| |
Design for Inclusion: Creating
a New Marketplace
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20004
202-272-2004 Voice
202-272-2074 TTY
202-272-2022 Fax
Lex Frieden, Chairperson
October 28, 2004
This report is also available in alternative formats
and on NCD’s award-winning Web site (http://www.ncd.gov/).
The views contained in the report do not necessarily
represent those of the administration, as this and all NCD reports
are not subject to the A-19 executive branch review process.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise
does not constitute or imply its endorsement by the National Council
on Disability.
October 28, 2004
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
On behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD),
I am submitting a report entitled, Design for Inclusion: Creating
a New Marketplace. This report aims to educate designers and manufacturers
about the way electronic and information technology (E&IT) intersects
with the needs of individuals with disabilities, and how designing
with access in mind can significantly increase the size of targeted
markets for E&IT.
Designing with access in mind can be accomplished
through Universal design. Universal design is a process to ensure
that electronic and information technology is inclusive, accessible,
and usable by everyone, including people with disabilities. Incorporating
universal design processes when developing E&IT is one solution
to accommodating people with disabilities that also improves the
usability of the products for the rest of the population. NCD’s
research attempts to understand the market for universally designed
mainstream consumer products and services, document successful universal
design development processes, understand consumer needs, understand
universal design facilitators and barriers, and identify and address
current issues in universal design.
This research falls at a time when understanding and
incorporating universal design into the development process are
most crucial. We are in the window of opportunity for implementing
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended). Section
508 requires the Federal Government to purchase accessibly designed
E&IT. If progress is not made quickly in improving the skills
of government and industry employees on accessibility issues, the
window will soon shut with little having been accomplished.
Progress must be made now, and the purpose of this
report is to present the information and recommendations that will
guide this progress.
Sincerely,
Lex Frieden
Chairperson
(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President
Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the U.S. House
of Representatives.)
National Council on Disability Members
and Staff
Members
Lex Frieden, Chairperson, Texas
Patricia Pound, First Vice Chairperson, Texas
Glenn Anderson, Ph.D., Second Vice Chairperson, Arkansas
Milton Aponte, J.D., Florida
Robert R. Davila, Ph.D., New York
Barbara Gillcrist, New Mexico
Graham Hill, Virginia
Joel I. Kahn, Ph.D., Ohio
Young Woo Kang, Ph.D., Indiana
Kathleen Martinez, California
Carol Novak, Florida
Anne M. Rader, New York
Marco Rodriguez, California
David Wenzel, Pennsylvania
Linda Wetters, Ohio
Staff
Ethel D. Briggs, Executive Director
Jeffrey T. Rosen, General Counsel and Director of Policy
Mark S. Quigley, Director of Communications
Allan W. Holland, Chief Financial Officer
Julie Carroll, Attorney Advisor
Joan M. Durocher, Attorney Advisor
Martin Gould, Ed.D., Senior Research Specialist
Geraldine Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Program Analyst
Pamela O’Leary, Interpreter
Brenda Bratton, Executive Assistant
Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant
Carla Nelson, Office Automation Clerk
Dedication
This National Council on Disability report is dedicated
to Ronald Mace, “a nationally and internationally recognized
architect, product designer, and educator whose design philosophy
challenged convention and provided a design foundation for a more
usable world. He coined the term ‘universal design’
to describe the concept of designing all products and the built
environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent possible
by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status in life”
(Center for Universal Design).
Acknowledgments
The National Council on Disability (NCD) wishes to express its appreciation
to W. Bradley Fain of Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI), who
was the principal investigator for this project. Researchers in
GTRI’s Electronic Systems Laboratory performed the work documented
in this report. NCD acknowledges the contributions of Steve Jacobs
of the Ideal Group, who performed the market definition and research
for this report. NCD also acknowledges the participation of the
industry partners that supported the industry study portion of this
research. The industry partners provided invaluable insight into
the impact of section 508 on business and the barriers and facilitators
relating to the adoption of universal design principles. NCD also
acknowledges the donation of equipment and services utilized during
the user study portion of the research. The following companies
provided products and services, at no cost to the project, for user
testing: HP, Nokia, and SENCORE Electronic Test Equipment.
NCD would also like to acknowledge the efforts
of Gerry Field, WGBH Boston, for providing the closed-captioned test
stream used in user testing. Contents
Executive Summary
I. Introduction
II. Market Definition
and Research
III. Product Analysis
IV. Industry Study
V. Discussion
VI. Conclusions
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Bibliography
Appendix
List of Tables
Table 1. Accessibility
Grades for Each Target Population for the Six Product Lines
Table 2. Comparison Between Promotion
of Consumer Product Safety and Accessibility
Executive
Summary
Designing with access in mind can significantly increase
the size of targeted markets for electronic and information technology
(E&IT). Good business practice dictates that designers and engineers
avoid unintentionally excluding large populations of consumers from
accessing and using the E&IT they develop and manufacture. People
with disabilities are at the highest risk of exclusion. Other consumer
groups are also at risk. They are—
- Individuals 65+ years old
- Consumers living in low-bandwidth information infrastructures
- People who never learned to read
- Users of English as a Second Language (ESL)
- Tourists and people living in multilingual societies
- Consumers living in high-density populations
Designing with access in mind can be accomplished
through universal design (UD). Universal design is a process to
ensure that E&IT is inclusive, accessible, and usable by everyone,
including people with disabilities. Accessible design is a step
forward when developing E&IT products, but it tends to lead
to technologies that will be used separately, or in addition to,
the main E&IT product, which diminishes the effectiveness of
designing for all. Incorporating UD processes when developing E&IT
is one solution to accommodating people with disabilities that also
improves the usability of the products for the rest of the population.
The National Council on Disability (NCD) undertook
this research to understand the market for universally designed
mainstream consumer products and services, document successful UD
development processes, understand consumer needs, understand UD
facilitators and barriers, and identify and address current issues
in universal design. This research comes at a time when understanding
and incorporating UD into the development process are most crucial.
We are in the window of opportunity for implementing section 508.
If progress is not made quickly in improving the skills of government
and industry employees on accessibility issues, the window will
soon shut with little having been accomplished. If industry does
not see that federal agencies are serious about implementing section
508 in a consistent manner, companies will shift the monetary and
human resources needed for improving accessibility to product development
opportunities that offer a higher return on investment. Progress
must be made now, and the purpose of this report is to present the
information and recommendations that will guide this progress.
Through this research, NCD aims to educate designers
and manufacturers about how electronic and information technology
intersects with the needs of individuals with disabilities. In addition
to providing knowledge about disabilities, we see the importance
here and now of educating individuals on universal design. Currently,
many business people have never heard of UD, and many of those who
have do not understand that it is more than just a design for disability.
This research aims to provide businesses with the knowledge of UD
methods they need to clearly see how their complex products can
be made accessible in a cost-effective way.
