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 selected
in market segments that are actively promoted to and used by members
of the disability community. Evidence of marketing/promotion may
be a useful indicator of industry recognition of a viable market.
Such market segments may be more open to collaboration and will
provide more fertile ground for mining information about UD practices.
It is also desirable that the product line represent devices and
services that members of the disability community actually find
useful. Such devices are likely to generate widespread interest
in the disability community and maximize the potential impact
of the program.
Definition: The degree to which
the product type is marketed to, and used by, a variety of consumer
groups within the disability community.
Source: Self-reporting, inspection,
Wireless RERC user survey.
Criterion 4: Willingness of industry partners to share
proprietary data
Justification: It would be naïve
to exclude the viability of industry partnerships from the selection
criteria because much of the success of the project depends on
the willingness of industry to share learning experiences and,
in some cases, proprietary data, that will be necessary to achieve
the project objectives.
Definition: The willingness of
industry representatives to share proprietary information pertaining
to product design, testing, and evaluation.
Criterion 5: Affordability of product line
Justification: One of the parameters
that affect the accessibility of a product line is cost. If the
cost of a given product is such that consumers with disabilities
are unable to afford it, then that product is, by definition,
inaccessible.
Definition: The level of affordability
of this product type to the general disability community.
Criterion 6: Applicability of government regulations
Justification: One of the purposes
of this study is to review the impact of government regulations
on the development and marketing of universally designed products.
Therefore, it is important to study a number of products that
have been directly impacted by government regulations.
Definition: The degree to which
government regulations impact the design, development, and marketing
of the product.
Each candidate product line was rated by a team of
six experts. The raters were recruited from staff at the Georgia
Tech Research Institute, the IDEAL Group, and the Center for Assistive
Technology and Environmental Access. Each member of the evaluation
team had a background in accessibility research, and several had
experience evaluating and designing accessible products. For each
product line, the raters were asked to rate each selection criterion
on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (very good). The scores for each criterion
were then added together to derive a product line score. For the
purpose of this analysis, each selection criterion was weighted
equally.
Product line scores from each evaluation team member
were added together to form a single composite score for each candidate
product line. The results of the analysis were discussed with the
evaluation team, and no modifications to the original assessments
were deemed necessary. The candidate product lines within each category
were then sorted by their composite scores and arranged into product
categories. The highest-scoring product line in each product category,
based on the composite score, was selected for inclusion in this
study. Table 2 contains the results of the analysis.
Table 2: Candidate Product Line Evaluation Results
The household and personal care categories were
eliminated because their direct relevance to accessibility legislation
was perceived as limited. Furthermore, the desktop computer product
line was deemed too broad for a meaningful study and was narrowed
down to a particular class of software (distance learning software).
The microwave oven product line was replaced with voice recognition
software. The glucose monitor product line was replaced with PDAs.
The following product lines were selected for study and approved
by NCD:
- ATM
- Cellular phone
- Distance learning software
- PDA
- Television
- Voice recognition software
ATMs. The classic definition of an
ATM is an unattended machine, external to some banks, that dispenses
money when a personal coded card is used. Access to and management
of personal finances is an important part of living an independent
lifestyle. ATMs can provide convenient and secure access to these
functions. ATMs allow individuals to make transactions independently
and privately without requiring human interaction at times that
are convenient for individuals. ATMs are used for banking purposes
such as making cash withdrawals, making deposits, checking balances,
transferring money between accounts, and printing statements.
Accessibility of ATMs is affected by the design of
the machine itself and by the way the machine is installed. Thus,
while accessibility features of ATMs are important, the actual installation
of the ATM can severely limit the accessibility of the overall product.
For example, an accessible ATM can be created, but if it is installed
in a location that is not wheelchair accessible, it is useless to
users with lower-mobility impairments.
A feature such as a talking ATM greatly increases
the accessibility for a person with impaired or no vision. Users
who are blind or who have limited vision can typically learn what
buttons to press to complete the transaction; but the software is
often updated, changing the options and, subsequently, requiring
the user to relearn the correct pattern of selections. In addition,
a person who is blind has no way to verify the amount requested
for a withdrawal or the balance. Talking ATMs can provide equal
access for people who are blind and visually impaired.
The ATM industry, perhaps more than others, is comfortable
working with government and banking regulations from a variety of
different markets because ATMs are designed for and marketed to
the global community. In addition, market considerations heavily
influence this industry. Banking institutions are very reluctant
to purchase additional accessibility features or replace existing
equipment, which may have been in operation for 20 or more years,
in favor of more accessible designs.
Cellular Phones. Cell phones provide
a communication option in case of an emergency and allow individuals
to keep in contact with friends, family, and business associates.
People truly enjoy their portability, and for many people, cell
phones have become indispensable. Cell phones give us the ability
to make telephone calls; surf the Web without a computer; take a
photo and immediately send it to someone else; and receive messages,
stock quotes, news, and other information, anywhere and any time.
Accessible versions of cellular phones can enhance
the lives of people with disabilities in many ways. Easier data
entry reduces the number of button presses required to perform an
action. Because a cell phone can be used for much more than voice
communication, simplified data entry allows a user to use it more
readily as a data device, write messages, collect and store information,
and even make purchases. Accessibility is enhanced, in part, through
the Fastap™ keypad (Fastap, n.d.), an extremely simple, intuitive,
and powerful computer interface that fits in a small mobile phone
and provides a full alphanumeric keypad. A full alphanumeric keypad
greatly increases the ability of a person with a vision impairment
to input text.
Loopsets increase clarity and reduce background noise
for those with some types of hearing aids. For both persons with
vision impairments and those with upper-mobility impairments, voice
dialing provides an improved mechanism for making a phone call.
Voice can also be used to identify the source of an incoming call
and to facilitate menu navigation, which particularly benefits those
without sight. Inclusion of visual, auditory, and vibrating indicators
increases the opportunity for all users to be aware of various states
(e.g., new voice mail, low battery).
An accessible cellular phone can serve as an excellent
travel companion. France Telecom, one of the world’s leading
telecommunications carriers, has some products in development for
facilitating travel, such as a means to create a travel diary that
can include descriptions, notes, photos, and so forth that can later
be converted to a Web site. The phone can be used to access recordable
and downloadable information about historic monuments, for example.
The same device may be useful for those with a cognitive disability
who have difficulty remembering places or events, such as the location
of a parked car.
In general, an accessible cellular phone will allow
all users, regardless of their disabilities, to use most of the
features necessary for day-to-day activities. Currently, there is
a large divide in the number of features that can benefit various
users.
The study of this industry is interesting for three
reasons. First, the accessibility issues associated with cellular
phones are fairly well understood. No one contests the fact that
there are hearing aid compatibility issues with digital cellular
phones, or that operation of many phone features requires vision.
Second, market considerations, such as miniaturization and the need
to produce low-cost products quickly in order to remain competitive,
seem to run counter to many accessibility requirements. As keypads
become smaller and more stylized, many users find that operation
of the keypad is difficult, and some users with upper-mobility impairments
find dialing to be impossible. Finally, government regulations,
or the threat thereof, have caused many companies to scramble for
solutions that can be implemented economically.
PDAs. PDAs store, analyze, and retrieve
needed information, on demand, any time and anywhere. The functionality
of PDAs has grown significantly beyond the traditional tasks of
time and contact management. A PDA serves as a portable personal
computer and augmentative communications device. Some of the many
industries using PDAs are health care, building/construction, engineering,
food service, and sales. PDAs are useful for dispatching crews and
managing mobile personnel. In addition, PDAs are used for leisure-time
activities.
PDAs provide “anywhere access,” allowing
individuals to keep track of and organize information relevant to
their day-to-day activities. They are portable, allowing individuals
to possess information in a variety of contexts. They can be used
as a calculator, address book, calendar, memo pad, expense tracker,
and an electronic information storage device. While PDAs are particularly
useful in the business world, they serve as an excellent memory
aid for any individual. Information can be transferred between the
PDA and a personal computer (PC), providing portable access to information.
Currently, the accessibility of such devices is limited,
but a market for accessible PDAs is emerging. In the future, PDAs
will significantly increase access to information and facilitate
control of surrounding devices for everyone. Such devices, especially
those based on the Pocket PC platform, will support a variety of
input methods that may be tailored to an individual’s specific
functional capabilities and limitations. Their inherent ability
to control external devices, via Bluetooth, WiFi networking, or
IR (infrared), will eventually lead to increased access to devices
such as televisions and information kiosks.
An accessible PDA can serve as an excellent travel
companion (France Telecom, 2003). (See www.francetelecom.com) France
Telecom has some products in development for facilitating travel.
A PDA can serve as a tourist guide, providing information about
restaurants, banks, and emergency services. It can also serve as
a guide for attendees at conferences and trade shows, providing
assistance in locating specific exhibitors or getting schedule information.
A future use of PDAs might be service as a personal
captioning device that could be worn by a person who is deaf or
hard of hearing in a movie theater, lecture hall, or meeting room.
Speech-to-text software might be used to automatically convert a
speaker’s words to captions in real time. The system would
make it possible for the user to follow along in real time when
a sign language translator isn’t available. In a movie theater,
the system would draw on the captions that normally come prepackaged
with films, but that usually are not displayed at public venues.
As the captions are being entered, a transmitter sends them to a
PDA carried by the user. The user can read the text right off the
PDA screen or off of a 30-gram, commercially available mini-monitor
that clips onto his or her glasses. With the mini-monitor, the user
can keep an eye on the action and read the captions at the same
time (Technology Review, 2003/2004).
In general, an accessible PDA will allow all users,
regardless of their disabilities, to use most of the features necessary
for day-to-day activities. Currently, there is a large divide in
the number of features that can benefit various users.
Television. Television is a medium
that entertains, informs, and educates; it can also serve as a companion
to people who, due to circumstances beyond their control, are limited
to their homes. Traditionally, people have used TVs to receive news
reports and watch movies, sports events, and other programming.
Technologically advanced TV systems allow viewers to play interactive
games, take a distance learning course, send instant messages, surf
the Web, send an email, and shop for and purchase products. High-definition
television (HDTV) is a television system that has more than the
usual number of lines per frame, so its pictures show more detail.
Interactive television (iTV) provides richer entertainment, interaction,
and more information pertaining to the shows, props, and their creators.
In a sense, iTV combines traditional TV viewing with the interactivity
enjoyed by those communicating through the Internet.
The Federal Government has mandated that most new
television sets must have closed captioning equipment built into
the devices. Such equipment has benefited those learning English
as a second language and those watching television in noisy environments,
in addition to the obvious benefit to individuals who are deaf or
hard of hearing.
The inclusion of televisions in the product lines
of this research was important because the product line facilitated
the study of a situation where the Federal Government imposed a
hard restriction on a specific industry. The addition of the closed
captioning chip is often touted as a success story of government
regulation; however, the industry as a whole did not take up the
banner of accessibility in meeting this requirement. For example,
the accessibility of remote controls and on-screen menus is often
lacking, creating additional barriers. It was instructive to contrast
mandated accessibility features with the softer technical requirements
of Section 508 that govern the purchase of E&IT by the Federal
Government.
Distance Learning Software. Distance
learning is a means of providing educational content via audio,
video, or computer technologies, whether for an academic program
or a business setting. The content may be live or prerecorded. Distance
learning is a feasible method of continuing one’s education
without the need to be physically present in a classroom. Web-based
distance learning is a great benefit to those whose schedules demand
that their education be self-paced, those who are geographically
separated from the classroom, and those who have disabilities that
make physical access to the classroom difficult. In a typical distance
learning environment, the student must have access to classroom
materials such as documents, animations, and videos. In addition,
students must be able to participate in class exercises via email
or group chat sessions.
Accessible distance learning can provide the opportunity
for a larger number of people to participate in the learning process
and can increase the speed at which people with various impairments
can complete the requirements of the course. Distance learning removes
many of the barriers associated with traditional learning environments,
such as transportation, general mobility, building access, and information
processing limitations. Although much is known about the accessibility
issues of the technologies required to facilitate access to distance
learning courses, a significant effort is required to develop accessible
content.
Voice Recognition Software. Voice
recognition technology (VRT) is a means of providing input via voice
rather than mechanical means. It is particularly useful for people
who do not have hands, who have limited functioning of their hands,
or who cannot see the input options or activate the correct control
to submit input. VRT by itself is neither accessible nor inaccessible.
It is the integration of VRT into other products and services that
can help make those products and services more accessible and usable.
VRT, also referred to as speech recognition technology (SRT), provides
telecommunications and computing devices with the ability to recognize
and carry out voice commands or take dictation.
There are different types of speech recognition systems,
some of which are better suited for certain people. There are systems
that require training, and those that don’t. Speaker-dependent
systems, trained to recognize a particular individual’s voice,
are better able to process an individual’s speech patterns,
but they can take a significant amount of time to train. There are
also continuous versus discrete speech recognition systems in which,
respectively, the user can talk at a normal rate or is required
to talk with pauses between words.
Voice recognition enhances quality of life and independence
for everyone. A number of new products, such as tablet PCs, information
kiosks, and interactive voice response (IVR) systems, have speech
recognition/production capabilities built into the devices. Users
do not have to use their hands when operating a device that incorporates
speech recognition. This technology is also useful in a hands-busy
environment, such as when a radiologist analyzes X-rays by holding
them up to the light and voice dictates the results to a computer.
It is also helpful when operating small devices like cell phones
and PDAs.
VRTs can be used to enable people to access a Web
site using a telephone. Extending access of a commercial Web site
to telephones can attract new customers who may not be in a position
to use a computer connected to the Internet, such as an individual
who is blind or visually impaired. Accessibility can be further
enhanced through VoiceXML standards. The Voice Extensible Markup
Language (VXML) Forum is an industry organization established to
promote VoiceXML as the universal standard for speech-enabled Web
applications for creating Web content and services that can be accessed
by phone.
Speech display/recognition systems represent a large
step forward in usability and accessibility of computing devices.
Until recently, the inaccuracy of voice recognition systems has
hampered their deployment. In the future, embedded speech recognition/production
systems will enhance the accessibility of a variety of common electronic
and information technologies and are therefore worthy of study.
