| |
Design for Inclusion: Creating
a New Marketplace
(Online
Version) National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20004
This report is also available in alternative formats
and on NCD’s award-winning Web site (www.ncd.gov).
Publication date: October 28, 2004
202-272-2004 Voice
202-272-2074 TTY
202-272-2022 Fax
Note: The views contained in this report do not necessarily
represent those of the Administration, as this and all NCD documents
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.)
1331 F Street, NW ¢ Suite 850 ¢ Washington, DC 20004
202-272-2004 Voice ¢ 202-272-2074 TTY ¢ 202-272-2022 Fax
¢ www.ncd.gov
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.” (The
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
of 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 a closed captioning test stream used in user
testing.
Table of Contents Executive
Summary
Introduction
Section A: The Definition of Universal
Section B: Description of the Research Process
Section C: Selection of the Product Lines for
the Study
Section D: Definition of the Market Environment-Literacy
Section E: Customer Analysis
Section F: Analysis of the International Market
Section G: User Study
Section H: Product Analysis: Breakdown by Disability
Groups
Section I: Industry Study
Section J: Discussion
Section K: Conclusions
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
Bibliography
Appendix
List of Tables
Table 1: Candidate Product Lines
Table
2: Candidate Product Line Evaluation Results
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.
Section A: The Definition of Universal Design
Note: This is the full version of the section
abbreviated for the print version.
Universal design (UD), or design for inclusion, is
a process to ensure that electronic and information technology (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.
This 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. In their book
entitled The Universal Design Handbook, Wolfgang Preiser
and Elaine Ostroff (2001) describe the concept of universal design
as a term that was first used in the United States by Ronald Mace
in 1985. The concept took form in the realm of the built environment
and has since spread to many arenas, including information technology
(IT). 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. An architect in the 1970s realized that
“…everyone’s functional capacity is enhanced when
environmental barriers are removed” (Fletcher, 2002). From
the removal of barriers for people with physical disabilities, the
concept of UD has expanded to include other disabilities and domains.
The proliferation of UD concepts has evolved in part
from accommodating the needs of an aging population, legislation
enacted to encourage equal accommodation for people with disabilities,
and a desire to achieve mainstreaming of all of society’s
peoples. The Industrial Revolution resulted in wider availability
of products. The Civil Rights Movement, the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and other laws were enacted to
help break down barriers that were slowing societal mainstreaming.
There were various movements to integrate society in other countries
as well. As early as 1969, the Centre on Accessible Environments
came to be in the United Kingdom; and in the 1970s, Ronald Mace
coined the term “universal design.” Over time, a change
in perspective regarding human limitation has been made, “…from
treating people as part of the medical model, as dependent, passive
recipients of care and services, to a model in which everyone is
treated as an equal citizen and disability is seen merely as a social
construct” (Sandhu, 2001, p. 3.4).
Some alternate terms that have been used to refer
to universal design are inclusive design, design for inclusion,
life span 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).
“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”
(The Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University,
1997). 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 do not stand out (resulting in social
integration), and creating things so that they can be made available
“out of the box,” such that as many people as possible
can 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 of institutions
and becoming more independent. This exposure has helped to increase
awareness of limitations that can impede the average individual
and subsequently to lead to design changes in products to help overcome
these limitations. Initially, these design changes were implemented
as special features that added to 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
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 (NC State, 1997). The principles are—
- Equitable Use: The design is
useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.
- 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 is 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 design
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 be accessible to particular groups of people and provide
requirements that must be met. Universal design must incorporate
these principles and standards and use them as guidance when developing
products and services that are 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.
Vanderheiden (n.d.) provided the following descriptions of accessibility:
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
To expand on the characterization of human limitation,
it has been noted that “while some individuals have chronic
conditions, anyone may be temporarily disabled” (Story, Mueller,
and Mace, 1998). For example, a broken leg, a sprained wrist, the
flu, pupils dilated for an eye exam, or the lasting effects of a
loud concert are temporarily disabling conditions. Also, circumstances
such as poor lighting, high noise levels, adverse weather conditions,
carrying packages, wearing bad shoes, or visiting a country where
natives speak a different language affect people’s physical,
sensory, and cognitive abilities (Story, Mueller, and Mace, 1998).