As part of this research, six product lines were
analyzed from the telecommunications, software, consumer electronics,
and digital services industries for both accessibility and usability.
We estimated how useful these products are to people with disabilities
and whether the products conformed to section 508 standards and
section 255 guidelines. We were able to present recommendations
for improving such products. At a time when the incorporation of
universal design is crucial, NCD hopes that the information provided
in this report will motivate and drive the development of more universally,
accessibly designed E&IT.
Important
Findings and Recommendations
User Study. The purpose of the user study
was to document and understand user experiences with the six product
lines under study. The experiences and thoughts of the consumer
with a disability provided important insight into the future design
of accessible products and can potentially influence the universal
design process. The key findings of the user study are as follows:
- Users with disabilities are often asked to pay
high prices for phones with feature sets that are not useful to
them.
- Rapid changes in technology often cause decreases
in accessibility.
- Users are reluctant to adopt technologies that
have proven frustrating in the past.
- Users have difficulty finding devices that match
their functional capabilities because of the lack of familiarity
sales associates have with accessibility features.
- Users are reluctant to invest in technologies that
have an unproven accessibility record.
- Accessibility solutions must consider the needs
of the individual with disabilities.
Substantial increases in accessibility will be required
before increased sales to members of the disability community are
realized.
Product Analysis. A detailed
product line analysis was conducted for each of the product lines
selected for study. The purpose of this research was to document
accessibility issues that prevent people with disabilities from
fully accessing the selected products and to document accessibility
features that either are currently offered or could be offered by
manufacturers. The end result of this product analysis was the assignment
of an accessibility grade to each product line for each disability
group. These grades may be useful to designers and manufacturers
to identify the target populations that should be consulted during
the design process so that more accessible design features are incorporated
into new products.
Industry Study. The purpose
of the industry study was to document UD practices within industries
represented by the six product lines selected for study. Five categories
of facilitators and barriers to accessible design were examined:
design, organizational, informational, financial, and legal. A discussion
of these barriers and facilitators as experienced by the six companies
is included in this section.
In addition, 11 business concerns were identified
as having an influence on UD practices within an organization. Each
business concern had a different level of influence, depending on
the strength of the other factors. The factors influencing the adoption
of UD practices included the business case, strategy and policy,
demand and legislation, marketing and sales, research, design, testing,
resource allocation and funding, organization and staff, training,
and the customer and consideration of people with disabilities.
All the companies that participated in the industry
study have made strategic decisions to address the accessibility
of their products and services. A few of the companies had long-standing
accessibility programs that were reinvigorated by the technical
requirements of section 508. Other companies initiated their accessibility
activities while planning for their response to section 508. In
both cases, section 508 clearly has had an impact on the way accessibility
and UD are being addressed by industry. The industry study found
that the most common approaches to addressing accessibility issues
are—
- Increasing awareness of employees
- Integrating accessibility requirements into the
design process
- Performing accessibility verification testing
- Establishing an accessibility program office
Discussion. Through this
research, we have come to better understand the market for universally
designed mainstream consumer products and services, documented successful
universal design development processes, achieved a better understanding
of consumer needs, analyzed UD facilitators and barriers, and identified
and addressed current issues in universal design. This research
program has found that—
- A market for universally designed products and
services exists.
- UD principles can be easily incorporated into
current design practices.
- Products designed to be accessible sometimes do
not meet the needs of users.
- Legislation is currently both a facilitator and
a barrier to UD.
- Many barriers to UD remain and must be addressed
before significant progress can be made.
Several important recommendations can be made from
this research for designers, developers, federal agencies, and companies
striving to incorporate universal design into their development
process:
Strategies for Government and Industry to Promote Universal
Design
Recommendation #1. Use
standards (government or industry) to prohibit nonessential features
that pose accessibility problems unless an alternative interface
that solves the problem is provided.
Recommendation #2. Use
standards (government or industry) to eliminate interoperability
problems that create accessibility problems.
Recommendation #3. Use
market forces to regulate features that pose intermediate levels
of accessibility problems. Require labeling and other information
to be provided, and allow recourse through tort (warranty) as
well as through general demand, as reflected in consumer purchases.
Recommendation #4. Develop
training materials and educational articles documenting the market
potential for UD products and services.
Strengthening the Impact of Section
508
Section 508 was developed to govern the purchase of accessible electronic
and information technology purchased by the Federal government.
Despite having been in place for nearly three years, section 508
has yet to reach its potential. One of the greatest shortfalls of
Section 508 is the lack of understanding of and attention to the
functional performance requirements.
Recommendation #5.
Institute procedures designed to ensure that due diligence is
given to section 508 procurement requirements. Perform an internal
analysis of the impact of section 508 on the procurement of actual
products. Publish the results of the analysis as a way of convincing
industry that the Federal Government is committed to section 508.
Recommendation #6.
Consider requesting supporting evidence for claims made on voluntary
product accessibility templates (VPATs) from all vendors responding
to bid proposals.
Recommendation #7.
Develop a quick accessibility checklist for specific product lines
likely to be procured by the Federal Government. The quick accessibility
checklist would assist procurement officials in market research
by providing them with a list of items that they can inspect themselves
when procuring products. The checklist would be tailored to specific
product lines and would not require detailed expertise to evaluate.
Recommendation #8.
Develop guidance for reporting conformance with functional performance
criteria guidelines.
Recommendation #9.
Support the coordination of state and local government adoption
of section 508 technical requirements. Provide state and local
governments with documents and training programs designed to ensure
unification of technical requirements.
Recommendation #10.
Study and document the nontechnical aspects of accessibility,
including social, psychological, and organizational accessibility.
Promote UD solutions that consider all aspects of accessibility.
Promoting the Inclusion of Universal Design
in Industry Practices
Companies are not aware of the design process
modifications needed to incorporate universal design principles.
The Federal Government should support the refinement of specific
design process interventions that can easily be incorporated.
Recommendation #11.
Develop, test, and disseminate methodologies for integrating UD
into existing design practices.
Recommendation #12.
Support the development of university-level training materials that
could be incorporated into the curriculums of existing design-oriented
degree programs. The training materials should include awareness-expanding
videos and other teaching resources that illustrate the potential
impact of key design process interventions on the lives of people
with disabilities and other beneficiaries of UD.
Recommendation #13.
Develop, test, and disseminate design reference users to illustrate
the range of functional capabilities and limitations typical among
people with disabilities. Design reference users (popular in specifying
the target population in Department of Defense acquisitions) is
a set of descriptions of prototypical users who, taken together,
express the range of functional capabilities and limitations of
the population that must be accommodated by the design project.
The use of design reference users would greatly simplify the need
for designers to research and integrate information pertaining to
the functional limitations and capabilities of people with disabilities.
Recommendation #14.
Develop a standard methodology for testing accessibility and comparing
the accessibility of similar products.