Section D: Definition of the Market Environment—Literacy
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 defines literacy
as “an individual’s ability to read, write, speak in
English, compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary
to function on the job, in the family of the individual, and in
society.”
The International Adult Literacy Survey (Adult Literacy
Survey, 2003) was a 22-country initiative conducted between 1994
and 1998. In every country, nationally representative samples of
adults between the ages of 16 and 65 were interviewed and tested
at home, using the same literacy test. The main purpose of the survey
was to find out how well adults use information to function in society.
Another aim was to investigate the factors that influence literacy
proficiency and to compare these factors among countries.
According to the National Institute for Literacy,
“Very few adults in the U.S. are truly illiterate. Rather,
there are many adults with low literacy skills who lack the foundation
they need to find and keep decent jobs, support their children’s
education, and participate actively in civic life.” According
to the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), between 21 and 23
percent of the adult population, or approximately 44 million people,
scored between 0 and 20 percent on literacy proficiency. Another
25–28 percent of the adult population, or between 45 and 50
million people, scored between 20 and 40 percent. Literacy experts
believe that adults with skills at these levels lack a sufficient
foundation of basic skills to function successfully in our society.
Many factors help to explain the relatively large
number of adults in the 0–20 percent category. Twenty-five
percent of adults in this category were immigrants who may have
just been learning to speak English. In addition, more than 60 percent
did not complete high school; more than 30 percent were over the
age of 65; more than 25 percent had physical or mental conditions
that kept them from fully participating in work, school, housework,
or other activities; and almost 20 percent had vision problems that
affected their ability to read print. A large percentage of the
population in the United States are at literacy proficiency below
40 percent. Design for individuals with limited literacy skills
also accommodates individuals who have learning disabilities or
cognitive disabilities that impact reading comprehension.
Section E: Customer Analysis
Visual Impairments
There are approximately 10 million people in the United
States who are blind or visually impaired and about 6 million in
the European Union (EU). Visual impairments include the following:
blindness, partially sighted, low vision, and color blindness. In
addition to medical conditions that impact vision, visual perception
may be impacted by distraction from a busy, cluttered visual environment,
visual fatigue, colored or high- or low-lighting conditions, and
adverse weather conditions. Users with visual impairments may encounter
great difficulty or find it impossible to complete the following
types of tasks:
- Locating equipment
- Locating commands/devices
- Identifying commands/devices
- Using touchscreens
- Reading text on a screen
- Selecting objects on a screen
- Receiving graphics and video
information
- Receiving visual alerts and
signals
- Inserting cards/coins/media
- Reading printed material, including
instruction manuals
In general, people with impaired vision may have difficulty
perceiving visual detail, focusing on objects either close up or
at a distance, separating objects that do not have sufficient contrast,
perceiving objects in both central and peripheral vision, perceiving
color and contrast brightness, adapting to different light levels,
tracking moving objects, and judging distances (Story, Mueller,
and Mace, 1998).
Hearing
Impairments
More than 24 million people in the United States and about 22 million
in the EU have a significant loss of hearing. Hearing impairments
include the following: deafness, hard of hearing, conductive hearing
loss, sensorineural hearing loss, and mixed hearing loss (both conductive
and sensorineural). In addition to medical conditions that impact
hearing, auditory perception may be impacted by attending to multiple
sound sources, functioning in loud environments, and using headphones.
Users who are deaf or hard of hearing may encounter great difficulty
or find it impossible to complete the following tasks:
- Receiving audio information
- Understanding speech information
- Receiving acoustic alerts and
signals
- Using speech input
In general, people with impaired hearing may have
difficulty localizing the source or direction of sound, filtering
out background sound, perceiving both high- and low-pitched sounds,
and carrying on a conversation (Story, Mueller, and Mace, 1998).
Mobility
Impairments
More than 40 million people in the United States and about 32 million
in the EU have a significant loss of mobility. Mobility impairments
can include the following symptoms: tremors and spasticity, paralysis
and partial paralysis, amputation, and loss of coordination and
strength. In addition to medical conditions that impact mobility,
mobility may be impacted by pain, fatigue, availability of one hand
or arm while the other is occupied with another task, wearing thick
clothing or gloves, small hands, wet or oily hands, and adverse
environmental conditions (e.g., bad weather or uneven terrain).
Users with mobility impairments may encounter great difficulty or
find it impossible to complete the following tasks:
- Using switches
- Lifting/holding devices and
handsets
- Using dials
- Using numeric keypads
- Writing with a keyboard
- Handling a pointing device
- Using a touchscreen
- Inserting cards/coins/media
- Handling printed manuals and
books
- Accessing equipment
In general, people with impaired mobility may have
difficulty with tasks requiring range of motion, coordination, strength,
and balance. More specifically, difficulties may be apparent in
the following areas: reaching, pushing, pulling, lifting, lowering,
carrying, grasping, squeezing, rotating, twisting, and pinching
(Story, Mueller, and Macel, 1998).
Cognitive
Disabilities
More than 12 million people in the United States and 9 million in
the EU have a significant cognitive disability. Cognitive disabilities
can include the following: dyslexia, cerebral palsy, retardation,
and severe learning disabilities. In addition to medical conditions
that impact cognition, cognitive processing may be impacted by a
limited vocabulary or grammar, limited literacy, cultural or language
differences, fatigue, or distraction. Users with cognitive disabilities
may encounter great difficulty or find it impossible to complete
the following tasks:
- Writing on a keyboard
- Reading text on a screen
- Reading printed material
- Understanding speech information
- Handling a pointing device,
such as a mouse
- Navigating complex menu structures
- Responding quickly
In general, people with impaired cognition may have
difficulty “…receiving, comprehending, interpreting,
remembering, or acting on information.” More specifically,
difficulties may be apparent in the following areas: beginning a
task without a prompt or reminder, responding within an appropriate
time frame, concentrating, comprehending visual or auditory information,
understanding or expressing language, following procedures or doing
things in order, organizing information, remembering things, making
decisions and solving problems, and learning new things or doing
things a new or different way (Story, Mueller, and Mace, 1998).
Individuals 65+ Years of Age
The number of people 65+ years of age living in the
United States is approximately 36 million (Population, 2003). In
the top five emerging markets, the number of people 65+ years of
age is 174 million. Aging populations cannot see, hear, think or
move about as easily as younger generations. Fifty-two percent (U.S.
Census Bureau, 1997) of people 65+ years of age experience one or
more of the following (Telecommunications Industry, 1996):
- Decreased visual acuity
- Reduced powers of accommodation
- Decreased contrast sensitivity
- Increased sensitivity to glare
- Longer dark adaptation times
- Decreased color vision and discrimination
- Hearing impairments
-
Consumers Living in Low-Bandwidth
Information Infrastructures
It is not uncommon for people living in the United
States to take the Internet, and the bandwidth that comes with it,
for granted. The United States and Canada have the technical capacity
to provide bandwidth of 1,182 Mbps per capita (Haub, 2003). Developers
of Web-based content targeted for use by U.S. and Canadian consumers
do not necessarily need to concern themselves with limited bandwidth.
In comparison, Asia has only 21 Mbps of bandwidth available per
capita (Light Reading, 2002). Five billion consumers live within
low-bandwidth infrastructures. This provides a significant business
incentive to design Web-based content that is accessible, usable,
and useful from within low-bandwidth infrastructures.
People Who Never Learned To Read
There are 7 million people who never learned to read
living in the United States. Compare this to the 439 million consumers
who never learned to read living in the five countries with the
largest potential emerging markets. People who are not able to read
cannot use ATMs, PDAs, or the Web, unless they are designed with
access in mind. People who never learned to read can benefit significantly
from voice dialing and talking ATMs (Literacy Demographic Data,
2003).
Users of English as a Second
Language (ESL)
The number of people believed to speak English as
a second language is around 300 million. Users of ESL include individuals
whose mother tongue is not English, but who live in countries where
English has official or joint official status. In these instances,
English is often used to conduct official business. English is the
official or joint official language of more than 70 countries.
There are approximately 375 million speakers of English
as a first language. There are approximately 750 million speakers
who have learned English as a foreign language (ESL Online Education
and Training, 2000). In 2000, 28.4 million foreign-born people resided
in the United States, representing 10.4 percent of the total U.S.
population. ESL programs are the fastest-growing component of state-administered
adult education programs. In 1997–98, 48 percent of adult
education enrollments were in ESL programs, compared with 33 percent
in 1993–94. Of the 1997–98 ESL students in adult education,
32 percent were in beginning ESL classes, 12 percent in intermediate
classes, and 4 percent in advanced classes (National Institute for
Literacy, 2003). As evidenced by these statistics, the needs of
users who are not native-born English speakers must be considered
when designing accessible products.
Consumers Living in High-Density
Populations
Population densities were calculated by dividing the
area of land of a given country (Area, 2003) by that country’s
population (Population, 2003). People per square kilometer is one
of the factors considered when calculating the average number of
people that will have to wait in line to use any given ATM, self-service
kiosk, or self-checkout point-of-sale device in a country. There
are three people per square kilometer of available land space living
in Canada. The number of people per square kilometer living in the
United States is 31. This is 10 times that of Canada. On average,
the transaction time required when using an ATM or other self-service
device needs to be faster in the United States than in Canada if
the ratio of the number of self-service devices to size of geographical
area is the same. Designing for access can reduce transaction times
and increase customer satisfaction. Designing ATMs for faster use
can be a competitive advantage in emerging markets, where population
densities skyrocket. For example, in China there are 138 people
per square kilometer. In India the number rises to 352.
High-Language-Density
Populations
Large numbers of people living in areas where a large
number of languages are spoken increase the complexity of delivering
more accessibly designed interfaces. There are 25 languages spoken
by a minimum number of 750,000 people living in China. In India
there are 54 languages (SIL, 2003). This poses a challenge to accessible
design. Companies must devise solutions to designing accessible
products for high-language-density populations that meet the needs
of all speakers.
Consumers in Situations
That Reduce Sensory or Visual Capabilities
Designing for access does more than just benefit users
with disabilities who desire accessibility features; UD practices
also benefit all consumers when they find themselves in various
situations that reduce their sensory or visual capabilities. For
example, one accessibility feature for cellular phones that is rated
as very important by users who are blind is voiced menu options.
In addition to making cell phones more accessible to individuals
who are blind, this feature benefits users driving in their cars
who would rather focus their visual attention and capabilities on
driving than on navigating through their cellular phone menus to
find a phone number or make a call. This feature also is important
in increasing the user’s safety in such situations.
Another important accessibility feature for cellular
phones that benefits all consumers, which was designed with hard-of-hearing
users in mind, is adjustable volume control. When a consumer is
navigating through a noisy environment such as a mall, construction
site, or airport, it is often hard to hear a phone ring or to hear
the person you’re talking to on the other end of the line.
The volume-control feature, initially marketed to a specific disability
group, also benefits all consumers, with or without a disability,
who find themselves in such a situation.
As another example, consider the design of buttons
for ATMs, cellular phones, and PDAs. Larger keypad buttons are an
important accessibility features for individuals with low vision
or upper-mobility impairments. However, this feature has also appealed
to consumers whose dexterity is limited when they are wearing winter
gloves, for example. Larger keypad buttons make it easier for them
to withdraw money from an outdoor ATM or to make a phone call while
wearing gloves. In addition to larger buttons, larger displays on
cellular phones and PDAs, an accessibility feature marketed to users
with low vision, is another feature that benefits all consumers
who are, for example, operating a device at night or in a foggy
environment.
Accessibility features of televisions, such as closed
captioning, can be beneficial to any consumers who are at a noisy
party or watching a sports match in a restaurant, where their auditory
capabilities are limited.
These are just a few examples of situations in which
features that are designed with users with disabilities in mind
actually increase the accessibility and appeal of products for the
wider population. Companies should consider that when they design
for accessibility, they benefit from offering products that will
appeal to the general population as well as users with disabilities.
Section F: Analysis of the International Market
The scope of this analysis includes countries other
than the United States. While it is natural for one to think locally
(the United States), industry is global. International (including
U.S.) business drivers for accessible design have far more impact.
The business justification for this approach lies in the fact that,
according to the Department of Commerce’s (DOC’s) Economic
and Statistics Administration, more than 95 percent of the world’s
economic activity takes place outside of the United States, and
the majority of the world’s market is untouched by most U.S.-based
businesses. Only 12 percent of U.S. businesses export their products,
although a much greater percentage of them are able to do so (Czinkota,
2001).
Information provided in this section of the report
was taken directly from 2004 country commercial guides (CCGs) prepared
by U.S. embassy staff. This section specifically focuses on the
section of each county’s guide that identifies the leading
sectors for U.S. exports and investments. CCGs are published once
a year and contain information on the business, economic situation,
and political climate of foreign countries as they affect U.S. business.
Each CCG contains the same chapters and an appendix that includes
topics such as marketing, trade regulations, investment climate,
and business travel.
Economic activity is not the same as gross domestic
product (GDP). The term economic activity, as used by the DOC, represents
the value of total imports and exports for a given country for a
given year. Total U.S. imports plus total U.S. exports for 2002,
expressed as a percentage of GDP, was less than 5 percent. U.S.
imports for 2002 totaled $1.165 trillion. Total exports totaled
$682 billion. The combined total was $1.847 trillion. Divide this
by $49 trillion, the world’s GDP, and that is how DOC expresses
this particular metric. If you compare apples to apples, world economic
activity for 2002 was $12.6 trillion. Divide this into $1.84 trillion,
and U.S. economic activity was 14.7 percent of world economic activity
in 2002.
The countries targeted for this study were not selected
based on market potential alone. They were also selected based on
the level of U.S. corporate investment in each of the five emerging
market countries covered in this report––that is, investments
that support the establishment of long-term business relationships.
Between 1990 and 2002, foreign direct investment (FDI) in the five
emerging market countries exceeded US$614 billion (Kearney, 2002).
Four-fifths of the world’s population live in developing countries.
The top 15 highest potential emerging markets account for 28.6 percent
(US$14 trillion) of the world’s gross domestic product (US$49
trillion). The door to emerging trade opportunities is being opened
by the increasing need for high-technology products and other capital
equipment. Supporting the growth, prosperity, and independence of
developing countries implies the use of information technology.