While there is no strong basis for characterizing
UD and discriminating UD products from non-UD products, there are
a few sets of evaluation criteria that have been identified. The
Center for Universal Design has developed two versions of Universal
Design Performance Measures. The consumer’s 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 of users
or situations. Level 2 is assigned for features that, if not implemented,
will make the product very difficult to use for some groups of users
and situations. Level 3 is assigned for features that, if implemented,
will make the product easier to use, but do not make a product 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 ADA legislation, 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 may
be considered to have achieved UD. On the other hand, there is the
viewpoint of UD that suggests the ideal that designs should be usable
by individuals under every circumstance. While it is 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.”
Section B: Description of the Research Process
The research process for this report can be divided
into five steps: identification of product lines, market analysis,
user study, product analysis, and industry study. The project made
use of existing relationships with industry and consumer groups,
and in some cases existing data from these relationships, to directly
benefit the current research. The following is a summary of the
research process undertaken to conduct each proposed task. The summary
is divided according to the section of the report under which each
of the research tasks falls.
Identification of Product
Lines
The project team identified candidate product lines
based on our experience with the use of accessible E&IT products
in the disability community, the results of a user survey of use
and importance of consumer products conducted by the Wireless Rehabilitation
Engineering Research Center (RERC), and the product classification
(developed by the Information Technology Technical Assistance Training
Center, ITTATC) taxonomy of hardware and devices frequently used
by members of the disability community.
Once candidate product lines were identified, the
team developed criteria on which to rate the product lines to determine
which would be selected for evaluation. These ratings were first
considered separately and then collectively for each given product
line, and the ratings were then compared across the different product
lines to determine the products that would most benefit from this
type of research (i.e., the largest benefit to NCD and the disability
community). Product lines were then rated individually by each project
team member and discussed. Finally, the six highest-scoring product
lines were selected for inclusion in the study. The final list of
product lines was submitted to NCD for approval along with a summary
of the analysis used to nominate the candidate product lines.
Market Analysis
The purpose of conducting the market analysis was
to identify and analyze the business elements that create demand
for developing, manufacturing, and marketing accessible E&IT.
This task had four parts: the definition of the market environment,
a customer analysis, an analysis of market trends, and an analysis
of the international market.
Definition of the
Market Environment
The purpose of this task was to identify both the
market and the market trends that affect development of the E&IT
products previously identified. We analyzed the characteristics
of the market that create the highest demand-pull for accessibly
designed E&IT, including market size, market growth rate, market
intensity, market consumption, capacity, commercial infrastructure,
economic freedom, market receptivity, country risk, and the “accessible
design legal climate.” We then identified the characteristics
of each market, including population densities; bandwidth; use of
language; and current accessible-design-focused laws, standards,
and guidelines.
Particular emphasis was placed on identifying the
primary forces driving demand for more accessibly designed E&IT,
including market forces, aspects of the local environment and the
human condition, the legal framework, and standards and guidelines
that suggest and/or mandate accessible design practices.
Customer Analysis
The purpose of this analysis was to match customer
demand with E&IT products as well as to segment the potential
customer communities by physically, environmentally, educationally,
and technologically induced accessibility limitations. We began
by identifying characteristics of different global consumer communities
by each externally induced accessibility limitation. This included
addressing commonly held assumptions about the market and the customers.
This process was used to analyze all of the major consumer groups
identified.
For each customer group, we identified demographics
and then isolated and analyzed the demographic sectors that create
demand-pull for accessibly designed E&IT. Then we gathered and
analyzed disability statistics, where available.
Analysis of Market Trends
In the analysis of market trends we took an in-depth
look into how accessible E&IT design practices support marketing
“one-to-one,” rather than the mass marketing philosophy
of the 1980s. We then analyzed technology trends for each of the
product lines under study, and we grouped mainstream business requirements
that share common characteristics with the access needs of people
with disabilities. We also looked at the market forces that drive
the demand for accessibly designed cellular phones, personal digital
assistants (PDAs), televisions, voice recognition software, distance
learning education, and automated teller machines (ATMs).