Recommendation #15.
Coordinate with industry to promote the integration of accessibility
concepts, principles, and guidelines into the development tools
used by designers to develop products.
Creating a New Marketplace
Consumers with disabilities find many E&IT products to be inaccessible.
A sizeable un-tapped market for universal design products and services
exists. However, few companies appreciate the size of the market
or know how to tap its potential.
Recommendation #16.
Develop an information clearinghouse where users can obtain information
about accessibility issues and the features designed to address
the issues for specific product lines. Educate consumers on how
to shop for UD products and services. List vendor resources where
consumers can obtain more information about UD products.
Recommendation #17.
Develop marketing strategies and approaches that will facilitate
a connection with people with disabilities.
Recommendation #18.
Train people with disabilities to become subject-matter experts
for the purpose of participating in design focus groups and accessibility
evaluations.
Recommendation #19. Create
job-related outcomes for bulk purchasers for the successful procurement
of products and services with UD features.
Conclusions
People with disabilities want to use the same products that everyone
else uses. They do not want to be limited to specialized products
that are more costly. Implementation of UD is the best way to satisfy
this desire of people with disabilities, while also providing more
cost-effective products for all users. While it is impossible to
satisfy the needs of all users, products and services that come
closer to accommodating a variety of physical and cognitive differences
will benefit both users and companies.
Introduction
The explosive development of information technology
is rapidly changing the way we work, shop, communicate, and play.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, our grandparents saw America
change from an agrarian society to an industrial one. We are now
in the middle of a second transformation, from an industrial society
to an information society, sparked by the development of information
science, microprocessors, and wireless technology. Information technology
and telecommunications are now relied upon for routine daily activities
that contribute to overall quality of life, such as making doctor’s
appointments, obtaining directions, and purchasing goods and services.
Companies are increasingly expanding their presence into emerging
markets. As the National Council on Disability (NCD) points out,
“Companies are serving populations they have never before
served” (NCD, 2002).
Every consumer is different. No two people have the exact same set
of learning styles, abilities, experiences, and educational background.
What used to be one market of billions of consumers is evolving
into billions of markets of one consumer, as computer technology
makes it economical for products to be customized to meet the user’s
needs. This marketing shift is a dramatic change from a few short
years ago. To remain competitive, companies must learn to develop
products that accommodate the wants, needs, and preferences of as
many individual consumers as is technically possible and economically
feasible.
Designing with access in mind can significantly increase
the size of targeted markets for electronic and information technology
(E&IT). Good business practice dictates that designers and engineers
avoid unintentionally excluding large populations of consumers from
accessing and using the E&IT they develop and manufacture. People
with disabilities are at a high risk of exclusion. Other consumer
groups are also at risk. They are—
- Individuals 65+ years old
- Consumers living in low-bandwidth information infrastructures
- People who never learned to read
- Users of English as a Second Language (ESL)
- Tourists and people living in multilingual societies
- Consumers living in high-density populations
Universal design (UD) has been proposed as a
means to meet needs of consumers, including those with special needs,
while maximizing a company’s potential to develop a marketable,
easy-to-use product. The purpose of this research program is to
understand the market for universally designed mainstream consumer
products and services, document successful UD development processes,
understand consumer needs, understand UD facilitators and barriers,
and identify and address current issues in universal design.
The future of design for inclusion is in jeopardy.
We are in the window of opportunity for implementing section 508.
If progress is not made quickly in improving the skills of government
and industry employees on accessibility issues, the window will
soon shut with little having been accomplished. If industry does
not see that federal agencies are serious about implementing section
508 in a consistent manner, companies will shift the monetary and
human resources needed for improving accessibility to product development
opportunities that offer a higher return on investment. Progress
must be made now, and the purpose of this report is to present the
information and recommendations that will guide this progress.
Through this research, NCD aims to educate designers
and manufacturers about how electronic and information technology
intersects with the needs of individuals with disabilities. In addition
to providing knowledge about disabilities, we see the importance
here and now of educating individuals on universal design. Currently,
many people business people have never heard of UD, and many of
those who have do not understand that it is more than just a design
for disability. This research aims to provide businesses with the
knowledge of UD methods they need to clearly see how their complex
products can be made accessible in a cost-effective way.
This study examined the philosophical, economic, and
technological rationales that currently drive the development of
UD and identified specific barriers to increased implementation,
while also addressing commonly held assumptions about universal
design. Six product lines were analyzed from the telecommunications,
software, consumer electronics, and digital services industries
for both accessibility and usability. We estimated how useful these
products are to individuals with disabilities and whether the products
conform to section 508 requirements and section 255 guidelines.
In doing so, we were able to present recommendations for improving
such products. This report aims to aid industry in adopting UD practices
by using the information obtained on current industry practices,
barriers, and facilitation factors to investigate methods for motivating
companies to incorporate UD methods in product development.
At a time when the incorporation of universal design
is crucial, NCD hopes that the information provided in this report
will motivate and drive the design for more universally designed
E&IT.
Definition
of Universal Design
Universal design, or design for inclusion, is a process to ensure
that E&IT is inclusive, accessible, and usable by everyone,
including people with disabilities. Accessible design is a step
forward when developing E&IT products, but it tends to lead
to technologies that will be used separately, or in addition to,
the main E&IT product, which diminishes the effectiveness of
designing for all. Incorporating UD processes when developing E&IT
is one solution to accommodating people with disabilities that also
improves the usability of the products for the rest of the population.
The above definition encapsulates what it means to
design with universal access in mind. UD has been referred to as
many things and has been defined in many ways and with many perspectives.
Despite the differences in interpretation and definition, one thread
that ties the perspectives together is that all people, young and
old, with and without disabilities, can have access to the same
opportunities. Some alternative terms that have been used to refer
to UD are inclusive design, design for inclusion, lifespan design,
transgenerational design, barrier-free design, design-for-all, and
accessibility. The first four terms have their roots in accomplishing
social inclusion, the next two have their roots in design of the
built environment, and the last is linked to legislated requirements
for accommodation (Ostroff, 2001).
The term universal design was originally
coined in the 1970s by Ronald Mace.
Ron Mace was a nationally and internationally recognized
architect, product designer, and educator whose design philosophy
challenged convention and provided a design foundation for a more
usable world. He coined the term “universal design”
to describe the concept of designing all products and the built
environment to be aesthetic and usable to the greatest extent
possible by everyone, regardless of their age, ability, or status
in life (Center for Universal Design, n.d.).
Other characteristics of UD are summarized, in part,
from interviews with visionaries regarding accessibility and UD
(Fain et al., 2001). The visionaries talked about including a wide
range of individuals in all stages of the design process; integrating
accessible features so they don’t stand out (resulting in
social integration); and creating things so that they can be made
available “out of the box,” enabling as many people
as possible to use them. It is considered a design methodology and
an extension of the user-centered design process. Additional variations
include the following:
…[T]he practice of designing products or
environments that can be effectively and efficiently used by people
with a wide range of abilities operating in a wide range of situations
(Vanderheiden, 1997, p. 2014).