These technologies include telecommunication, education, and banking
infrastructures. According to Subhash Bhatnagar (n.d.) of the World
Bank, technology is a critical success factor in enabling developing
governments to reach out to their citizens for the purposes of—
- Improving delivery of services
to citizens
- Improving communications between
government and industry
- Empowering citizens by providing
access to knowledge and information
- Making the workings of government
more efficient, cost effective, successful, and self-sustaining
If the people living in developing countries are not
able to access and use the technologies fundamental to that country’s
growth and prosperity, that country will not succeed in achieving
acceptable qualities of life, independence, or employability for
its citizens.
The emerging markets selected to be part of this analysis
are made up of the top five developing countries, with the highest
populations, established by GlobalEDGE (2003) as having the highest
overall market potential. These countries are China, India, Russia,
Mexico, and Turkey.
China (China, 2003)
China:
Information Technology (IT)
China is home to one of the largest and fastest growing
IT markets in the world. According to statistics released by the
Ministry of Information Industry (MII), the 2002 total sales value
for E&IT products was US$169.5 billion, an increase of 17.8
percent over the previous year. This statistic refers to Chinese
imports. China imported approximately US$74 billion worth of IT
products in 2002. The total market size is estimated to be US$215
billion. According to both government and private sector sources,
the demand for IT products is expected to maintain a high growth
level due to rapid economic development in China and high demand
driven by favorable national policy and growing consumer power.
The Chinese government is now pursuing a national
development strategy of “using informatization to drive industrialization
and using industrialization to promote informatization.” Current
national development policies give top priority to development of
the IT industry and encourage wide application of IT in all economic
and social fields. According to MII, in 2002, the domestic E&
IT industry output was US$206.98 billion, up 20.9 percent over the
previous year, which is almost three times the growth rate of China’s
GDP in the same period. This statistic refers to industry output.
As China continues to develop as a center for manufacturing,
and as foreign investment, the strength of local companies, and
the affluence of local consumers all continue to increase, information
products and services—ranging from business applications to
digital consumer products—will drastically increase in the
next 5 to 10 years. Major drivers of growth include China’s
e-government initiative, e-commerce development, “two pillars
of the economy” initiative (i.e., the development of national
software and integrated circuit [IC] industries), as well as China’s
need to enhance its competitiveness across all industrial sectors
due to the rapid pace of globalization as a result of its access
to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The 2008 Olympic Games will
also provide a strong impetus for growth in demand of IT products
and services in the next five years. It is estimated that Beijing
will spend close to US$3.6 billion on IT infrastructure and systems
to meet the needs of the Olympic Games.
As a concrete measure to implement its strategy of
using informatization to drive industrialization, the Chinese government
initiated an ambitious e-government program in 2001. According to
the China Center of Information Industry Development (CCID), a local
consulting firm, the Chinese government has thus far spent a total
of US$4.2 billion on e-government projects. In the next two to three
years, the compound growth rate of government spending on IT will
be 25.7 percent. More than US$12.1 billion will be spent on e-government
over the next five years.
Since the bursting of investment bubbles in dot-com
ventures, China’s Internet business market seems to have recovered
its vigor for growth. The three major portals, Sina.com, Sohu.com,
and Netease.com, all claimed to have made profits since the second
half of 2002. With short messaging service (SMS), online advertisement,
online gaming, and online trade, these major portals are finding
their way to sustainable and profitable business models. The progress
made by these portals is an encouraging factor to e-commerce development,
which will create huge demand for IT products, from hardware to
software, from system software to innovative applications and services.
Driven by huge demand and facilitated by favorable
investment policies, China’s IC industry returned to a fast
track of growth in 2002. The growth in China’s IC market seems
to have caught the world’s attention. According to CCID, China’s
2002 IC market size reached US$21.54 billion, accounting for 15.3
percent of the world market. That said, currently, 85 percent of
China’s domestic IC demand is met by imports.
Although China is now playing a significant role in
electronics and information products manufacturing (total production
volume is believed to have surpassed that of Japan to become the
world’s second largest producer), it still lacks core technologies
for almost all of the products it produces. For instance, China
is the number 1 producer of mobile handsets, but core chips needed
to produce the phones must be imported. The same is true for other
products, including DVDs, high-end color TVs, computers, and monitors.
Although the government has promulgated policies to encourage the
development of IC and software, China’s heavy reliance on
imports for high-end chips, parts, and components for most of the
electronics and information products is not expected to change significantly
for as long as a decade. With leading technologies in almost all
fields of information technology, U.S. companies have a great advantage
in meeting the increasing market demand for high-valued-added chips,
devices, and components.
Other best prospects include production lines and
equipment for the manufacture of E&IT products, including semiconductors.
More and more world manufacturing capacity is moving to the country
where demand for highly sophisticated modern manufacturing lines
almost solely relies on imports from developed countries. For instance,
China is currently not capable of producing critical semiconductor
equipment for processing 0.18-micron chips. In this area, China
is two generations behind the latest world technological levels.
Demand for equipment and instruments for processing, packaging,
and testing chips will be met only by imports. Moreover, software
tools and intellectual property cores for designing chips appear
to provide good sales opportunities for U.S. companies.
Consumer electronics is another area of high growth.
According to CCID, China’s 2002 sales of digital cameras,
mobile storage devices (flash memory), MP3 players, and digital
video cameras increased more than 100 percent from 2001. PDAs are
also an area with deep potential for growth. U.S. companies have
a big role to play in supplying the operating system, core chips,
or production expertise for these products.
However, the key to succeeding in any of the above
“best prospects” markets is to localize your products.
Although there is great demand, U.S. suppliers are not the only
source. Competitors in Europe and Asia (e.g., Japan, Taiwan, and
Korea) are also trying to meet the demand. It is imperative that
U.S. companies understand the market and the specific needs/demands
of Chinese customers in order to take full advantage of the market.
Although U.S. companies still dominate much of the
high-end hardware market in China’s fast-growing computer
market—such as high-end servers, printers, routers, and network
equipment—their dominance is severely challenged by fledgling
local players such as Lenovo (the new brand name for Legend Corp.).
CCID’s 2002 statistics show signs of a maturing market, with
emphasis of demand shifting toward software and IT services. U.S.
companies such as IBM and HP, and software giants Microsoft, Oracle,
Sybase, and BEA keep dominance on China’s system software,
platform software, applications, and IT consulting services market.
Table 3: China’s Information Technology Market
Notes: The figures above are calculated
in millions of U.S. dollars and represent unofficial estimates.
Trade numbers are based on Chinese customs figures for the HTS codes
8470–8473, 8517–8534, and 8540–8542. Local production
figures are from MII. The MII figures for export in 2002 were US$92.1
billion and US$65.2 for 2001; domestic sales figures were US$162.79
billion for 2002 and US$143.88 for 2001.
China: Telecommunications Equipment
China’s telecommunications industry continued
the momentum of rapid growth in 2002, despite the downturn in the
industry worldwide. As of the end of May 2003, the total absolute
number of telephone users in China reached 462 million, among which
232 million were landlines subscribers and 230 million were cell
phone users. However, the penetration rates of fixed lines at 17.5
percent and mobiles at 16.2 percent clearly indicate there is room
for further growth. In the five years since 1997, China’s
telecommunications industry registered an average annual growth
rate of 20 percent.
In 2002, Chinese telecommunications carriers invested
US$25.4 billion in telecom infrastructure, compared with US$29 billion
in 2001. As a result, carriers were able to recruit 95.45 million
new telephone subscribers that year. Their aggregated revenue reached
US$55.36 billion, with China Telecom having a 32.5 percent share,
China Netcom 16.6 percent, China Mobile 37.4 percent, China Unicom
12.1 percent, and others (China Railcom and ChinaSat) 1.4 percent.
China’s MII, the most important government regulator
in the telecommunications industry, projected that Chinese telecommunications
carriers would invest US$25.5 billion in 2003 to recruit 33 million
fixed line telephone subscribers and 52 million cellular phone users.
MII expected the fixed line penetration rate to reach 19.4 percent
by the end of 2003 and cellular penetration rate to reach 20.1 percent.
The Chinese government is expected to grant third
generation (3G) licenses to four Chinese telecom operators in the
first half of 2004. Besides China Mobile and China Unicom, which
are the two incumbent mobile communication service providers, fixed
line operators, China Telecom and China Netcom, are also likely
to obtain such licenses.
A competitive market environment is taking shape in
China’s telecommunications sector. In 2004, China’s
six licensed basic telecom operators—China Telecom, China
Netcom, China Mobile, China Unicom, China Railcom and ChinaSat—are
expected to expand and optimize their networks in order to meet
the growing need for telecommunications services. Moreover, they
are expected to compete against each other as well as potential
competitors from multinational companies that are planning to explore
business opportunities in this lucrative market.
It is important to recognize that, while the Chinese
government appears committed to foster a more competitive telecommunications
service environment, this commitment does not necessarily mean that
equipment vendors with the best technology and/or lowest prices
will succeed in the Chinese marketplace.
China’s telecommunications equipment market
is characterized by intense competition and a multitude of complex,
multilayered political and economic factors that must be carefully
and appropriately evaluated in order to achieve success.
MII is subject to oversight by the State Council.
MII was created in March 1998 by merging the Ministry of Posts and
Telecommunications with the Ministry of Electronics Industry (MEI).
Other influential government agencies in China’s telecommunications
industry include the State Council Informatization Office (SCITO)
and the National Planning and Reform Commission (NPRC). SCITO was
set up in August 2001 as an interagency coordinating body to oversee
China’s regulatory and commercial developments in the IT and
telecommunications sectors and implement the central government’s
policies and measures that drive information technologies. NDRC
is the approver of important and large projects.
In March 2003, the former Party Secretary of Hebei
Province, Wang Xudong, replaced Wu Jichuan as the minister of MII.
In May, Minister Wang was also appointed the director of SCITO,
replacing Zeng Peiyan, who was promoted to serve as a State Councilor.
Having Wang as head of both MII and SCITO is a sign that the Chinese
government is moving to integrate its policies and strategies on
telecommunications and information industries.
China does not yet have a telecommunications law in
place. However, MII has promulgated telecommunications regulations
and regulations on foreign investment in the telecommunications
industry based on its WTO commitments.
MII requires that most telecom equipment, including
terminal devices such as cellular phones, fixed line phones, and
fax machines and network products like switches and base station
equipment, be tested and certified. There are two kinds of certificates:
(1) type of approval (TA) for radio products, and (2) telecom equipment
network access license (NAL) for all other products. MII’s
Radio Regulatory Department tests radio products and issues TA certificates,
while MII’s Telecom Administration Bureau issues telecom equipment
NALs.
In addition, certain telecom products may also need
to obtain a CCC mark (China Product Compulsory Certification mark)
from China’s State General Administration of Quality Supervision
and Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ). More information is available
on AQSIQ’s Web site, www.aqsiq.gov.cn or www.cnca.gov.cn,
or go to the following Web page for frequently asked questions on
the CCC mark: http://www.mac.doc.gov/China/Docs/BusinessGuides/CCCFAQ.htm.
Testing of products by the carriers is a must, even
if these products will be sold to local operators.
Larger vendors are advised to work directly with the
carriers to sell their products, while smaller firms may want to
start with agents and distributors that have the necessary resources,
connections, and technical support.
China: Telecommunications Subsectors
Mobile communications include the following 3G and
value-added service platforms:
- Value-added capabilities for
email and Web browsers and the ability to download ringing tones,
logos/images, music, videos, games, and stock market quotations
- Broadband access network equipment,
including wireless LAN, LMDS, and ADSL
- Operational management systems
like BOSS and multiple-service platforms
Table 4: China’s Telecommunications Equipment Market
Note: The above figures are calculated in millions
of U.S. dollars. They are taken in part from MII’s reported
top 15 Chinese telecom vendors’ sales estimates and represent
unofficial estimates.
China: Software
Market
China’s general computer market revenues increased
16 percent in 2002, totaling US$28.5 billion in sales. Of the overall
computer market revenues, hardware accounted for 67.2 percent, software
accounted for 14.6 percent, and information services accounted for18.2
percent. According to February 2003 reports in the CCID Consulting
News, the software market will continue to post strong growth as
a result of a favorable domestic economy and the trend of industries
and enterprises toward China’s informatization.
Within the software market, applications software
accounted for 64.5 percent of the total market; middleware accounted
for 6.6 percent, representing a 2.9 percent increase over the same
period last year; and platform software accounted for 28.9 percent.
In line with China’s overall rapid development in the IT sector,
market competition has become more intense.
China’s Tenth Five-Year Plan indicates
that the following software projects are the priorities:
- To develop security operation systems, security authentication
systems, and advance China’s e-commerce solutions
- To develop information security software packages that are
based on LINUX operation systems
- To develop production platforms that are based on the software
structure and middleware structure
China’s successful bid for the 2008
Olympic Games as well as its membership in the WTO will be
the main drivers for growth in the software market and industry
over the next several years. In 2003, the software tariffs
were eliminated (reduced to zero). Furthermore, China issued
a number of policies ranging from export incentives to value-added
tax rebates and financial assistance to small businesses, as
well as laws addressing intellectual property rights protection.
If U.S. companies can gain good access to the China market,
there should be positive opportunities in the software market.
Table 5: China’s Packaged Software
Import and Export Market:
Notes: The above figures are calculated in millions of U.S. dollars
and are representative of estimates from the China Customs Import
and Export data.
The table above is calculated based on HS codes 8524.31, 8524.39,
8524.40, 8524.91, and 8524.99; software downloaded from the Internet
is not included in the table above.
