2 | How advocacy works. It's impossible to stand up in public against the disability community. There is a big difference between advocacy groups and their supposed constituencies. |
| 3 | An understanding of what the problem really is. Preferably some hands on understanding. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 7 | That disabilities are much greater than the extremes (blindness, deafness) that we tend to focus on. There are low-level vision difficulties, motor problems, numerous issues associated with aging, and many developmental disabilities that need to be accounted for. |
| 8 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 9 | The types of things the disability community takes for granted. The primary thing that people with disabilities are asking for is equal opportunity, equal chance, equal access. |
| 10 | An understanding of the social and financial clout the disability community has. The disability community is very well politically organized. |
| 11 | They are equal members of society who need a different means for functioning within society. |
| 12 | A better understanding of the rehabilitation process. Most people with disabilities were not born with them. |
| 13 | How strong the need for accessibility is for people who work within a disability organization. The daily impact inaccessible design creates on a person's life. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | The disability community is fed up with information technology taking steps backward in providing accessibility, and they require good feedback about where the process is. Disability groups are very willing to help if asked. |
| 16 | Question not directly addressed. |
Three responses indicated that industry needs to realize that the government is serving the public and looking out for the interests of the public.
Table 37 contains a summary of respondents' answers involving what industry needs to understand about government.
Table 37: Response Summaries for Question 11f (What Industry Needs to Understand About Government).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | Government does not want to constrain technology, but make sure it is reasonably possible, is built in wherever possible, and is as affordable as possible. |
| 2 | The government really is about serving the public. Government is not there to micro-manage everything. |
| 3 | Industry understands the government. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 7 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 8 | I don't know. |
| 9 | Government's primary role is to represent the people. |
| 10 | The role the federal government plays in the international arena. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | The non-customer-oriented responsibilities of government. |
| 13 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | Government procurement officials need ways of measuring accessibility. |
| 16 | Question not directly addressed. |
Opinions varied greatly but two responses agreed that a system needs to be developed that will help government purchasing agents evaluate accessibility and product compliance with Section 508.
Table 38 contains a summary of respondents' answers involving what main topics they would like discussed if mediating a discussion of accessibility between industry, the disability community, and government.
Table 38: Response Summaries for Question 11g (Main Topics of Discussion).
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | The end-to-end communication which is required by the consumer rather than separating the network and the terminal. The development process for new systems and services, how to incorporate in the process the considerations and needs of people with disabilities, and how the regulatory framework can help. |
| 2 | Hypocrisy. They should all be more humble and more empowered. Terminology. |
| 3 | I would reject the offer to mediate that discussion. Doesn't believe it's really an issue. There is already a lot of communication among industry, government, and the disabilities community. |
| 4 | Not qualified to answer. |
| 5 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 6 | The impact of design on behavior. |
| 7 | I'd like to present industry with the three to five things that they really need to focus on. And to express that meeting these regulations is really not that hard. |
| 8 | I would want to know everybody's objective, and then I would want to see where there are similarities, and then discuss business reasons or business ways to achieve that objective to everybody's benefit. When we work with the government and industry and people with disabilities, we focus on something of interest to the government on an international level, something that would help the disability community, and something that poses business potential to industry. And that has always seemed to work real well, rather than needing to discuss issues and concerns and ask for everybody's opinion on how to solve a problem. |
| 9 | Goals, objectives, and constraints. |
| 10 | The general process of how technology solutions are designed. The output would be where we are, the current state of knowledge in science and about people or people's disabilities, and trends of the future (shifts of demographics, industry). We need to change the world, to get it away from the focus on disabilities, and change it to technology and solution innovation. There needs to be a mechanism for cooperation across the disability community, industry, and government. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | The business state of the art. What is currently possible, who are the users, how products are being used. |
| 13 | Open standards. Product design cycle. Discussion of a feedback loop. Development of a system in which government purchasing agents know how to appropriately evaluate technology for purchase. |
| 14 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 15 | A mechanism for providing a value assessment for Section 508 compliance. There needs to be a mechanism for measuring a product's accessibility, and an understanding that some products are not inherently accessible and can either be made accessible or not. |
| 16 | Question not directly addressed. |
4.11 Additional Comments
The following question was asked at the end of the interview:
| Question 12: Complete the picture. Elaborate on anything you've said so far, or comment on anything else you think we should know. Suggest other things we should look into. |
Table 39 contains a summary of respondents' answers when asked to provide additional comments on the topics discussed during the course of the interview.
Table 39: Response Summaries for Question 12.
| Visionary | Response Summary |
| 1 | It is important to balance the British/European perspective with that of someplace like Japan, which has a very different way of looking at accessibility, particularly with respect to telecommunications. |
| 2 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 3 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 4 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 5 | Technology development will be influenced by the age of designers, the social environment in which they live, and the tools, products, and technology available to them. This will have a bigger impact than legislation. As devices become cheaper, we'll see a lot more variety, which will survive or not based on consumer adoption. Broad mass applicability will also be a stronger driving factor than legislation. |
| 6 | We're trying to create equality through design. Designers have certain restrictions, and while they can't change some things, they can generally change the environment. People need to start asking, "What can I do?" |
| 7 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 8 | We need courses that approach this issue strictly from a business point. |
| 9 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 10 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 11 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 12 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 13 | Question not directly addressed. |
| 14 | Assistive technology is not allowing a person to do something they couldn't do, it's making it easier for them to do something. |
| 15 | The reason 255 is not effective lies in the fact that it does not provide any mechanism for review of products before they're on the market. It is an "after the fact prove that it doesn't work" kind of mechanism. 508, on the other hand, says that accessibility claims must be made up front. There are currently no products that are 508 compliant, though companies claim they are and there is no way to prove them wrong. Section 508 is simply a procurement law, which simply means that government is supposed to ask companies if they are compliant with it. Section 508 deals with accessible products, not provision of accessible services. |
| 16 | Question not directly addressed. |
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