…[B]uilding products that are robust and accommodating.
Universal designs take account of differences in sight, hearing,
mobility, speech, and cognition. Universal design helps not only
people with disabilities, but also any of us when we’re
tired, busy, or juggling many tasks (Francik, 1996).
…[T]he design of products and environments
to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without
the need for adaptation or specialized design. The intent of universal
design is to simplify life for everyone by making products, communications,
and the built environment more usable by as many people as possible
at little or no extra cost. Universal design benefits people of
all ages and abilities (Center for Universal Design, n.d.).
A much greater awareness of disabilities has evolved
in the last century, in part as a result of a significant increase
in the human lifespan. The general population has had greater exposure
to human limitation as the people around them have aged and developed
limitations, while at the same time living outside institutions
and becoming more independent. This exposure has increased awareness
of limitations that can impede the average individual and has led
to design changes in products to help overcome these limitations.
Initially, these design changes were implemented as special features
that added to the cost and stood out as features for people with
special needs. Over time, designers began to recognize that many
design changes could be made on a larger scale, reducing the cost
and benefiting a larger portion of the population (Center for Universal
Design, n.d.). Research led to the formulation of design principles
that describe the objectives of UD.
In 1997, North Carolina State University’s Center
for Universal Design documented and published seven Principles of
Universal Design (1997):
Equitable Use: The design is useful and marketable to people with
diverse abilities.
Flexibility in Use: The design accommodates a wide
range of individual preferences and abilities.
Simple and Intuitive Use: Use of the design is easy
to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge,
language skills, or current concentration level.
Perceptible Information: The design communicates
necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient
conditions or the user’s sensory abilities.
Tolerance for Error: The design minimizes hazards
and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.
Low Physical Effort: The design can be used efficiently
and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue.
Size and Space for Approach and Use: Appropriate
size and space are provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and
use, regardless of the user’s body size, posture, or mobility.
These principles serve as guidelines for the designers
of accessible products. If these principles are incorporated into
and considered during the design process, the result will be products
that are accessible to a wide range of users. In addition to principles
such as the ones mentioned above, standards have been and will continue
to be developed that serve as guidelines for designers and manufacturers.
These standards mandate that products, services, or places are accessible
to particular groups of people and provide requirements that must
be met. Universal designers must incorporate these principles and
standards and use them for guidance when developing products and
services to be accessible to the wide population.
The definition of UD must address the population
it is intended to benefit. Consideration must be given to various
disability groups—blind, low vision, deaf, limited hearing,
limited manual dexterity, limited cognition, and lack of reading
ability—keeping in mind that these limitations may result
from situational constraints rather than a formally defined disability,
as defined below:
OPERABLE WITHOUT VISION = is required by people
who are blind – and – people
whose eyes are busy (e.g., driving your
car or phone browsing) or who are in darkness.
OPERABLE WITH LOW VISION = is required by people
with visual impairment – and –
people using a small display or in a
smoky environment.
OPERABLE WITH NO HEARING = is required by people
who are deaf – and – by
people in very loud environments or
whose ears are busy or are in forced
silence (library or meeting).
OPERABLE WITH LIMITED HEARING = is required by
people who are hard of hearing –
and – people in noisy environments.
OPERABLE WITH LIMITED MANUAL DEXTERITY = is required
by people with a physical disability
– and – people in a space suit
or chemical suit or who are in a bouncing
vehicle.
OPERABLE WITH LIMITED COGNITION = is required by
people with a cognitive disability –
and – people who are distracted
or panicked or under the influence
of alcohol.
OPERABLE WITHOUT READING = is required by people
with a cognitive disability –
and – people who just haven’t learned
to read this language, people who are visitors,
people who left reading glasses behind (Vanderheiden, n.d.).
While there is no strong basis for characterizing
UD and discriminating UD products from non-UD products, a few sets
of evaluation criteria have been identified. The Center for Universal
Design has developed two versions of Universal Design Performance
Measures. The consumer version helps guide personal purchasing decisions.
The designer’s version “…provides a good relative
assessment of universal usability, but the measures are not an absolute
tool for achieving universal design” (Story, 2001). These
measures consider questions for phase of use of commercial products:
packaging, instructions, product installation, use, storage, maintenance,
repair, and disposal. In addition, Vanderheiden (2001) has identified
three levels for evaluating products. Level 1 is assigned for features
that, if not implemented, will cause a product to be unusable for
certain groups or situations. Level 2 is assigned for features that,
if not implemented, will make the product very difficult to use
for some groups and situations. Level 3 is assigned for features
that, if implemented, will make the product easier to use but do
not make it usable or unusable.
Now that UD definitions, principles, and evaluation
techniques have been discussed, the question becomes, “What
is the reality of UD?” In other words, “Is UD achievable?”
The answer to this question depends, in part, on how UD is defined.
On the one hand, there is Ronald Mace’s definition, which
indicates that people from all walks of life should have the same
opportunities. At some level, this is achievable. Consider the curb
cut. Curb cuts came about because of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), but it turns out that they are beneficial to all of society:
people pushing baby strollers or using roller blades, for example.
The curb cut is most definitely considered to have achieved UD.
On the other hand, one viewpoint of UD suggests the ideal that designs
should be usable by individuals under every circumstance. While
it’s true that many things are usable by a range of individuals,
not all of those things are designed in an ideal manner for those
same individuals. It is not possible to account for every variation
in human ability, need, and preference. As stated by Story, Mueller,
and Mace (1998),
It is possible to design a product or an environment
to suit a broad range of users, including children, older adults,
people with disabilities, people of atypical size or shape, people
who are ill or injured, and people inconvenienced by circumstance.
[Yet,] it is unlikely that any product or environment could ever
be used by everyone under all conditions. Because of this, it may
be more appropriate to consider universal design a process, rather
than an achievement.
Role of Assistive Technology
in Universal Design
According to the U.S. Assistive Technology Act of
1998,
The term assistive technology means technology designed
to be utilized in an assistive technology device or assistive technology
service. The term assistive technology device means any item, piece
of equipment, or system, whether acquired commercially, modified,
or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve functional
capabilities of individuals with disabilities (Assistive Technology
Act, 1998).