India (India, 2004)
India: Telecommunications Equipment
India’s 48 million-line telephone network is
among the top 10 networks in the world and the second largest among
the emerging economies, after China. India has one of the fastest-growing
telecommunications systems in the world, with system size (total
connections) growing at an average of more than 20 percent per annum
over the last four years. The network consists of more than 26,300
telephone exchanges, equipped with a capacity of nearly 48 million
lines and nearly 36 million working telephones. According to the
government of India telecom plan (1997–2007) prepared by Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), the demand for new telephone lines
during the period up to 2007 is estimated at 81.8 million. This
projected demand will necessitate approximately 64 million telephones
during the next eight years. BSNL and Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Limited (MTNL) will provide about 43 million telephones, and private
operators will provide 21 million telephones. The industry is considered
to have the highest potential for investment in India. The growth
in demand for telecom services in India will be highest in basic
services, followed by national long distance, international long
distance, and the cellular services sectors.
India has a relatively low density of telephones,
4 per 100 persons, with plans to increase to 7 by 2005 and 15
by 2010. Tele-density in India rural areas is 0.5 per 100 people,
and the government plans to increase this to 4 per 100 by 2010.
A total of 500,105 out of 607,491 villages have been provided
with a village public telephone (VPT), i.e., one telephone per
village. Considering India’s
population of 1 billion, it is estimated that to achieve these
objectives, approximately 78 million telephone connections will
be required by the year 2005, and 175 million telephone connections
by the year 2010. At current prices, this translates to an additional
investment of approximately $37 billion by 2005 and $68 billion
by 2010.
The total subscriber base of cellular phones is currently at 13
million, up by 80 percent from the previous year. According to Cellular
Operators Association of India, it is estimated that the subscriber
base will reach 40 million by 2006 and 300 million by 2010, resulting
in huge opportunities for U.S. telecom equipment vendors.
The installation base of direct exchange lines (DELs) was at 37
million DELs in 2002 and is expected to grow to 82 million DELs
by 2007. DoT/ MTNL will provide about 80 percent of DELs of the
additional DELs. It is estimated that each DEL will cost about $900.
India has created a strong manufacturing base for producing telecom
products. Indian firms typically manufacture telecom switches with
technical and financial collaboration from foreign firms. Around
19 Indian firms manufacture small and medium-sized switches, and
7 joint ventures produce large capacity switches. Bharat Sanchar
Nigam LTD (BSNL) and government-owned MTNL are the largest end-users
of telecom switches.
The annual growth rate of net-switching capacity
of the recently privatized BSNL for the period 1992–97 was around 16–18
percent. However, the growth rate speeded up after 1997, registering
22–24 percent annually.
Value-added service providers are growing
by the day and are demanding good infrastructure. Email, Internet
services, frame relay services, video conferencing, electronic
data interchange, and voice mail have been accorded value-added
services status. These value-added services interface with
basic telecom services and increase telecom traffic several
fold. With the increased investment in the value-added services,
the demand for other switching products—such as
cellular switches, ISDN switches, gateway switches, and ATM switches—is
bound to grow sharply.
Digital switching system technologies of
multinational companies—Alcatel,
Siemens, Fujitsu, Lucent, Ericsson, and NEC—have been introduced
in India. In addition, switching systems based on the indigenous
technology developed by the state-owned Center for Development
of Telematics (C-DoT) are used.
The other promising sub-sectors are shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Other Promising Telecommunications Equipment
Sub-Sectors
Table 7: Total Combined Market for Telecommunications Equipment
in India
Notes: The data are in millions of U.S. dollars, based on an exchange
rate of $1 = INR 47.5. The date are unofficial estimates.
India: Computers and Peripherals
The Indian computers and peripherals market
is expected to continue to expand to meet local demands. Private
sector firms, government offices, small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs), and small office–home office (SOHO) users continue
to computerize their operations, contributing to the growth of the
computer hardware market.
The Indian software industry is enjoying a global leadership position
in software development and exports. Indian software exports reached
sales revenues of $10 billion, reflecting 30 percent growth over
the previous year. Domestic IT sales revenues also expanded during
2002–03, reaching $6.67 billion. The growing Indian software
and services sector continues to support growth in the computer
hardware sector.
IT-enabled services is another sector that witnessed impressive
growth. Existing projects are expanding and new ventures are being
established in India to capitalize on the highly skilled, cost-effective
manpower. This sector witnessed impressive sales revenue growth
from $1.49 billion in 2001–02 to approximately $2.46 billion
in 2002–03. These developments continue to support hardware
sales in the country.
India: Information Technology
The Indian IT industry is moving toward embedded technology requiring
software and hardware codesign. Multimedia, workflow automation,
virtual reality, and machine learning are some of the latest developments
requiring embedded hardware. Personal computers and servers continue
to dominate for office automation purposes.
A study conducted by Manufacturers Association of Information Technology
(MAIT) and Ernst & Young found that the Indian hardware sector
has the potential to grow to 12 times its present size, reaching
a sales turnover of $62 billion by 2010, with the domestic market
accounting for $37 billion and the balance for exports (source:
The Hindu Survey of Indian Industry).
More than 135 small, medium, and large firms manufacture computers
in India. Many
multinational companies (MNCs), such as HP, IBM, Siemens, Dell,
and ACER, have a strong presence and manufacturing facilities in
India. Lesser-known branded/unbranded locally assembled PCs and
Indian-branded PCs compete with MNC products. The market shares
of each element in this segment vary from year to year. During the
first six months of 2002–03, the locally assembled PCs had
a share of 48 percent; Indian brands had 22 percent, and MNC products
had a market share of 30 percent.
India imports most of the high-performance computers and peripherals
from the United States and Asian countries. Major Indian and U.S.
software and services companies such as CISCO, Cognizant Technologies,
IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, and Texas Instruments import and use high-performance
computer systems for their development projects. In addition, major
Indian and international banks, insurance companies, Indian stock
markets, Indian railways, and airlines also use high-performance
computers, including mainframes and mid-sized computers.
The national government of India and Indian state governments encourage
new investments in computer hardware projects.
The market size in 2003 of the various segments is given below:
- Desktops: $1,198 million
- Notebooks: $86 million
- Servers: $215 million
- Peripherals: $440 million
The estimates above are based on the literature from the following
sources:
- Manufacturers Association of Information Technology (MAIT),
www.mait.com
- National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM),
www.nasscom.org
- The Hindu Survey of Indian Industry, 2003
- India Infoline, www.Indiainfoline.com
Table 8: Computers and Peripherals in India
Notes: The data are in millions of U.S. dollars, based on an exchange
rate of $1 = INR 47.5. The date are unofficial estimates.
India: Computer Engineering Software and Services
The Indian software and services industry continues to show impressive
growth rates. The software industry grew at a compounded annual
growth rate (CAGR) of more than 50 percent during the last five
years. Even though there was a global economic slowdown, Indian
computer software exports jumped to $9.7 billion during 2002–03,
from $7.68 billion in 2001–02, reflecting growth of more than
26 percent. Domestic software and services also grew from $2.08
billion in 2000–01 to $2.45 billion in 2001–02.
The government of India aggressively supports this industry, which
is projected to reach exports of $50 billion by 2008. The Indian
government has undertaken initiatives such as simplification of
policy procedures, manpower development, venture capital support,
and infrastructure development to help promote the software industry.
International Data Corporation, India (IDC- India), a premier research
firm monitoring the IT industry worldwide, estimated the Indian
IT engineering services market at $442 million in 2001, $566 million
in 2002, and $633 million in 2003. IDC-India, in its report Directions
2003 for India, has estimated that the computer software engineering
sector grew by 18 percent in 2002–03 (April–March),
and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 11 percent during the years
2003–06.
Present and projected increased uses of IT applications in state
and central governments, e-governance applications, e-banking, elimination
of import duty on software, enhanced enforcement of antipiracy laws,
and the increased maturity of end-user organizations in using legal
software, have all contributed to the rapid growth of the Indian
software industry. According to India’s Department of Information
Technology, Indian IT spending as a percentage of GDP should reach
7 percent by 2008, from the present 3 percent.
U.S. software and IT services companies have found opportunities
by providing products and expertise that help to accelerate the
market’s growth. Notably, companies that provide tools and
systems for IT-enabled services, such as call centers and business
process outsourcing, have found good prospects in India. Likewise,
companies that provide Web-based e-governance and e-commerce solutions
will find interest from the Indians. The growing Internet service
provider (ISP) market will also demand leading-edge ISP operations
and user interface software. Appropriate software for vertical markets
such as banking, health care, textiles, and telecommunications will
also see an increase in demand.
The most promising IT sub-sectors had the following market sizes
in 2003, based on estimates in U.S. dollars:
- Systems & Packaging: $252 million
- Professional Services: $170 million
- Processing Services: $75 million
- Maintenance services: $151 million
Table 9: Information Technology in India
Note: The data are in millions of U.S. dollars, based on an exchange
rate of $1 = INR 47.5.
The estimates above are based on the literature from
the following sources:
Russia (Russia, 2004)
Russia: Telecommunications Equipment
The Russian telecommunications
market has demonstrated strong growth over the last year, driven
by Russia’s continuing strong economic performance and the
pressing need to upgrade the generally inadequate telecommunications
infrastructure throughout the country. In 2002, the Russian market
for telecommunications services grew 30 percent to $8.6 billion,
and it is expected to top $10 billion in 2003. Meanwhile the number
of cellular phones increased by 130 percent in 2002 to 17.7 million
and reached 24 million in June 2003. Internet subscribers doubled
in 2001 and 2002 and reached a 10 percent penetration rate in 2003.
Telecommunications equipment sales are running at
around $2 billion per year. At the beginning of 2003, Russia had
more than 32 million telephone lines, up from 29.7 million on January
1, 2002, and the waiting list has 5 million names. However, there
are more than 50,000 small rural communities without a single phone
line. An objective of the Russian government is to place a telephone
in every community or within an hour’s walk. Given Russia’s
vast size, this is ambitious, indeed.
Svyazinvest, the state-owned major fixed-line carrier,
has been asked by the government to increase the number of fixed
lines to 45 million by 2010. As tariffs are regulated at a low level,
and increases are likely to be quite gradual, much of the capital
expenditure budget is expected to come from outside investment.
In part to increase its attractiveness to investors, Svyazinvest
has completed a reorganization under which it has consolidated 70
regional phone companies into 7 super-regional telecom providers.
In the process, its market capitalization rose from $1 billion at
the initial phase of the reform in January 2001 to $1.8 billion
by early 2003. There has been some discussion over a potential sale
by the government of its 75-percent share in Svyazinvest.
Over the next three years, the highest growth rate
is expected in the broadband segment (xDSL, cable TV, and BWA).
Dial-up Internet access should grow by 20 percent per annum, and
the Internet segment should average 25-percent growth. Sales of
packet switching gear will grow by 55 percent per year, and the
virtual private network (VPN) market may triple. The cellular market,
which represents about 35 percent of the Russian telecom market
by value, is expected to maintain its market share, growing at the
average rate of the industry in general.
Continued growth in the Russian telecommunications
services market will yield business opportunities for competitive
U.S. telecommunications equipment suppliers. The best sales prospects
are digital switching equipment; high-speed, broadband Internet
access technologies; multiservice and multimedia solutions, including
synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH), xDSL, (integrated services
digital network (ISDN), dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM),
and BWA; and call-center equipment. Companies entering the market
should be prepared to compete with major foreign equipment manufacturers
and deal with a complex regulatory environment.
Table 10: Russia’s Telecommunications Equipment
Market
Note: The figures above are based on Russian Customs
statistics and may be an underestimate of U.S. imports. Because
of their corporate structures, some U.S. equipment manufacturers
ship products from their European warehouses. Russian Customs may
attribute such shipments to Europe rather than the United States,
despite the U.S. origin of the product.
Russia: Computers, Peripherals, and Computer Software
The Russian computer market represents one of the
promising emerging markets for U.S. firms and has solid potential
to grow. Industry sources estimate the IT market at $4.7 billion
in 2002. Many major U.S. companies are already present in the market,
and their products are available either directly or through representatives
or distributors. Of necessity, though, Russian consumers are extremely
price-sensitive and generally prefer a low-cost computer to a globally
recognized brand name.
The main trends in 2002 were a sizable increase in
government purchases, expansion to Russia’s regions, and strong
growth in laptop and server sales. Imports account for 15 percent
of Russia’s personal computer market, while peripherals, networking,
and larger system hardware are dominated by imports.
The total number of computers in Russia exceeded 12
million by January 2003, with a penetration rate of 9 percent. It
is estimated that by 2004 the number of Internet users will reach
15 million, and in the following seven years will grow to more than
35–40 million. The software market was estimated at $450 million
in 2002, and growing at an annual rate of 25 percent; it was predicted
to grow up to $600 million in 2003. The true demand for software,
though, is difficult to determine, due to the high level of pirated
software. Some industry sources estimate that piracy is up to 85
percent, but legislation (on patents and trademarks) and enforcement
(e.g., a new arbitration code) should improve that situation. In
2002 the market for outsourcing software services was estimated
up to $300 million. Total annual turnover of the systems integration
market grew to $840 million in 2002, and is projected to continue
its growth. This market sector is maturing, and new entrants will
likely face serious competition from long-established companies.
Continuing growth in the number and purchasing power
of SMEs is driving demand for legally imported operating systems,
software application packages, and enterprise management software.
The best opportunities for sales of U.S.-manufactured hardware computer
products in Russia appear to be peripherals, networking equipment,
and Internet technology.
Table 11: Computers, Peripherals, and Software in
Russia
Note: The figures above are based on Russian Customs
and U.S. Department of Commerce data and unofficial estimates.
Mexico (Mexico, 2004)
Mexico: Electronic Components
The electronics industry in Mexico is evolving. Fueled
by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the industry
has moved into new product lines, including automotive electronics,
network equipment, game consoles, printers, high-capacity servers,
storage media, and even semiconductor design. As the second most
important export industry in Mexico, the electronics industry imports
92 percent of the electronic components it requires, 85 percent
of which come from U.S suppliers. However, more and more components
are being imported from other areas of the world, mainly Asia and
Eastern Europe.
There are competitive advantages for Mexican electronics
firms to import components from U.S. suppliers under NAFTA, including
short lead times in transportation, virtually 100 percent duty-free
electronic components, and streamlined customs procedures. In addition,
NAFTA has led to increased foreign direct investment, and many of
the original equipment manufacturers are U.S. investment operations
that utilize U.S. components in their designs. U.S. market share
has declined, however, due to the Mexican government’s program
of sectoral promotion (PROSEC) program, which established most favored
nation (MFN) tariffs of zero or 5 percent for many categories of
industrial inputs, thereby eroding the value of NAFTA duty-free
entry for U.S. suppliers.