International Market
This section of our research focused on examining
the markets in countries other than the United States. The business
justification for including these lies in the fact that 95 percent
of the world’s economic activity takes place outside of the
United States, leaving the majority of the world’s economy
untouched by most U.S.-based businesses. Information from this section
of the market analysis came from the 2003–2004 country commercial
guides (CCGs) that were prepared by the U.S. Embassy staff. We specifically
focused on the section of each country’s guide that identifies
the leading sectors for U.S. exports and investments. We selected
the countries for this study not based on market potential alone,
but also on the level of U.S. corporate investment in each country,
investments that support the establishment of long-term business
relationships. We selected the top five developing countries with
the highest populations, established by GlobalEDGE (2003) as having
the highest overall market potential: China, India, Russia, Mexico,
and Turkey. A thorough discussion of each emerging market is included
in Section F, “Analysis of the International Market.”
User Study
The purpose of the user study was to document user
acceptance and use of universally designed products. We conducted
five focus groups and one individual interview with participants
with disabilities recruited from the Georgia Tech subject pool and
the surrounding disability community. Participants discussed specific
experiences with each of the six product lines, including both their
positive and their negative experiences. The facilitator described
the purpose of the study and introduced each product line to the
participants. Participants then generated lists of features that
affect the accessibility of the devices in each product line. Then
the facilitator led a discussion of each feature and asked participants
to rate the impact of each feature on the overall accessibility
of the product for their particular range of functional capabilities.
We then analyzed the data from the focus groups, resulting
in a list of features that maximize the accessibility of a specific
product line for the range of functional limitations represented
by this study. We also noted accessibility features that were judged
to be critical to the operation of the device by users with specific
impairments.
We spent a portion of our time with the focus groups
conducting performance testing to gain objective measurements. Users
were asked to participate in hands-on test session using examples
of products with accessible features from each of the product lines
under study. We gave the users brief evaluation scenarios in which
they were asked to perform a series of typical tasks associated
with each device. The ability of each participant to perform the
task was documented. The degree to which an accessibility feature
actually facilitated task performance was also documented.
Product Analysis
The product line assessment provides an identification
of accessibility issues within each product line and an assessment
of accessibility features designed to address specific issues. To
assess the accessibility issues, we calculated an “impact
score” for each issue and target population. The impact score
is an estimation of the effect of a particular accessibility issue
on a particular target population. The score was calculated at the
task level based on two separate dimensions. The first dimension,
task priority, was defined as a measure of task importance. High-priority
tasks are those that are essential to the device, while low-priority
tasks are defined as those that are not essential or that would
not be expected to be performed by the end-user. The second dimension,
accessibility, was defined as an estimation of the ability of a
user with a given set of functional capabilities and limitations
to complete a given task satisfactorily.
The task-based accessibility analysis consisted of
identifying the core functionality (tasks) for the product line;
identifying the priority level for each task; and then for each
task for each disability type, assigning a task accessibility score.
Tasks were prioritized based on an estimate of the essential or
core features of the device, versus advanced features, product enhancements,
and features related to device set-up and maintenance. The assignment
of these priorities is discussed more thoroughly in “Product
Line Assessment Methodology” in Section G of the report. Each
task was also assigned an estimate of accessibility based on empirical
observations of similar tasks in the Accessibility Evaluation Facility
and expert judgment. Three levels of accessibility were considered:
little or no difficulty; some difficulty; and great difficulty.
Following the calculation of these scores, an accessibility
impact score was then calculated. This score is an indicator
of the importance of a given accessibility issue for the overall
accessibility of the device. The accessibility impact score reflects
the joint influence of task priority and accessibility level for
tasks. Task priority is the strongest component of the impact score.
Next, the overall accessibility grade was determined. The
overall accessibility grade for a product line is an index of the
cumulative impact of all accessibility issues. The accessibility
grade is a letter grade on the familiar scale of A, B, C, D, and
F.
The product analysis report describes the results
of the product line assessments for each of the six product lines:
ATMs, cellular phones, distance learning software, PDAs, televisions,
and voice recognition software. The report is organized according
to specific product lines. Each product line section was organized
as follows: background, task-based accessibility analysis, accessibility
features, compliance with government regulations, and conclusions.
Industry Study
The purpose of the industry study was to document
factors that influence the design and development of products within
industries representing each of the product lines under study. Before
beginning the industry study, we started by identifying candidate
facilitators and candidate barriers by reviewing ITTATC case studies
data, ITTATC industry survey data, and accessibility literature.