People with disabilities are commonly aided by the
use of assistive technology (AT). Users with visual impairments
may benefit from the use of the following ATs:
Speech input and synthesized
speech output
Screen readers
Screen magnifiers
Screen projectors
Signage and text printed in Braille
and large letters with high contrast, standardized keyboards and
keyboard layout with landmarks
Visual, acoustic, and tactile
feedback and alert signals
Smart cards that provide a preferred
user interface and output
Audio recorded information
Users with hearing impairments may benefit from
the use of the following ATs:
Text telephones
Nonverbal information
Visual, acoustic, and tactile
feedback and alert signals
Adjustable signal level and tone
on audio devices
Adjustable temporal and spatial
resolution in visual communications
Volume control
Additional earpieces
Provisions for inductive coupling
to hearing aids
Users with mobility impairments may benefit from
the use of the following ATs:
Tilting keyboards and keypads
Hands-free data entry and response
selection
Speech input
Intelligent word prediction software
Alternative pointing devices,
such as mouth sticks
Keyboard controllers
Body position switches
Book holders and page turners
Arm supports
Touchscreens
Remote switches
Users with cognitive disabilities may benefit from
the use of the following ATs:
Standardized icons
Tactile cues
Landmarks, both visual and tactile
Speech-synthesized output
Speech input
Visual examples using drawings
and icons for help systems
Some of these assistive technologies can be designed
into the product lines themselves; others must be used externally
to the device. There is an ongoing debate regarding the role of
AT in universal design. At the core of the issue is whether the
capabilities of AT should be built into mainstream products (those
designed for the general public) or whether they should be separate
products that can be used with mainstream products by those who
need them. There are three schools of thought regarding the use
of AT:
1. AT should be the primary solution to providing
people with disabilities access to E&IT.
2. E&IT manufacturers should enhance the accessibility
of their products to extents that are technically possible and
economically feasible. Beyond this, AT should be used.
3. E&IT manufacturers should make all their
products accessible by everyone, under all circumstances, in any
situation.
While it is clear that a single design cannot accommodate
all individuals in all contexts (Stephanidis, 2001; Vanderheiden,
1990), an inclusive design can accommodate a larger number of
people than one designed for the “average” user. In
addition, ATs themselves cannot readily accommodate the needs
of all users, and it is burdensome and costly for AT to keep up
with changing mainstream technologies. On the other hand, AT developers
have detailed knowledge about the needs of users with various
functional limitations, and they can develop better products if
they can focus on the needs of their target users.
Some believe that the solution is for AT developers
to develop better products rather than mainstream developers trying
to design products that are useful to everyone. However, with
this approach, people who need assistive technology are required
to purchase AT products in addition to the mainstream products.
They must also carry their AT device around so that they always
have the capability to use a product. The best solution is, perhaps,
a middle ground, keeping in mind that part of UD is ensuring compatibility
with some types of AT (e.g., touchsticks), but UD doesn’t
have to require the use of AT.
…[U]niversal design in [information
technology and telecommunications] IT&T products should
not be conceived as an effort to advance a single solution for
everybody, but as a user-centered approach to providing products
that can automatically address the possible range of human abilities,
skills, requirements, and preferences (Stephanidis, 2001).
Assistive technology development, whether or not
it is integrated in mainstream products, is critical. The Assistive
Technology Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-394) provides federal support
for research and promotion of AT; Title II specifically relates
to coordinating research for assistive technology and universal
design (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2003).
There are a number of arguments against the design
of AT as separate products:
- AT requires added cost on
top of the mainstream products and is affected, in part, by
insurance reimbursement policies (U.S. Department of Commerce,
2003).
- AT is sometimes prohibitively
expensive, even without the cost of the mainstream products.
- It is not always possible
for a person to carry around all necessary AT products.
- AT is focused on a limited
audience.
- Different AT is needed to
accommodate different functional limitations.
- The economics of ATs are
such that the limited market and limited purchasing power of
the market will likely limit the abilities of AT companies to
keep up with the pace of mainstream technologies.
- Often when an innovation
in mainstream technology takes place, an update in the AT is
required; this results in extra cost for the person requiring
AT or, at the very least, introduces risk. For example, installation
of a new software product may interfere with the operation of
existing AT. Technology is changing so rapidly that once an
access problem is solved, it is common for a new access problem
to surface (Stephanidis, 2001; Emiliani, 2001).
- While ATs can be portable,
security concerns may prohibit their use; for example, a library
may prohibit the installation of a screen magnifier on a public
computer.
- AT companies do not have
the resources needed to work closely with companies to ensure
compatibilities with their products or to do product testing
(U.S. Department of Commerce, 2003).
- AT companies often do not
share the features they have planned for their products with
other companies until the AT is released. While industry would
like to have the data sooner, AT companies are reluctant to
promise technologies that they might not be able to deliver.
Arguments favoring the design of ATs as separate
products include the following:
- AT allows companies to focus
on the development of their specialized products, thus resulting
in a better job of handling the accessibility issues to meet
the needs of people with disabilities.
- It is possible for AT to
become so mainstream that it is no longer considered AT. Eyeglasses,
for example, are no longer thought of as assistive technology,
and closed-captioning and voice recognition software are becoming
more commonplace.
- AT is better equipped to
handle specialized or rare needs of people with disabilities,
and there will likely always be a need for some forms of assistive
technology. In addition, AT can be tailored to address unique
needs (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2003).
Arguments for integrated AT and UD include the
following (Vanderheiden, 1990; Winograd, 1997):
- Many product adaptations
necessary to accommodate some functional limitations can be
implemented in mainstream products at little or no extra cost.
- Many product adaptations
necessary to accommodate some functional limitations can also
facilitate use by the general population (e.g., the curb cut).
Some benefits of implementing accessibility features that have
a more global benefit include lower fatigue, increased speed,
and lower error rates.
- AT cannot accommodate the
needs of the many individual subgroups that have special needs
(e.g., mild versus severe hearing loss).
- Special features can be integrated
into mainstream products so they are transparent to users who
don’t need them (e.g., “sticky keys”).
Regardless of how people with disabilities use
the technology, it will have a large impact on their independence
and ability to fully participate in society, resulting in an added
cost benefit to society as a whole (Vanderheiden, 1990). The population
of people who may require some sort of accommodation is ever-growing
with the increase of the elderly population, so much so that the
term “general population” possibly should be redefined
in the minds of designers. Although the market potential for products
is great, the limited population for any given AT creates financial
constraints for small companies that focus on AT development.
Large companies typically have the finances but not the expertise
to address a wide range of needs (AAATE, 2003). Complications
stem not only from the wide variety of functional limitations
but also from the ever-increasing need for rapid configuration
of technologies to accommodate environmental and other contextual
needs. The increasingly mobile society, for example, may mean
that individuals need specialized accommodation over a period
of a day or even hours, while a more fixed environment may require
little variation in configuration. “…[I]n the context
of the emerging distributed and communication-intensive information
society, users are not only the computer-literate, skilled, and
able-bodied workers driven by performance-oriented motives, nor
do users constitute a homogeneous mass of information-seeking
actors with standard abilities, similar interests, and common
preferences with regard to information access and use” (Stephanidis,
2001, p. 6). The AT industry alone cannot address the variable
contexts that create a need for more customized situational technologies.