As a result of the slowdown of the U.S. consumer electronics
market, Mexican imports of U.S. components for assembly and reexport
decreased significantly in 2002. This trend is expected to continue
in the near future until the U.S. economy recovers.
There are two main centers for the electronics industry
in Mexico—Baja California (Tijuana) and Guadalajara.
Baja California
Electronics is one of Baja California’s most
important industries, with 180 plants (approximately 26 percent
of Mexico’s total electronics maquiladoras). The great majority
of these plants are of Asian origin, and they employed more than
60,000 workers and produced nearly 19 million television sets and
computer monitors in 2002. Among the most important purchasers of
electronic components in the border region are Sony, Panasonic,
Thompson, Hitachi, JVC, Matsushita, Sia (Sanyo), Samsung, and Sharp.
This industry has been severely affected by the global economic
slowdown and other factors that have caused the closure and relocation
of more than 50 companies in the electronics sector. Nevertheless,
there have been recent signs of recovery, such as an important Japanese
firm inaugurating a new plant to manufacture plasma television sets.
The electronic products that continue to have the best prospects
are monolithic integrated circuits, hybrid integrated circuits,
circuit selectors, tuners, diodes, transistors, and electronic micro
assemblies. More than 35 percent of these components are imported
from Asian countries, a characteristic purchasing pattern from Asian
investors, who favor sourcing from their countries of origin.
As is happening in other parts of the country, the
electronics industry in the region is evolving, shifting production
lines to new products such as cellular phones, game consoles, and
automotive electronics, among others.
Guadalajara
Located in western Mexico, Guadalajara has experienced
important growth in the electronics sector and is considered Mexico’s
“Silicon Valley.” Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
that formed the initial base of the city’s electronics industry,
including Hewlett Packard, IBM, Siemens, and Kodak, are now contracting
out more of their production to local contract manufacturers (CMs)
such as Flextronics, Solectron, and Jabil Circuit to manufacture
parts for final products manufactured in Guadalajara—computers
(mainly laptops), computer peripherals (mainly printers), game consoles,
and telecommunication equipment. Texas Instruments and Siemens represent
the growing specialty sector within automotive electronics. New
practices being adopted by local industry include the ability to
respond to requests from customers (located mainly in the United
States) with very short lead times (usually 48 hours), and the custom
manufacture of complex devices such as servers or routers.
Guadalajara’s electronics sector is closely
tied to that of the United States: 80 percent of electronic components
are imported from the United States under NAFTA, and 91 percent
of local production is exported to the United States. Therefore,
the downturn in the U.S. economy and decrease in demand for electronic
products has impacted Mexico’s economy. Mexico’s highest-value
import category, the semiconductor sector, is increasingly shifting
in origin from the United States to Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia, Korea,
and Singapore. In just the last year, U.S. semiconductor imports
fell from US$4.3 billion to US$3.3 billion.
Manufacturers have become even more cost conscious
and are looking for additional ways to reduce costs. Some have moved
parts of their operations to lower-cost countries. As more and more
OEMs look to their contract manufacturers for low costs, CMs have
more freedom to choose suppliers and negotiate price, therefore
transferring electronic component supplier control to CMs.
Table 12: Electronic Components Imported from the
U.S. in 2002 (US $ Millions)
Table 13: Electronic Components Imported from the
U.S. to Mexico in 2002
Source: Banco de Mexico, Secretary of Economy, and
National Chamber of Electronics and Telecommunications. Figures
are considered from April 2002 to March 2003, due to a lack of information
from the Secretariat of Economy.
Mexico: Internet and E-Commerce
The Internet market is the fastest growing segment
within Mexico’s telecommunications sector. According to the
consulting firm Select, the number of Internet users reached approximately
10 million in 2002 and was expected to reach 12.25 million by the
end of 2003.
Internet penetration is limited by a low PC-penetration
rate and a lack of fixed-line capacity, which prevents potential
customers from gaining access. The installed base of PCs in 2002
was estimated at 8.1 million, of which 54 percent had Internet access.
The drivers for the Internet growth include the interest in fixed
broadband access, Internet/PC bundle packages offered by most service
providers, the popularity of Internet cafes, and the initiatives
of the government and carriers for increasing Internet adoption
by residential, business, educational, and government users.
The potential number of Mexican Internet users is
primarily limited by income distribution patterns, limited investment
in IT by SMEs, limited Internet content in Spanish, and the high
prices of fixed broadband connectivity. However, Wi-Fi solutions
are being looked at to overcome these limitations. Wi-Fi commercial
systems are in place in some restaurants, coffee shops, hotels,
and other commercial establishments, primarily in metropolitan and
tourist areas. Techtel International and Intel have been very active
in this regard. In addition, Telmex has installed 100 “hotspots”
in Sanborns, a chain of retail/pharmacy stores with coffee shops,
as well as in convention centers and airports.
According to Pyramid Research, the revenues generated
by Internet services grew from US$138 million in 1998 to US$535
million in 2001 and will continue to grow at an annual rate of 20
percent over the next five years. Currently, revenues from fixed
narrowband access account for 72 percent of the market, due to the
large number of dial-up connections. However, it is estimated that
broadband services will gradually gain market share and will generate
approximately 52 percent of Internet services revenues in 2007.
Over the long term, Internet use is expected to increase
as the process of technology diffusion continues, with computer/Internet
access moving from larger companies to their suppliers, from institutions
of higher education down to secondary and primary schools, and from
the Mexican federal government to local governments. Wireless Internet
use may become more widespread in the future as a result of the
serious infrastructure problems with the fixed-line Internet.
The relatively fast expansion of the Internet in Mexico,
growing interest in e-commerce, and the increasing use of business
applications are creating a need for hosting services with large
storage capabilities. Companies that are capable of offering bundled
packages for connectivity, hosting, and storage will eventually
displace companies currently offering simple colocation and basic
storage solutions for Web sites.
According to Pyramid Research, e-commerce in Mexico
is expected to reach approximately US$47 billion by 2005, up from
US$1.1 billion in 2001, making Mexico a leader in Latin America
in terms of potential for future growth in this area.
International trade in 2002 accounted for US$873 million
of e-commerce transactions and forms the largest component of the
US$1.5 billion in e-commerce revenues. Business-to-business (B2B)
is more prevalent than business-to-consumer (B2C) e-commerce. In
2002, B2B reached US$523 million, and B2C accounted for US$131 million.
The main issues affecting B2C e-commerce include low Internet penetration,
a low level of consumer purchasing power, a low penetration of credit
cards, an underdeveloped market for consumer credit, and IT education
and awareness.
Most signs indicate that B2B will continue to thrive
as increasing resources are invested in the development of online
supply chains by both the private sector and the government of Mexico.
B2B is projected to reach US$1.9 billion by 2005. This growth will
also result from declines in B2C transactions that are likely to
occur in both the short- and medium-term. However, as the Internet
penetration rate continues to grow, so will B2C in the long term.
Large companies and financial institutions are working
to change their procurement processes to electronic means. An A.T.
Kearney survey indicates that for this year, 27 percent of the IT
investment in Mexico will be for e-business solutions, compared
with 18 percent in 2002.
According to Mexico’s banking association and
Select, the number of registered e-banking clients rose from 700,000
in 2001 to 2.4 million in 2002. This number should reach 4.5 million
by 2005. Banking operations increased from US$96 million to US$280
million over the same period.
One the most promising developments related to Mexico’s
e-commerce future is the government of Mexico’s commitment
to making Mexico a digital economy. The development of the e-Mexico
program is the most obvious manifestation of this commitment. E-Mexico’s
main goals are to develop Mexico’s IT industry, foster an
internal market for IT products, promote an adequate regulatory
framework for the use of electronic media and e-commerce, and digitalize
government services in order to create a model for the private sector.
The e-Mexico initiative promotes the use of information technologies
in education, health, commerce, and government.
In July 2002, the Mexican government created a trust
fund to begin providing points of Internet access to more than 2,000
rural communities. Leaders of e-Mexico claim that by 2025, 98 percent
of Mexican citizens will be online. As of June 2003, the e-Mexico
project was clearly a reality. The majority of the 3,200 digital
community centers have been constructed, and a national satellite
network to provide connectivity is already launched and in operation.
These digital community centers have been installed in 2,429 municipalities
and 16 delegations within the Federal District (Mexico City).
Another positive development in this area is the work
that is being done on the e-commerce legal and regulatory framework.
Both the government and the private sector have been committed to
revamping laws that pertain to or affect e-commerce. In 2000, the
government of Mexico began this undertaking with the passage of
the e-Commerce Law. As a consequence, electronic contracts are recognized
legally, information transmitted online is accepted in judicial
proceedings, and consumer protection laws apply to the online world.
Last year, the Mexican government created a standard
(Norma Oficial Mexicana—NOM-151-scfi-2002) on conservation
of messages of data. Also, the Federal Law of Transparency and Access
to Government Public Information came into effect in June 2003.
This year, 2004, the Digital Signature Law was also approved.
While e-commerce legislation is gradually evolving,
a number of additional laws and regulations have been proposed to
make Mexico’s laws related to e-commerce “interoperable”
with other digital economies. Perhaps the most important is the
e-invoice legislation, which will eliminate the requirement that
businesses provide hard copies of invoices in electronic transactions.
Additional legislation related to consumer protection
and data privacy are pending in the Mexican Congress. Many companies
and financial institutions are concerned that the government’s
interest in passing laws related to data privacy could hinder the
transformation of Mexico into a digital society. It is widely felt
that B2B and B2C e-commerce in Mexico will be advanced only to the
extent to which proponents of the free flow of information and a
self-regulatory approach prevail on these issues. On June 6, 2003,
the Mexican Congress passed the flawed data privacy legislation,
which would negatively impact Mexican, U.S., and other foreign business
interests. This legislation is being monitored closely by the U.S.
Government.
Table 14: Mexican Internet and E-Commerce Revenues
Table 15: Mexican Computers
Source: Select Mexico
Turkey (Turkey, 2004)
Turkey: Telecommunications Services
In 2004, full liberalization of the market will increase
the size of the market. The private sector has obtained and will
obtain licenses for the introduction of new telecommunications services
in competition with Turk Telekom. The competition will create more
business, for both the private sector and Turk Telekom.
Turk Telekom is the main fixed-line telecommunications
operator, with a subscriber number exceeding 19 million. The government
of Turkey, in privatizing Turk Telekom, is considering the sale
of some of Turk Telekom’s shares as bonds, convertible to
potential shares of Turk Telekom. The Turkish government will convert
these bonds into shares of company stock when the market conditions
are right.
Turkey has four cellular service operators, Turkcell,
Telsim, Aria, and Aycell. Turkcell has approximately 15 million
subscribers. Telsim’s subscriber estimate was 8 million by
the end of 2002. Aria has approximately 1 million subscribers. Aycell’s
subscriber estimate was 400,000 by the end of 2002. Turkcell and
Telsim operate on 900 MHz Global System for Mobile Communications
(GSM) systems. Aria and Aycell operate at 1800 MHz GSM frequency.
The government of Turkey may consider issuing third-generation GSM
licenses in 2004.
Best prospects for U.S. export and investment will
be voice and data transmission services through fiber optic networks
and voice over internet protocol (VoIP). High-speed data and leased-line
services have a promising future in Turkey. More than 40 private
sector companies have already obtained licenses. Additional opportunities
exist for the Turkish market in international traffic, either originating
or terminating in the country. Due to the widely dispersed Turkish
population around the world, a large number of international calls
are placed, primarily from Western Europe and the United States
to Turkey.
Turkey will play an important role in providing telecommunications
traffic access to Iraq. Satellites covering Turkey and Iraq can
be pivotal in the reconstruction of Iraq’s telecommunications
services sector. Networks in Turkey can tie Iraq to the Internet
world and participate in establishment of Internet backbones.
Table 16 shows the market size estimates for this
sector.
Table 16: Telecommunications Services in Turkey
Note: The statistics above are unofficial estimates
based on an exchange rate of $1 = TL 1,600,000.
Turkey: Telecommunications Equipment
The telecommunications industry will be liberalized
in 2004. The new investors will be the major equipment buyers alongside
Turk Telekom, Turkcell, Telsim, Aria, and Aycell. The existing telecommunications
laws specify that the telecommunications services sector was to
have full liberalization starting from January 1, 2004.
The private sector may make major investments on establishment
of new fiber-optic networks, VoIP equipment, and wireless local
loop networks. Depending on the timing of license tenders, the other
best prospect can be the third-generation GSM networks. Due to the
proximity of Turkey to a liberated Iraq, Turkey can be a hub-market
for the telecommunications equipment needed in the Iraqi reconstruction
and improvement of the existing telecom network in Iraq.
Turk Telekom, being the incumbent fixed-line operator
with more than 19 million subscribers, may invest in new technologies
in 2004. Turk Telekom may consider procurement of an intelligent
network management center. Turk Telekom, together with Koc Holding,
can be a good client if their consortium wins the Bulgarian Telekom
privatization. Most probably Bulgarian Telecom networks will require
further digitalization. The four GSM cellular operators, Turkcell,
Telsim, Aria, and Aycell, may also further invest to improve their
networks and services in 2004.
Following is the market size estimates for this sector:
Table 17: Market Size for the Turkish Telecommunications
Equipment Sector
Note: The statistics above are unofficial estimates
based on an exchange rate of $1 = TL 1,600,000.
Turkey: Information Technology
The IT market in Turkey had been growing at an annual
rate of 25–30 percent since 1997. However, due to the economic
crises in 2001, this rate fell to 22 percent, with the total IT
market valued at US$2.8 billion (excluding telecommunications equipment
and services). The overall industry size, inclusive of telecommunications
equipment and services, reached US$9.6 billion in 2002. There are
now nearly 4 million Internet users in Turkey. IT hardware is the
leader in IT market sales, mainly driven by PC sales. Analysts estimated
inflation in Turkey to be 48.9 percent in 2002 and that Turkey can
realize a 5.3 percent actual growth rate between 2003 and 2006.