The case studies data provided a basis for identifying facilitators
and barriers, as the companies from which they were collected cover
a wide range of E&IT. The industry survey data, on the other
hand, provided us with a broader view of general practices within
a larger number of companies spanning an even larger domain of E&IT.
The accessibility literature was used in this part of the research
because aside from providing excellent insight into the history
and expectations of guidelines as specified in Section 508 and other
government regulations, it provided more of the consumer perception
of accessibility in product design—a different viewpoint from
that provided by product designers and manufacturers themselves.
Eleven business concerns that have an influence on
UD practices within an organization were identified and are discussed
in detail in the “Industry Study” section of the report.
We also examined the ways in which businesses experience a direct
positive impact or a direct negative impact from legislation. Included
also is a discussion of the comments companies made on the barriers
to accessible design that we identified at the beginning of this
portion of the study, including a discussion of the barriers specific
to each product line industry.
Section C: Selection of the Product Lines for the Study
Users with functional limitations strive to use technology
just the way users with less severe functional limitations do. In
general, all users employ technology in order to achieve the following
important goals:
- Gain access to products that
enable communication and enhance safety and security
- Gain access to products that
enable communication and enhance safety and security
- Gain access to personal finances
- Gain access to entertainment,
information, and services
- Gain access to products that
enhance or facilitate productivity at work
- Gain access to products that simplify or assist
the quality of life at home
This program of research is based on the detailed
study of six product lines. Selection of product lines involved
the identification of candidate product lines, the definition of
selection criteria, and the formal assessment of the viability of
each of the candidate product lines. The goal of the assessment
methodology was to identify a diverse range of products that would
serve as a useful framework for the study of universal design. A
formal assessment methodology was used in order to increase the
likelihood of generating meaningful research data.
The list of candidate product lines was assembled
based on the results of a user survey conducted by the Wireless
RERC on use and importance of consumer products, and the product
classification taxonomy developed by the Technical Assistance Working
Group of ITTATC for hardware and devices frequently used by members
of the disability community. In order to ensure that the final selection
of product lines represented a sufficiently broad range of equipment
types, each candidate product line was assigned to a product category.
The following product line categories were identified as representing
the range of E&IT equipment most useful to people with disabilities:
- Public/Business—Equipment
that might be used by the general public or shared in an office
environment
- Computer Technology—Computer
hardware, peripherals, and software
- Entertainment—Equipment
that can be used for personal entertainment
- Household—Common devices
found within the home
- Personal Care—Equipment
useful for health maintenance and monitoring
- Communications—Equipment
useful to facilitate communications
The purpose of the product categories was to aid in
the selection process. The highest-ranking product line in each
product category was selected for study. This process ensured that
two similar products were not selected for study and that the resulting
list of product lines would be sufficiently diverse. Table 1 contains
the list of candidate product lines by product category.
Table 1: Candidate Product Lines
Six criteria were defined for the purpose of
evaluating the candidate product lines. We identified the desirable
characteristics of the product lines in this study and then developed
criteria that would enable us to evaluate those characteristics
within a wide range of products. For example, products studied under
this research effort should play an important role in the lives
of people with disabilities. Therefore, an important selection criterion
is the perceived importance of the product line. If a product is
considered relatively unimportant in the lives of the users, then
it should be less likely to be selected as a product line for further
study. The following is a list of selection criteria used by the
project team in selecting the product lines.
Criterion 1: Perceived product importance in the lives
of people with disabilities
Justification: It is critically
important that this research results in meaningful data that helps
influence policy and increases the opportunities for members of
the disability community to interact with technology. Therefore,
this research should focus on the study of universal design in
products that are likely to have a substantial impact on the lives
of people with disabilities.
Definition: The level of importance
this product type has in the lives of people with disabilities.
The potential for this product line to improve the safety, comfort,
and independence of people with disabilities will be considered.
Source: Wireless RERC user survey,
expert opinion.
Criterion 2: Evidence of universal design
Justification: It is important
to select a product line in which there is evidence that UD is
at least a goal. Preference should be given to product lines that
have made progress toward the development of accessible products
so that their achievements can be studied and made available to
the benefit of others.
Definition: The degree to which
specific products within a given product line exhibit accessible
characteristics or evidence of universal design.
Source: Consumer recognition,
accessibility evaluations, self-reporting.
Criterion 3: Evidence of marketing and use
Justification: In order for the
project to maximize its impact, product lines should be sel |