If products are not going to be designed with AT
built in, they need to be designed from the ground up to be fully
compatible with AT, and AT needs to be designed so well that people
with disabilities no longer have accessibility issues with products.
If products are designed with UD principles in mind, they will
likely be accessible to a large number of people with disabilities
without the use of AT. Regardless of the resolution to this debate,
if any, AT and mainstream developers must work together to achieve
the greatest accommodation possible and to develop adaptors, when
necessary. “The use of an adaptor is appropriate when two
systems cannot otherwise accommodate each other; this is the case
when accessibility problems are alleviated by the choice of alternative
input/output devices or by communication via an alternative modality”
(Benyon, Crerar, and Wilkinson, 2001). Thus, there is a place
in society for both integrated AT and UD, as well as for separate
AT products.
Research
Process
An extensive research program was conducted to
complete each of the research activities documented in this report.
This research program was conducted by examining the roles and
perspectives of industry, Federal Government, and consumers with
respect to the six product lines that are important to people
with disabilities. The six product lines studied were automated
teller machines (ATMs), cellular phones, distance learning software,
personal digital assistants (PDAs), televisions, and voice recognition
technologies. For more information about the research process
undertaken in preparing this report and additional information,
please consult the online version of the report at http://www.ncd.gov.
II.
Market Definition and Research
Electronic and information technology is driving
the creation of new communities that are forever changing the
way people live, learn, work, and play. Companies are increasingly
expanding their presence in emerging markets. Businesses are serving
populations they have never served before. Every consumer is different.
No two people have the same set of characteristics, learning styles,
abilities, experiences, or educational backgrounds. Developing
products that accommodate the wants, needs, and preferences of
as many individual consumers as is technically possible and economically
feasible can greatly enhance a company’s competitive advantage.
Designing with access in mind can significantly
increase the size of E&IT markets on a global basis. Good
business practices dictate that designers and engineers avoid
excluding large groups of consumers from accessing and using E&IT.
Groups at the highest risk of unintentional exclusion are—
- People with disabilities
- Individuals 65+ years old
- Consumers living within low-bandwidth
information infrastructures
- Users of English as a Second
Language (ESL)
- Tourists traveling to nonnative
language destinations
- Consumers living in high-density
populations
This market analysis examined many aspects of manufacturing
“more accessibly designed” E&IT. This analysis
was intended to help answer questions such as the following:
- Is there a market for more
accessibly designed products?
- Does the capacity exist to
develop more accessibly designed products in each of the presented
product lines?
- What factors influence the
market for more accessibly designed products for each of the
product lines presented?
All the product lines reviewed in this report are
manufactured by members of the E&IT industry. Naturally, in
order for these products to be manufactured, the E&IT industry
must exist. In order to exist, it must be profitable. A question
often asked by the disability community is, “How can we
ensure that the E&IT products and services being manufactured
are accessible to people with disabilities?” E&IT manufacturers
pose a similar question. They ask, “How can we ensure that
the E&IT products and services we manufacture are accessible
and usable by as many people as is technically possible and economically
feasible without the need for customization?” The questions
are different. The motivations are different. The market drivers
are different. The solutions can be remarkably similar.
Definition
of the Market Environment
Historically, the primary forces driving the manufacture
of more accessible E&IT products and services have been legal,
moral, social, and ethical. The assumption was that if legal,
moral, social, and ethical issues no longer existed, the motivation
to manufacture more accessible E&IT would all but disappear.
The next two sections discuss the reasons why nothing could be
further from the truth.
In contrast to the historical notion of what the
primary forces driving the manufacture of accessible E&IT
are, in actuality a majority of the forces driving demand for
more accessibly designed E&IT fall into the following five
categories:
- Market forces
- Local environment
- Human condition
- Legal framework
- Standards and guidelines
Market Forces
Market forces consistently drive the demand for
more accessibly designed E&IT. Market forces include the need
to respond to consumer behavior, the work of federal agencies,
legislation mandating developments in the accessibility of E&IT,
changing marketing philosophies (from mass marketing to a one-on-one
marketing philosophy), competition within the market, emerging
technology trends, and economic expansion. These market forces
are discussed below in terms of how they drive the markets for
more accessibly designed E&IT products.
Consumer Behavior
E&IT is prevalent in schools, libraries, individuals’
homes, work environments, places of recreation, banks, and even
supermarkets. It is because of this widespread presence that consumers
are more technically literate than they were five years ago. Devices
such as cell phones, PDAs, voice recognition systems, and the
wireless Web enable us to carry our offices with us when we travel.
We are more mobile now than ever before. Consumers have become
accustomed to getting the information they need when they need
it and where they want it. This has created an expectation of
immediacy. When consumers don’t get what they want quickly,
they become impatient. E&IT designers need to respond to consumer
behavior by providing products and services that not only meet
but exceed the high expectations of a technically literate, mobile
consumer base. Increasing the accessibility of information services
and mobile technologies increases access to the information demanded
by consumers with high expectations.
Federal Government
The Federal Government serves as a catalyst for
more accessibly designed E&IT products through its buying
power, the development of legislation, and the support of AT accommodation
labs. Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act amendments of 1998
mandates the purchase of accessibly designed E&IT. As a result,
all federal agencies appointed section 508 coordinators (Section
508, 2003). Those coordinators are responsible for organizing
and supporting the implementation of section 508 in their respective
departments and agencies, and they serve as the central point
of contact for information concerning accessibility issues and
solutions. In addition to section 508, other legislation provides
guidelines for designing more accessible E&IT. The Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) developed
the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities
(ADAAG), and the Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines
(section 255) mandates the design of more accessible E&IT
products and services. There are also presidential initiatives
driving the design of more accessible E&IT. These initiatives
include the President’s New Freedom Initiative (White House,
2001), the No Child Left Behind Initiative (U.S. House of Representatives,
2002), and the disabilityinfo.gov Web site (DisabilityInfo.gov,
2003).
In addition to these acts and initiatives, many
federal agencies have created AT accommodation labs. These labs
serve as focal points for information regarding accommodations,
disabilities, and assistive technology. These resources include
the following:
Clearly, the Federal Government is an important
market force for driving accessibility requirements.
Marketing Philosophies
Marketing philosophies have changed radically over
the past 35 years. The marketing philosophy of the 1960s was mass
marketing (Mass Marketing Definition, 2003), in which the seller
views the market as a homogeneous whole and, therefore, has only
one marketing program (the same product, the same price, the same
promotion, and the same distribution system) for everyone in the
population. This type of marketing is also referred to as unsegmented
or undifferentiated marketing.
Marketing philosophies of the 1970s included product
line extension (Product Line Stretching Definition, 2003) and
market segmentation (Market Segmentation Definition, 2003). Product
line extension adds depth to an existing product line by introducing
new products in the same product category. Market segmentation
is the division of a totally heterogeneous market into groups
or sectors with relatively homogeneous needs and wants.