Market analysts anticipate a 30.9 percent market increase
as the Turkish economy continues its postcrises economic rebound.
The government of Turkey is in the final stages of
passing the E-Commerce Regulatory Law, which will enable official
legal acceptance of electronic signatures as well as regulate e-commerce
and tax issues. The proposed e-commerce law is based on the European
model with influence from U.S. regulations.
The best prospect subsectors remain as follows: PC
sales, data storage, digital photography, and generic printer cartridges.
Table 18 shows the market size estimate for the IT
sector, excluding telecommunications equipment and services.
Table 18: Turkey’s Information Technology Market
Note: The statistics above are unofficial estimates
based on an exchange rate of $1 = TL 1,600,000.
Section G: User Study
Introduction
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 provide
important insight into the future design of accessible products
and potentially can influence the universal design process. Thus,
an extensive amount of data was collected during the user study
to gain a better understanding of how users with disabilities feel
about different products and accessibility features. Data on the
experiences of users with disabilities with products representative
of the six product lines was collected through focus groups, through
the administration of the Georgia Tech Universal Design Survey,
and through the Wireless Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center
(RERC) Survey.
Twenty individuals with disabilities participated
in the focus group study, including users with low vision, blindness,
upper-mobility impairments, lower-mobility impairments, hard of
hearing, and deafness. During the focus group discussion, users
discussed their experiences with ATMs, cellular phones, distance
learning software, PDAs, televisions, and voice recognition software.
Accessibility issues and features were discussed and prioritized
by the users. They also talked about which tasks associated with
each product line are the most difficult for them to complete; the
impact of UD on their desire to use products; and how the Federal
Government, manufacturers of products, and consumers can help promote
universal design.
The Georgia Tech Universal Design Survey was created
to gather information on the use and acceptance of accessibility
features of products from users with different types of vision,
hearing, and mobility disabilities. The survey was completed by
320 users with disabilities. Data gathered from this survey included
the users’ level of experience with each type of product,
the level of disability-related difficulty in using the device,
and the usefulness of a set of disability-specific features that
might be associated with the device.
Finally, the purpose of the Wireless RERC Survey was
to gather data on the use and acceptance of wireless technologies
among users with disabilities. A total of 625 users answered questions
regarding their perceived access to telecommunications devices,
importance of telecommunications devices, frequency of use, ease
of use, and reasons for not using the device. The data from the
two user surveys is summarized and discussed in terms of its implications
for universal design.
Analysis of Focus Group Data
The purpose of the focus groups was to understand
and document the experiences of people with disabilities with six
product lines. The six product lines are ATMs, cellular phones,
PDAs, distance learning software, televisions, and voice recognition
software. The focus group participants had the following disability
types: low vision, blindness, upper-mobility impairment, lower-mobility
impairment, hard of hearing, and deafness. This section describes
the participants and summarizes their experiences, in general, with
products marketed with UD or accessibility features. Following is
a discussion of each product line, broken down by disability type.
This discussion includes the users’ experiences with the product,
their perceptions of accessibility features and issues, and the
impact of accessibility on use. The report ends with a discussion
of government, industry, and consumer involvement that can promote
UD.
Methodology
The data for this report was collected through focus
group discussions. A total of five focus groups and one individual
interview were conducted. Each focus group contained individuals
with a particular disability type. The focus groups were separated
by disability type to give us the opportunity to focus on issues
pertaining to a given user group and to accommodate the needs of
particular users. If users with different disability types were
included in the same focus group, it would be more difficult to
isolate the issues specific to each disability type. The focus groups
were limited to no more than four individuals because of the amount
of material that was covered. Focus groups containing more than
four individuals would have likely required more than four hours
to complete. The duration of the focus groups was limited to four
hours for the comfort of the participants. Breaks were taken to
accommodate the needs of the individual participants.
Each focus group session began with an overview of
the purpose of the study. Participant were then asked to introduce
themselves to the group and briefly describe themselves. The focus
group then proceeded with a discussion of general experiences with
products marketed as having accessibility features. Each disability
group briefly touched on each of the product lines, but they did
not necessarily have an in-depth discussion of each product line.
Some disability groups tended to have little or no experience with
a particular product line (e.g., most people who are blind have
not used a PDA because PDAs are not accessible to them); therefore,
the discussion of that product was limited.
During the discussion of accessibility issues and
accessibility features, the participants were asked to identify
issues and features, and they were then asked to prioritize them
based on their perceived importance. A card-sorting technique was
used to record and prioritize the accessibility issues and features.
As each issue or feature was identified, the user wrote it on an
index card. When the user-supplied list of issues and features was
complete, the list was reviewed, and as a group, the participants
prioritized the items on the list. Two card sorting tasks were completed:
one for accessibility issues and one for accessibility features.
Description of Participants
A total of 20 participants were recruited to participate
in five separate focus groups, with four participants in each group.
A separate interview was conducted with an individual with multiple
impairments. Three of the individuals who responded to our requests
for participation did not participate as planned.
The low vision (LV) user focus group consisted of
three female participants. LV#1 has glaucoma, and started losing
her vision in her late 20s. She has no vision in her right eye and
is about 20/400 in her left eye. She has had corneal transplants
and multiple glaucoma surgeries. She uses a lighted magnifier as
an aid and a cane for mobility. LV#2 is legally blind in one eye
and completely blind in the other. She is unable to read standard
print. She uses Braille Note, Voice Mate, and Jaws technologies,
as well as a cane as a mobility aid. LV#3 has a low-vision disability.
She uses Zoom Text and a magnifier along with her glasses as aids,
as well as a cane for mobility.
The focus group of users who are blind (B) consisted
of two male and two female participants. B#1 is completely blind
and uses a cane as a mobility aid. She uses Braille Note, Voice
Mate, and Jaws technologies. B#2 has been visually impaired all
her life. Retinal tears and detachments led to complete blindness
11 years ago. She uses a cane for mobility and has used a guide
dog in the past. She reads Braille, uses Jaws, and will use any
other technologies if they are accessible. She likes speech output
in products. B#3 lost his sight as a result of an eye disease; he
is still able to see light contrast, and he uses a cane for mobility.
He can read Braille and uses Braille Light and Jaws technologies.
B#4 is completely blind and lost his sight as a result of glaucoma.
He uses a cane for mobility. He also uses Braille & Speak, but
he has not used Jaws.
The hard-of-hearing (HH) user focus group consisted
of one male and one female participant. HH#1 has had nerve deafness
since grade school. He wears analog hearing aids in both ears and
can participate in everyday conversation. HH#2 was born with some
hearing loss, but in the last year she has reached more than 90
percent loss. She has recently been fitted with digital hearing
aids.
The focus group of users who are deaf consisted of
one male and three female participants. Two of the four participants
could hear some sound but have no sound comprehension; they both
wore hearing aids. They all used some kind of pager or other text-messaging
technology.
The upper-mobility-impaired (UM) user focus group
consisted of one male and two female participants, all of whom happened
to have both upper- and lower-mobility impairments. UM#1 has a spinal
cord injury resulting in upper- and lower-extremity limitations.
He has no finger or thumb function and needs to extend his wrist
in order to grasp things. Elbow extension is difficult but not impossible.
He has no muscle control below the armpits. He uses a compact manual
wheelchair for mobility. He has used Dragon Dictate and Naturally
Speaking, but he finds them cumbersome. He uses a Kensington track
ball and a U-cuff while performing his job. UM#2 has some paralysis
resulting in restricted strength and movement. She wears a leg brace.
UM#3 had polio as a child and has lost strength in her arms and
legs, with very limited reach. She uses a power wheelchair.
One additional participant with multiple disabilities
was interviewed on an individual basis. His impairments resulted
from malformed blood vessels in the brain that have hemorrhaged
at various times in his life. He is 90–95 percent paralyzed
in his left arm and hand and 70–75 percent paralyzed in his
left leg; he walks with a cane. He also has 70 percent hearing loss
in one ear and 30 percent in the other ear; he frequently wears
hearing aids. He is blind in one eye and has 20/400 vision in the
other.
Experiences with Consumer Products
Users reported positive and negative experiences with
products marketed with UD or accessibility features, and some identified
products they found useful that were not originally designed with
accessibility in mind. In addition, users identified some accessibility
features that they recognized as having a benefit for the larger
population. The telephone is considered to be the most universally
accessible device because it allows access to a large number of
systems and services.
Some appliances come with Braille overlays, which
are very helpful, but they are not available for all models.
More and more technology is trending toward flat panel
or membrane displays, which are inaccessible to people who are blind
and people with low vision without an aid such as a Braille overlay.
However, some overlays have bad adhesive and only last a short time.
Most visually impaired consumers will make their own Braille labels
if the manufacturer does not provide them. Another alternative to
Braille labels is high mark pens.
For the visually impaired, the trend toward flat panel
displays, including their use on swipe card machines for credit
or debit card transactions, means a loss of independence and security.
With raised button displays, visually impaired users
can generally manage a transaction without much assistance. With
a flat panel display, however, they cannot feel the controls to
input information such as a personal identification number, and
they must therefore give that information to a stranger in order
to complete a transaction. The United States Postal Service (USPS)
recently installed touchscreen-based credit and debit card devices
nationwide, which has greatly impacted the visually impaired community.
Flat panel displays are also being used increasingly on household
products such as stoves and washing machines, though purchase of
these products is resisted because of the lack of knobs. Elevators,
which have tactile buttons and Braille labeling, cause problems
for the visually impaired because there is no standardization of
the button placement or layout.
Most visually impaired users really benefit from automated
telephone systems, which allow them to complete transactions independently.
One participant had a VCR which could be set using
a telephone touchpad. Without the telephone interface, the VCR menus
were inaccessible to users who are blind and many with low vision.
The telephone interface made the VCR accessible to the visually
impaired.
Zenith developed a talking VCR; however, because it
does not voice everything, it does not help the visually impaired
as much as they would have hoped. Similarly, there is a Sony CD
player /clock radio/alarm that has some spoken features, but not
the complete set. Microsoft’s Windows XP has a feature to
enlarge the screen, but according to focus group participants this
feature is not available for all applications. People have had good
experiences with talking phones and talking caller identification
(caller-ID). There is no consensus on the usefulness of voice control,
but some users have commented that availability of voice control
would provide access to many more products. Another comment made
was that voice by itself is not enough to make a product accessible
to the visually impaired.
Most instruction manuals designed for users who are
blind are poorly written; they typically fail to explain all the
features and/or do not provide information in a logical fashion.
When purchases are made for items that claim to be
accessible but do not meet the expectation, consumers do not hesitate
to contact the manufacturer to make suggestions. The perception
is that companies are responsive to comments and that they are willing
to make changes to increase accessibility, which will, in turn,
increase demand. However, consumers are unsure whom to contact within
a company in order to have the greatest impact.
There is a general perception that many older products,
including older cell phone models, were more accessible than the
newer ones.
Older devices tended to have simpler designs, and
these simpler designs tend to be the most accessible. The vast majority
of products do not address the needs of individuals with significant
disabilities. Trends in marketing and technology seem to run counter
to accessibility. For example, the miniaturization of cellular phones
has impacted users with upper-mobility impairments as well as users
with visual impairments.
Many products marketed as accessible are priced two
times as much or more than the nonaccessible consumer equivalent,
and many people with disabilities are unwilling or unable to purchase
these products because of the cost.
Consumers need to weigh the usefulness of the device
versus the cost, particularly those who live on the limited income
typical of people with disabilities. The perception is that many
companies that market products as accessible come to feel that there
is no market for them, and subsequently remove them from the market
because of a perceived lack of interest. However, in reality the
reason for low sales is the cost. Radio Shack has greatly reduced
the price of its talking watches because it hopes to develop a wider
appeal to individuals who find them to be clever devices. People
tend to be willing to pay the extra cost for products that they
consider essential for day-to-day activities. The Voice Mate, for
example, costs about $300, but it is perceived as worth the cost
because of the positive impact it can have in a user’s day-to-day
life.
Consumers are frustrated that they need to pay so
much more for comparable products designed with the disability community
in mind. There is also a lot of frustration in having to spend money
on a number of features that cannot be used because of a disability,
including many of the features that are available on a cell phone.
Moreover, people are hesitant to spend money on technologies that
are going to change in a year or two. There is a perception that
research that goes into the production of some accessible products
comes from government funding, and users feel that some of the savings
should be passed on to the consumer.
One hard-of-hearing user purchased a phone designed
specifically for increasing clarity. Although the device cost more
than the average phone, it lasted for only two or three years, while
the average phone lasts for at least four to five years.
All of participants who are deaf used some kind of
pager or text-messaging service. The Sidekick offers the basic functionality
of a PDA and Internet relay service, as well as cellular service,
which is perceived as critical for emergency situations, even though
the user who is deaf cannot use the service when alone. The participants
who are deaf have all had positive experiences with computer software
that has replaced the need for a specialized TTY device. The computer
software provides better quality signal transmission, and there
are no long distance charges associated with its use.
In particular, upper-mobility impaired users simply
cannot use some products, depending on how they are designed. They
will not purchase products that they cannot use. As a result, when
making a new purchase, these users look for products that are accessible
to them. They also tend to be creative in using objects designed
for one purpose to facilitate a very different need. As an example,
one person has very limited reach capability and cannot access food
in the back of her refrigerator; to compensate for this impairment
she placed a lazy Susan in her refrigerator to increase her access.
Many objects and devices like this can be used in a manner other
than what was intended by the designer in order to compensate for
an inability of the user to perform some task.
User Experiences for People with Low Vision
This section discusses low-vision users’ experiences
with ATMs, cell phones, PDAs, distance learning, televisions, and
voice recognition software. Discussion revolved around general experiences,
identification and prioritization of accessibility issues and features,
difficulty level experienced in performing some specific tasks,
and how more accessible designs would alter usage patterns. In the
case of the prioritization tasks for this group, it is important
to note that the order was often determined not by the desirability
of a particular feature, for example, but by the sequence of activities
required to use a device. For example, a person must be able to
use a remote control in order to manipulate on-screen menus, so
an accessible remote was rated more important than voiced on-screen
menus, even though the on-screen menus were actually the more desired
feature. Experience with distance learning and voice recognition
was very limited, and this discussion was not as extensive as for
the other product lines. The following sections summarize the user
inputs.
ATM
In general, users with low vision reported difficulty
using ATMs, primarily because of an inability to read the screen,
along with the difficulties experienced due to the varying nature
of screens across ATMs and banking institutions. In addition, users
voiced concerns with security and privacy.
User Experiences. General experiences using ATMs for
people with low vision include concerns about loss of control, independence,
and privacy. People are concerned about their safety and the security
of their bank funds. Even if accessibility issues were resolved,
the participants noted that they would still be reluctant to use
an ATM without assistance. Some individuals need assistance retrieving
money from the ATM, but they are hesitant to give out their personal
identification number (PIN) to get the assistance they need. One
individual prefers to get cash back at the grocery store by writing
a check for an amount in excess of the balance or through a debit
transaction using a checkout-line credit card terminal. People have
difficulties because the button locations differ with different
machines, and the alignment of the buttons with the screen options
is poor. Typically they do not experience problems using the keypad.
Accessibility Issues. Accessibility issues of ATMs,
as identified by users with low vision, are listed in their perceived
order of importance:
1. Inability to read the screen
2. Inability to identify the function of the buttons
3. Inability to define and distinguish the slots (i.e.,
for the ATM card, the receipt, and the envelope)
4. Poor alignment of the screen options with the buttons
5. Inability to read the receipt because the print
is too small or too faint
6. Difficulty in filling out the envelope for a deposit
transaction
Accessibility Features. Accessibility features of
ATMs, as identified by users with low vision, are listed in their
perceived order of importance:
1. Speech output
2. Larger font on the screen
3. Larger key labels
4. Availability of a machine-generated deposit slip
(replacing the need to fill in an envelope to support the transaction)
5. Remote set-up of the next transaction through a
computer, cell phone, or PDA
Task Assessments. In a discussion of specific tasks
associated with ATM use, the low-vision user focus group generally
indicated that they had few problems locating the ATM, inserting
the bank card, remembering and entering a PIN, and retrieving the
receipt or bank card. All participants reported that they cannot
see the screen to make a cash withdrawal or deposit, or to check
their account balance, without assistance.
Impact of UD. If ATMs were completely accessible,
users with low vision would still have safety concerns when using
an ATM completely independently and would still have difficulty
getting to an ATM. Specific comments are listed below.
- “It would make no difference in how
I use it now.”
- “It would make a substantial difference
in my life. I wouldn’t need to worry about banking hours,
and I could do a banking transaction much more quickly.”
- “I would use it more because I would
have more independence and control, as well as increased privacy.”
Analysis. Based on the user input summarized above,
improvement of accessibility of ATMs needs to consider the entire
user experience rather than just the technological solutions. The
ATM could be completely accessible in terms of a person’s
ability to interact with it, but users may still feel it is inaccessible
because of social or environmental factors.
Cell Phone
In general, users with low vision have difficulty
using cell phones, and they are able to use them for little more
than to make and receive calls. They have difficulty with the keypad,
even with the raised dot on the “5” key.
User Experiences. Experiences with cell phones for
people with low vision are generally poor; they are not able to
do much beyond dialing and receiving calls. The keypad is the most
important feature for this population, and it is becoming more and
more inaccessible as designers emphasize appeal over function. Not
all phones have a raised dot (nib) on the “5” key, and
many that do have it place the dot in a difficult-to-feel position
or do not raise it enough. Even with the nib on the “5”
key, the trend is toward more smooth, rather than raised, buttons,
which are difficult for people with low vision to use because they
cannot differentiate the buttons tactilely. Voice dialing can be
helpful, but users need assistance to set it up.
On-screen menus are inaccessible to users with low
vision. All on-screen menus are based on a visual representation
of the options, which is difficult or impossible for users with
low vision to read or interpret.
One individual feels that the cell phone is the least
accessible of all consumer products, and that older phones were
a lot more accessible than the newer designs.
Accessibility Issues. Accessibility issues of cell
phones, as identified by users with low vision, are listed in their
perceived order of importance:
1. Nonstandard keypad layout
2. Keys that are too small
3. Inaccessible menus
4. Inaccessible caller-ID
5. Inaccessible status indicators
6. Inaccessible text messaging
Accessibility Features. Accessibility features of
cell phones, as identified by users with low vision, are listed
in their perceived order of importance:
1. Voiced menus
2. Changeable faces for availability of standard keypad
3. Talking caller-ID
4. Voice dialing
Task Assessments. In a discussion of specific tasks
associated with cell phone use, the low-vision users focus group
generally indicated that they have no problems turning the phone
on and off, dialing numbers on the keypad, receiving a phone call
(facilitated for one individual by the background lighting on the
keys), accessing voice mail, attaching a headset, or charging the
phone. The locking/unlocking feature is perceived as a nuisance
because there is no way to tell which state the phone is in, and
if the phone is accidentally locked, they do not necessarily know
how to unlock it. Storing a phone number is difficult or impossible
because the menus are inaccessible. Some are able to recall a stored
phone number with the use of a magnifying glass, and this task would
be facilitated by voice output. One participant has problems at
times because of difficulties with the voice recognition capability,
particularly if she is sick or the environment is noisy. Caller-ID
is completely inaccessible, as is text messaging and the signal
strength indicator. Battery strength can be determined only if the
phone beeps to indicate that it is low, but this typically happens
too close to the time when the phone is about to be completely discharged.
Impact of UD. If cell phones were completely accessible,
users with low vision would use more of the features, like text
messaging and the Internet. They would get more for what they pay
for, and they would be much more efficient because of the ability
to multitask when they are on the go.
Analysis. All users should have a choice of phones,
but they should not be required to pay for numerous features that
they cannot use. Until advanced features can be made more accessible,
cell phones with reduced feature sets should be available, and the
available features should be as advanced as they are for other models.
A standard should be set for keypad layout and tactile quality of
the keypad so that a common component does not eliminate a choice
of a product because of its inaccessible implementation. Users with
limited sight can benefit from many of the advanced cell phone features
if those features are made accessible, and the end-users would greatly
appreciate the opportunity to use the advanced functionality.
PDA
Users with low vision were not able to report directly
on their experiences with PDAs because none has used one. They interacted
with some devices made available during the focus group, and they
identified the issues and features they perceived during that time.
User Experiences. None of the participants with low
vision has used a PDA, but all expressed that they would love to
be able to use one. One individual currently uses Braille Note,
which allows her to take notes during meetings, send and receive
email, and download books. Braille Note can also serve as a global
positioning system (GPS) and a screen-reader. It has speech output,
and documents can be ported to and from Microsoft Word. Braille
Note runs on the Windows CE operating system. However, the Braille
Note device should not be considered the equivalent of a PDA. None
of the software designed to run on mainstream PDAs will run on Braille
Note.
Accessibility Issues. Accessibility issues of PDAs,
as identified by users with low vision, are listed in their perceived
order of importance:
1. Inability to read the screen
2. Inaccessible touchscreen controls
3. Difficulty using a stylus in conjunction with a
magnifier
4. Small size and proximity of keyboard buttons
5. Small font size of labels
Accessibility Features. Accessibility features of
PDAs, as identified by users with low vision, are listed in their
perceived order of importance:
1. Speech output
2. User control of font size and ability to set font
size to at least 14 or 18 point
3. Numeric keypad for alphanumeric entry (like on
cell phones)
4. Compatibility with assistive technologies (ATs)
Impact of UD. If PDAs were completely accessible,
all users with low vision indicated that they would definitely use
one. One specifically indicated that it would increase her efficiency
and allow her to reduce the number of AT devices she uses.
Analysis. Focus group participants could not use the
PDAs primarily because of an inability to read the screen. It was
difficult for users to use ATs, such as a hand magnifier, while
holding the PDA and using a stylus. It was notable that very few
accessibility issues were identified with the hardware of the PDA.
The vast majority of the accessibility issues were due to a lack
of accessibility features built into the operating system and the
lack of AT software that could be used with the device. The developers
of PDA operating systems should build basic accessibility features,
such as screen magnifiers and support for screen-readers, directly
into the software. Manufacturers of the hardware devices and developers
of PDA operating systems should encourage AT software developers
to develop software for the PDA platform.
Distance Learning Software
No participants had any experience with distance learning.
The group briefly discussed the ability to perform some tasks associated
with distance learning, but they were not knowledgeable enough to
identify accessibility issues and features.
Task Assessments. In a discussion of specific tasks
associated with distance learning use, the low-vision users focus
group expressed few problems. All can read email. Attachments generally
do not cause problems, though Zoom Text does not process graphics
well. One individual noted that Adobe Acrobat Reader 6.0 has worked
out many of the accessibility issues, and Adobe has worked very
closely with the makers of Jaws. The problem with Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) is the dependency on the authors of pages
to use the appropriate code and syntax to ensure compatibility with
AT. Only one individual uses instant messaging software. It has
the capability to increase the font size, and she can use it without
the use of Zoom Text. The others do not use instant messaging, but
not because of accessibility issues. The people in this group have
had little experience with chat software.
Impact of UD. If distance learning software were completely
accessible, all users with low vision indicated that they would
definitely be interested in taking more classes online, and they
feel it would really facilitate progress on graduate or professional
programs. One person indicated that it would improve the experience,
but it would not change her behavior.
Analysis. The providers of distance learning software
have done a good job of making the base software accessible. It
is, in part, the makers of the software designed to be used as part
of the distance learning package that need to concentrate their
efforts on the user experience for those who have disabilities.
Distance learning companies need to encourage the other software
developers to consider the needs of people with disabilities. Despite
technological improvements to increase UD, content providers may
not develop accessible content. One method of resolving this issue
might be for distance learning providers to develop a mechanism
for performing accessibility checks once course content has been
added to the system. If the software required an accessibility check
and accessibility enhancements before publication of the course
content, accessibility could be increased considerably.
Television
All users had experience with basic television use.
User Experiences. General experiences with television
for low vision users are that the device is easy to use once they
become familiar with the remote control and that audio description
is very useful, but not readily available. Some satellite and cable
providers do have audio description on certain channels on certain
days. The ability to turn audio description on and off should be
easily accessible through a dedicated button on the remote.
Accessibility Issues. Accessibility
issues of televisions, as identified by users with low vision, are
listed in their perceived order of importance:
1. Inaccessible visual content
2. Inaccessible remote controls, resulting, in part,
from a lack of standardization in laying out the buttons and features
3. Inaccessible on-screen menus
4. Difficulty controlling accessibility features (e.g.,
turning descriptive audio on and off)
Accessibility Features. Accessibility
features of televisions, as identified by users with low vision,
are listed in their perceived order of importance:
1. Talking remote controls
2. Audio description of content
3. Voiced on-screen menus
4. Voiced program guide
5. Voice recognition for the remote control
Dedicated control of accessibility features
Impact of UD. If televisions
were completely accessible, the users with low vision felt that
it would enhance the experience and that the television would be
easier to use, but it would not necessarily change their usage patterns.
One user said she would probably listen more if audio description
were available. Another said it would reduce the amount of talking
that disrupts the show when she needs to ask others what is happening.
Analysis. The greatest challenge
to benefiting from television for low vision users is the lack of
accessible visual information. Alternative output via audio and/or
large text is necessary for this population to manipulate controls,
adjust settings, and access on-screen content. An alternative would
be to make this information accessible through a screen-reader.
Service providers need to make their program guides and other on-screen
displays (like displays for pay-per-view) available in alternate
formats. Content providers can also improve their services by providing
audio description of content.
Voice Recognition
None of the users with low vision has had experience
with voice recognition software other than through automated telephone
attendants.
User Experiences. Some users
reported difficulties associated with the voice recognition accuracy
of automated voice attendants. Users prefer to have the option to
enter information through the keypad. This prevents them from having
to make multiple attempts at voice input and, more important, it
increases their privacy. Users are very concerned about being required
to use their voice to enter personal information.
User Experiences for People Who Are Blind
This section discusses the experiences of users who
are blind with ATMs, cell phones, PDAs, distance learning, televisions,
and voice recognition software. Discussion revolved around general
experiences, identification and prioritization of accessibility
issues and features, difficulty level experienced in performing
some specific tasks, and how more accessible designs would alter
usage patterns. In the case of the prioritization tasks for this
group, it is important to note that the order was often determined
not by the desirability of a particular feature, for example, but
by the sequence of activities required to use a device. For example,
a person must be able to use a remote control in order to manipulate
on-screen menus, so an accessible remote was rated more highly than
voiced on-screen menus, even though the on-screen menus were actually
the more desired feature. Users had no experience with distance
learning, so this was discussed only briefly. Experience with voice
recognition was very limited, and the discussion was not as extensive
as for some of the other product lines. The following sections summarize
the user inputs.
ATM
In general, users who are blind find it extremely
difficult to use ATMs without assistance. Some are comfortable using
a single ATM at a single location, as long as the software is not
upgraded (consequently altering the menu options). Limited Braille
is useful for providing orientation information. Many users would
appreciate a customized interface to accommodate their limited transaction
needs.
User Experiences. The general
experience using ATMs for people who are blind is that the machines
cannot be used without assistance. Many people are not comfortable
using the ATM without a friend or family member because they are
concerned about their safety. In contrast, one of the participants
reported being very comfortable using ATMs. One of the primary difficulties
for the unsighted is that the user cannot feel which buttons represent
which menu options. In addition, privacy is a concern with talking
ATMs, particularly if headphones are not available. For those who
have not experienced a talking ATM, there is some hesitancy to take
the time to try to learn how to use it, because other patrons waiting
to use the ATM get impatient.
ATM users who are blind sometimes have to trust a
friend or family member with their PIN, and some users have had
experiences with that person stealing money from the account. Experience
has shown that banks are not always sympathetic to these circumstances
and will argue that the person put him or herself in the situation
by giving out the PIN. As for all banking customers, limited evening
and weekend banking hours increase the need to access ATMs. One
person puts Braille on all of her credit and ATM cards to distinguish
them, and even puts her PIN in Braille on her ATM card. It is not
uncommon for visually impaired users to use the drive-up ATM with
a friend or family member, or when in a cab; this option somewhat
increases the perceived sense of safety.