In the 1980s, the marketing philosophy shifted
to one of niche marketing (Niche Marketing Definition, 2003).
Niche marketing or concentrated marketing is a marketing segmentation
strategy in which the firm focuses all its efforts and resources
on serving one segment of the market.
In the 1990s, value-added marketing became popular.
Value-added marketing is a strategy in which a company buys products,
customizes them for a particular application, and then resells
them. There was also a shift toward marketing to individual customers
rather than to the larger mass. Don Peppers and Martha Rogers
invented the phrase “one-to-one” marketing (Peppers
and Rogers, 1997) to illustrate the revolutionary concept of treating
different customers differently. One-to-one marketing supports
the establishment of permanent relationships with your customers.
One-to-one subscribes to providing products and services to customers
according to their individual wants, needs, and preferences. “Share
of customer” replaces market share. The marketing focus
shifts from institutions to individual consumers.
Once a company acquires the knowledge and experience
required to manufacture more accessibly designed E&IT, it
can take an asset marketing approach (Asset-Based Marketing Definition,
2003) to providing its E&IT products globally. Asset marketing
uses the knowledge and skills a company has already developed
as the basis for growth. For example, a company that is skilled
in developing kiosks that are accessible to people who are blind
can market kiosks designed in a similar manner to countries that
have high populations of people who have never learned to read.
This global marketing (Global Marketing Definition, 2003) philosophy
enables companies to sell the same, or very similar, products
to world markets with essentially the same promotion. This marketing
approach is also commonly referred to as international marketing.
Competition
Competition in the E&IT industry is fierce.
The industry is constantly looking for ways to increase efficiency,
competitive advantage, sales, market shares, and profitability.
It is also looking to cut costs. Businesses are constantly developing
new and innovative products and services with the hope of achieving
these objectives, and adding functionality that enhances the accessibility
and usability of a product can be very beneficial. In extremely
competitive markets, several companies have correctly identified
UD as a potential market discriminator. When highly similar product
lines are all competing for the same customer, a product designed
with access in mind may have the needed advantage required to
outbid the competitors.
Technology Trends
A variety of rising mainstream technology trends
fuels the need for more accessibly designed E&IT. The functionalities
of multiple individual devices are now being integrated into a
single device, including pagers, cell phones, PDAs, palmtop computers,
smart phones, MP3 players, and so on. This trend is creating a
dependence on one device to accomplish multiple functions. Thus,
if not more accessibly designed, this multiple functionality precludes
the use of such devices by certain segments of the population,
for example, people 65+ years of age. Developing and manufacturing
an accessible interface for a device that provides multiple functions
is less expensive than developing and manufacturing an accessible
interface for multiple single-function devices.
Decreasing costs are making E&IT devices more
affordable to emerging markets, which have the greatest concentration
of individuals with low income and a greater concentration of
individuals who are unable to read and write. E&IT manufacturers
need to move into emerging markets in order to increase sales
and gain competitive price advantage through economies of scale.
Increasing processing power, disk storage, memory
capacity, and battery life are enabling developers to integrate
advanced access technologies (speech recognition, text-to-speech
synthesis, projected displays, etc.) into devices where it had
not previously been technically possible to do so. In addition,
the Internet and the World Wide Web are now being used as a primary
infrastructure for education, government services, news, and business.
Customers’ technical knowledge and expectations are constantly
increasing, along with the use of wireless Internet appliances
and wireless infrastructures. Legal mandates to manufacture more
accessibly designed E&IT in support of people with disabilities
are a driving force behind these technological trends.
Economic Expansion
The strength of our global economy is, to a great
extent, the result of the investment in and application of new
technologies by governments, businesses, and individuals. Technology
is the foundation upon which developing countries can build thriving,
financially independent, self-sufficient economies. The technologies
that build this foundation include computers, networks, ATMs,
wired and wireless information infrastructures, wireless handheld
Internet appliances, and cellular telephones, to name a few. Applications
include online banking, distance learning, e-government, and e-commerce
(World Information Technology, 2003).
Local
Environment
Another force that drives the market for accessibly
designed E&IT is local environments. The following is a discussion
of two environmental factors: variances in bandwidth and tourism.
Bandwidth
As of May 2004, more than half (51.39 percent)
of home Internet users in the United States relied on dial-up
modems of 56Kbps or less. Of all U.S. home Internet users, 42.53
percent used 56Kbps modems, 6.52 percent used 28/33.3Kbps modems,
and 2.34 percent used 14.4Kbps modems (Nielsen/NetRatings, 2004).
Computers using dial-up connections cannot handle
graphics as quickly and efficiently as computers connected via
broadband. It is for this reason that dial-up users surf the Internet
with graphics turned off. They do this to speed up downloads.
Low-bandwidth connections do not lend themselves to a lot of graphic
images, video-based information, or streaming audio. Multimedia
content can be problematic for users with slower connections.
Wireless devices communicating with the Internet at slow connect
speeds can also be a source of accessibility and usability problems.
There are solutions to these problems. Some companies
have the ability to control the settings on the browsers used
on their employees’ PCs. When available corporate Intranet
bandwidth is at a premium, these companies can simply issue a
central command to turn off graphics on all client PC browsers.
This can immediately free up as much as 80 percent of available
bandwidth. Designing Web sites for low-bandwidth access tends
to increase accessibility for users with disabilities. For example,
a graphics- or animation-intensive site often requires high bandwidth
and is inaccessible to those who are blind. In contrast, a text-based
site loads quickly and is accessible to screen readers. Dial-up
environments will continue to drive the development of more accessible
E&IT in the foreseeable future.
Tourism
During the first quarter of 2004, the United States
welcomed 8 million international visitors. This was an increase
of 12 percent compared to the first quarter of 2003.
Visiting tourists often make use of ATMs, self-service
kiosks, ticketing kiosks, and other tourism-related information
technologies. Many tourists use English only as a second language.
Content written in simplified English is more understandable to
users of ESL. Simplified English content has other significant
benefits. For example—
- It reduces the cost of language translation.
- It reduces ambiguity.
- It speeds reading.
- It reduces liability associated with misunderstandings.
The use of simplified content was originally included
in various accessibility design guidelines in support of people
with cognitive reading disabilities. Using simplified language
has now evolved into a market force driving the design of more
accessible E&IT.
Human
Condition
Aside from forces stemming from the market and
the environment, many of the forces driving the accessible design
of E&IT fall under aspects of the human condition. E&IT
products must be designed with people of different disabilities,
various age groups, various levels of literacy, various languages,
different learning styles, and different experience levels with
activities such as using the Internet in mind. These aspects of
the human condition bring with them the demand for accessible
E&IT products that cater not just to one category but to many
different types of users. Below is a summary of the forces that
drive the demand for E&IT that is accessible to a wide range
of users.
Disability
Census 2000 counted 54 million people in the United
States with some type of long-lasting condition or disability
(NCD, 2004). These individuals represented 19.3 percent—nearly
one in five people—of the 257.2 million people age five
and older in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population. Their
conditions included a wide range of disabilities, not all of which
precluded the use of E&IT. Within this population, Census
2000 found—
- 9.3 million (3.6 percent) with a sensory disability
involving sight or hearing
- 21.2 million (8.2 percent) with a condition
limiting basic physical activities, such as walking, climbing
stairs, reaching, lifting, or carrying
- 12.4 million (4.8 percent) with a physical,
mental, or emotional condition causing difficulty in learning,
remembering, or concentrating
- 6.8 million (2.6 percent) with a physical, mental,
or emotional condition causing difficulty in dressing, bathing,
or getting around inside the home
- 18.2 million of those age 16 and older with a
condition that made it difficult to go outside the home to shop
or visit a doctor (8.6 percent of the 212.0 million people this
age)
- 21.3 million of those ages 16 to 64 with a condition
that affected their ability to work at a job or business (11.9
percent of the 178.7 million people in this age group)
E&IT products and services that are accessible
to people with disabilities appeal to the wider population as
well. Accessible design can significantly enhance the sales of
a product. For example, all of the following products were first
developed in support of people with disabilities and are now used
by the wider population:
- Auto-dialers
- Flatbed scanners
- Microphones
- Speech recognition
- Speech synthesis
- Talking ATMs
- Talking caller ID
- Vibrating pagers
Age
There are 36 million consumers 65 years of age
and older living in the United States (Population, 2003). People
65+ years of age are often not able to see, hear, think, or move
about as easily as they did when they were younger. In order to
enable people 65+ years of age to access and use E&IT, these
differences must be accommodated. In addition, 52 percent of people
65+ years of age have some type of disability. Thirty-three percent
of persons 65+ years of age have a severe disability.
By 2030, there will be about 70 million older persons,
more than twice the number in 2000. People 65+ represented 12.4
percent of the population in the year 2000, but are expected to
grow to 20 percent of the population by 2030 (Administration on
Aging, 2002). Furthermore, individuals who are accustomed to operating
E&IT will demand accessible E&IT as their functional capabilities
diminish.
Language
Language is certainly a driving force in today’s
market for more accessible E&IT. According to Global Reach,
there are 262 million English-speaking people online. Non-English-speaking
populations online are 474 million. By the end of 2005, the ratio
of English-speaking to non-English-speaking users will decrease
significantly (Global Reach, 2003).
Sixty-four percent of people who visit the Internet
seek sites in languages other than English (Global Reach, 2003).
In a world where International Data Corporation (IDC) predicted
that Internet spending outside the United States will have exceeded
$914 billion in 2003, effective Web site globalization is the
next imperative of Internet enterprises (IDC, 2000). Despite the
vast international opportunities projected, few U.S. companies
appear poised to take advantage of them. More than half (55 percent)
of U.S. companies do nothing to customize their Web sites for
foreign visitors; less than one-quarter even allow a choice of
language, according to recent IDC Internet Executive ePanel research.
With such minor globalization efforts, it is not surprising that
72 percent of U.S. companies that are online currently draw only
10 percent or less of their e-commerce revenue from outside the
United States. To increase their e-commerce revenue, companies
must strive to design Web sites that are accessible to the non-English-speaking
population.
Learning Style
There are three major types of learning styles
(Live Text, 2000). They are visual, auditory, and kinesthetic.
Visual learners need to see a person’s body language and
facial expression to fully understand the content of what is being
said. They tend to prefer sitting at the front of a classroom,
play, or lecture hall to avoid visual obstructions (e.g., people’s
heads). They may think in pictures and learn best from visual
displays, including diagrams, illustrated textbooks, overhead
transparencies, videos, flipcharts, and handouts. During a lecture
or classroom discussion, visual learners often prefer to take
detailed notes to absorb the information. Auditory learners learn
best through verbal lectures, discussions, talking things through,
and listening to what others have to say. Auditory learners interpret
the underlying meanings of speech through listening to tone of
voice, pitch, speed, and other nuances. Written information may
have little meaning until it is heard. These learners often benefit
from reading text aloud and using a tape recorder. Tactile/kinesthetic
learners learn best through a hands-on approach, actively exploring
the physical world around them. They may find it hard to sit still
for long periods and may become distracted by their need for activity
and exploration. Enabling people to acquire information in the
manner most appropriate to their learning style(s) enhances the
effectiveness of E&IT and accommodates users with sensory
disabilities.
Experience Level
Many people who are learning to use an application
on the Web for the first time want all the help they can get.
There will come a time, however, when the extra help is no longer
needed or desired. One of the benefits of accessible design practices
is having the ability to customize user interfaces based on the
wants, needs, and preferences of individual users.
Legal
Framework
The following is a summary of key laws, statutes,
and standards that have improved accessibility for individuals
with disabilities in this country. Each law is summarized, followed
by a discussion of who is primarily affected by the law and the
law’s approach toward addressing accessibility issues. These
laws and standards are a driving force in the market for accessibly
designed products, as they set the standards and guidelines for
what must be done by the government and industry to accommodate
the needs of individuals with disabilities.
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires
that when federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use
E&IT, they must ensure that individuals with disabilities
have access to and use of information that is comparable to the
access and use by federal employees who do not have disabilities,
unless an undue burden (significant expenses or difficulties)
is imposed on the agency. The law also requires that individuals
with disabilities in the general public seeking information or
services from a federal agency have access to information and
services comparable to that provided to individuals without disabilities,
unless undue burden is imposed on the agency. When compliance
does impose an undue burden, agencies must still provide disabled
individuals with the information and data by allowing them to
use it by an alternative means of access (e.g., captioning, audio
description).
Section 508 covers E&IT such as computer hardware,
software, networks, ancillary equipment, firmware, technology
services, telecommunications products, information kiosks and
transaction machines, World Wide Web sites, multimedia, and office
equipment such as copiers and fax machines. Section 508 does not
cover equipment that contains embedded information technology
that is used as an integral part of the product but the principal
function of which is not the acquisition, storage, manipulation,
management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange,
transmission, or reception of data or information (e.g., HVAC
equipment and medical equipment). As a guideline, E&IT systems
can be considered to be accessible to individuals with disabilities
if they can be used in a variety of ways that do not depend on
a single sense or ability.
Section 508 has the potential to greatly improve
accessibility to E&IT for individuals with disabilities. The
Federal Government will likely become a better employer to the
many people with disabilities who work for it, as well as a model
employer for industry. In addition, members of the public with
disabilities will have greater accessibility to government information
and services related to technology.
Those affected directly by section 508 include
federal departments and agencies and vendors that serve the Federal
Government. The initial impact is at the procurement stage. Section
508 must be integrated into the procurement process by determ |