Braille is very helpful to have on the device, but
it does not help the user to know what is on the display. One individual
commented that he found it odd that Braille is included on all of
the number keys. Once the “5” key is identified, which
can be facilitated through use of a tactile indicator (also important
on the “J” and the “F” of a standard keyboard),
the other numbers are easily identified, as long as the standard
telephone keypad layout is used. The addition of Braille on buttons
like “Cancel” has been very helpful for unsighted individuals.
Not all bank ATM screens are sequenced the same, which makes it
difficult for individuals who are blind to use just any available
ATM without assistance. Even within a given banking institution,
the menu sequences and button locations differ.
People who are blind are unable to read the ATM receipt.
Because they also cannot differentiate the funds received from the
ATM, they make withdrawals in multiples of $20 so that they do not
need to worry about bill denominations. One participant mentioned
becoming frustrated by not being able to make a simple transaction
without being slowed down by advertisements or a number of extra
options that are not relevant to him. Everyone agreed that ATMs
give the user too much information. One participant indicated that
he has often assisted sighted people through transactions because
of accessibility issues that impact the larger population.
Accessibility Issues. Accessibility
issues of ATMs, as identified by users who are blind, are listed
in their perceived order of importance:
1. Inability to access the screen without a headset
2. Lack of tactile controls (i.e., raised keys)
3. Inconsistent sequence of information on the screens
4. Inconsistent feel of button layout, card entry
location, method of inserting card, etc.
5. Inconsistent location of ATM at various facilities
6. Inability to read a printed receipt or statement
7. Inability to verify the amount of money given during
a withdrawal transaction
Note that the last two items were tied for importance.
Accessibility Features. Accessibility
features of ATMs, as identified by users who are blind, are listed
in their perceived order of importance:
1. Remote set-up of the next transaction through a
computer, cell phone, or PDA
2. Customized menus associated with the insertion
of an ATM card
3. Tactile indicators (e.g., shape, raised letters,
Braille) to differentiate the slots for the ATM card, the money,
and the deposit envelope
4. Voice output to identify button functions with
a press to confirm capability
5. Adjustable timeouts
Task Assessments. In a discussion
of specific tasks associated with ATM use, the participant group
of users who are blind generally indicated that they had few problems.
One individual switched to a bank that has a greater number of ATMs
available. Another uses telephone customer service to find ATM locations
if she is going to be in an unfamiliar area. However, she has difficulty
narrowing down the closest ATM because the representative may not
be in Atlanta or may be unfamiliar with a particular area and thus
cannot be specific enough about the closest location.
Users do not experience difficulty inserting the bank
card once the correct orientation is determined. There are no difficulties
remembering PINs. Two difficulties with cash withdrawals include
changes to the menus and some problem with the money getting jammed
and the slot closing too quickly. All participants check their balance
by phone rather than with the ATM, in part because they are unable
to read the transaction receipt. There are no problems retrieving
receipts or bank cards.
Impact of UD. If ATMs were
completely accessible, users who are blind would still have safety
concerns when using an ATM completely independently and would still
have difficulty getting to an ATM. Despite these issues, there was
a consensus that they would use ATMs more often if they were made
more accessible. Specific comments are listed below.
- “Would probably use it a bit more than
am using it now.”
- “I would have more freedom, and could
make a choice to use it more.”
- “I would never go inside a bank again.”
- “I wouldn’t have to strategize
and plan it out so much.”
Analysis. As with low-vision
users, improvement of accessibility of ATMs needs to consider the
entire user experience rather than just the technological solutions.
The ATM could be completely accessible in terms of a person’s
ability to interact with it, but users may still feel it is inaccessible
because of social or environmental factors. At a minimum, within
a banking institution, the screen displays and options should be
standardized to give users who are blind more freedom to access
their accounts at different locations.
Cell Phone
In general, users who are blind are frustrated by
the amount of money they must pay for a number of cell phone features
that they cannot benefit from because of the inaccessibility of
those features. This population is fairly comfortable with dialing
the phone and receiving calls but is unable to use a cell phone
for much else.
User Experiences. General
experiences using cell phones for people without sight are fairly
positive despite the inability to use most features. Participants
indicated that they have familiarized themselves with the keypad,
but would like greater ease of use in the design for features like
changing the ring tone and switching from ring to vibrate. Raised
buttons that are straight and aligned are very helpful for all users,
as are the tactile indicators on the “5” key. One individual
uses an earpiece, which he finds invaluable. People become frustrated
when they upgrade to a new phone and lose some features that they
found useful, or when they try to switch to a new service provider
and find the phone they are familiar with is not compatible with
the new service. No-frills phones are easiest for unsighted individuals
to handle. Many phones now have recessed buttons, and there are
some on which the “2” and “5” share the
same button; these designs are problematic for the unsighted. Menu
access is impossible for unsighted users. One individual unknowingly
turned the volume down very low on her cell phone and consistently
missed incoming calls because she could not hear the phone ringing.
On-screen menus are inaccessible to users who are
blind. All on-screen menus are based on a visual representation
of the options, which is impossible for users who are blind to read.
Some phones provide a numeric equivalent for menu functions that
provides an alternative means of providing input, but this feature
is not available on all phones and sometimes differs between phones.
The other problem with these phones is that the user must get assistance
in becoming familiar with those numeric equivalents. One individual
has a feature called voice command, which stores contact information
in a Web-based address book. Because the numbers can be stored through
a Web site, the task can be accomplished with the use of a screen-reader.
A simple key command and voicing the name of the person to call
retrieves the stored information.
Accessibility Issues. Accessibility
issues of cell phones, as identified by users who are blind, are
listed in their perceived order of importance:
1. Lack of tactile distinction of keys
2. Inaccessible menus
3. Lack of voiced caller-ID
4. Inaccessible status messages
Accessibility Features. Accessibility
features of cell phones, as identified by users who are blind, are
listed in their perceived order of importance:
1. Adequately sized keys, with a standard for the
minimum size
2. Voiced menus
3. Auditory status indicators
4. Easy way to set the phone to ring or vibrate
5. Voice dialing
6. Nib on the “5” key
Task Assessments. In a discussion
of specific tasks associated with cell phone use, the focus group
of users who are blind identified a number of problems. Although
actually turning the phone on and off presents no difficulties,
there are problems determining which state the phone is in. There
is a desire for some way to distinguish by sound when the power
button is pressed to know whether it has been switched on or off.
One individual suggested even having a physical state to distinguish
the status (e.g., the button is pressed in when ON and raised more
when OFF). There were multiple suggestions for isolating the power
button from the other buttons on the phone, and another suggestion
that the location be more standardized.
Only one participant uses the locking feature and
has no problems with it. There are no difficulties in dialing the
numbers on the keypad as long as a sufficient tactile indicator
is available on the “5” key, the keys are arranged in
the standard layout, and the numeric buttons are distinct enough.
A phone number cannot be stored without assistance. There is no
difficulty actually receiving a phone call, though one individual
commented that he cannot know whether he wants to answer because
the caller-ID information is inaccessible. Not everyone uses voice
mail, but one individual who does use it has accidentally hit the
“3” key, deleting his message without having first listened
to it. There are no problems attaching the headset or power supply.
Status indicators are inaccessible, but users adjust by making it
a habit to charge their phone regularly. Text messages are inaccessible.
Impact of UD. If cell phones
were completely accessible, users who are blind would use them much
more often. They would appreciate the opportunity to use more of
the features, and they feel their productivity would increase greatly.
Pay phones are becoming fewer and fewer, and the cell phone is the
best alternative.
Analysis. All users should
have a choice of phones, but they should not be required to pay
for numerous features that they cannot use. Until advanced features
can be made more accessible, cell phones with reduced feature sets
should be available, and the available features should be as advanced
as they are for other models. A standard should be set for keypad
layout and tactile quality of the keypad so that a common component
does not eliminate a choice of a product because of its inaccessible
implementation. Users with no sight can benefit from many of the
advanced cell phone features if those features are made accessible,
and the end-users would greatly appreciate the opportunity to use
the advanced functionality.
PDA
User Experiences. People who are blind are unable
to use Palm or Pocket PC-based PDAs, and they typically have never
tried. A typical computer is used to help keep up with appointments
and contacts, but it is not a portable alternative.
Analysis. Users who are blind are not likely to utilize
PDAs until significant advances in the accessibility of the operating
system and core applications have been made. Users who are blind
require an alternative method of interacting with the software.
Two changes must be implemented before PDAs can become accessible
to people who are blind. First, programs must be designed to support
the five-way navigation feature found on some PDAs or other keyboard-based
navigation schemes. Currently, many programs designed for PalmOne’s
Treo 600 smart phone can be utilized simply by moving the cursor
around and selecting the desired option, using the five-way navigation
button. These applications, designed for one-handed operation, can
also benefit people who are blind. Second, AT companies must develop
software to facilitate nonvisual operation of the PDA. In addition,
the operating system software of the PDA must support the use of
screen-reader applications.
Distance Learning
No participants had any experience with distance learning
software. The group briefly discussed the ability to perform some
tasks associated with distance learning, but they were not experienced
enough to identify accessibility issues and features.
User Experiences. Documents in Adobe Acrobat format
are problematic for the visually impaired, and there is a lack of
understanding of why a text document cannot just be made available
in a text format that is easily read by a screen-reader.
Task Assessments. In a discussion of specific tasks
associated with distance learning use, the focus group of users
who are blind identified a few problems. Email is generally accessible,
except for graphics and some attachments. Instant messaging is not
used because it is very irritating to use with a screen-reader,
due to the pop-ups that may occur and the simultaneous incoming
and outgoing displays. Embedded graphics can cause problems in Word
documents, but these are generally not problematic when read with
a screen-reader. Jaws is good at running PowerPoint presentations,
but it gives access only to text; graphics are inaccessible, and
sound and animation are problematic. Experiences with the use of
chat software have been mixed; the greatest problem with chat software
is the initial configuration.
Impact of UD. All participants who are blind said
they would definitely use distance learning and computer-based training
if it were fully accessible. It would help to be able to have electronic
copies of all the handouts that are given out during a class.
Analysis. The providers of distance learning themselves
have done a good job of making the base software accessible. It
is, in part, the responsibility of the makers of software that is
designed to be used as part of the distance learning package to
concentrate their efforts on the user experience for those who have
disabilities. Distance learning companies need to encourage the
other software developers to consider the needs of people with disabilities.
Despite technological improvements to increase UD, content providers
may not develop accessible content. One method of resolving this
issue might be for distance learning providers to develop a mechanism
for performing accessibility checks once course content has been
added to the system. If the software required an accessibility check
and accessibility enhancements before publication of course content,
accessibility could be increased considerably.
Television
All users had experience with basic television use.
User Experiences. Unsighted individuals enjoy hearing
television as much as sighted individuals enjoy watching it. Remote
controls have become complex devices, however, which limits users’
ability to control the television. Remotes have multiple sections
of buttons that are difficult to use and keep track of. When the
buttons are laid out well, they can be learned easily with some
assistance. Remote control devices rarely come with instructions,
and if instructions were provided that explained the button layout
and described some of the features, individuals who are blind would
benefit greatly. Emergency and other information crawlers that move
across the bottom of the television screen are completely inaccessible
to users who are blind. Programming often says to “call the
number on the screen,” but the number is not vocalized, making
it impossible for users who are blind to call if they are interested
in information or a product. Newscasts sometimes do descriptions
for users who are deaf, but they do not seem to be aware of the
population of users who are blind. In addition, remote control devices
are easily lost; without buttons, particularly raised buttons, on
the television set itself, the user who is blind is unable to control
the television.
Some individuals have had experience with audio description.
They generally feel it is a benefit, though sometimes it describes
situations unnecessarily, like a door slamming. Audio description
does not need to describe situations that are common life experiences
if the sound is provided for the action. One respondent indicated
that his television has an automatic second audio programming option
that does not require the user to turn the feature on and off.
Television features like programming guides and on-demand
services are not accessible to users who are blind. Online television
listings do not always give movie or show descriptions, which can
be frustrating to the user. Satellite and cable companies do not
always have available accessible versions of the channel guide.
One individual uses high mark on her remote control for commonly
used features.
Accessibility Issues. Accessibility issues of televisions,
as identified by users who are blind, are listed in their perceived
order of importance:
1. Difficulty in using the remote control
2. Inability to access on-screen program guides
3. Inability to access on-screen menus
4. Difficulty finding buttons on the television itself
5. Unavailability of audio description
Accessibility Features. Accessibility features of
televisions, as identified by users who are blind, are listed in
their perceived order of importance:
1. Talking remote control
2. Voiced program guide
3. Voiced television status (e.g., what channel is
currently set)
4. Voiced menus
5. Audio description
6. Easy way to turn accessibility features on and
off
Impact of UD. If televisions were completely accessible,
most users said they would watch it a lot more often. It would certainly
increase the ease of watching.
Analysis. The greatest challenge to benefiting from
television for users who are blind is the lack of information provided
in a format other than visual. Alternative output via audio is necessary
for this population to manipulate controls, adjust settings, and
access on-screen content. Another alternative would be to make this
information accessible through a screen-reader. Service providers
need to make their program guides and other on-screen displays (like
displays for pay-per-view) available in alternate formats. Content
providers can also improve their service by providing audio description
of content.
Voice Recognition
User Experiences. Most participants indicated that
they use telephone attendants quite frequently, and they find them
pretty user friendly and understandable, though a bit slow. There
have been some challenges with properly understanding voice input.
Users generally prefer human interaction or the ability to input
information through the keypad. None of the participants has had
experience with voice technologies built into products; the perception
is that these technologies would be more useful for the population
with upper-mobility impairments than the population of people who
are blind.
One individual commented on the inaccessibility of
programs like ViaVoice and Dragon Dictate. His experience is that
a user must read a story to set up the program to recognize the
user’s voice; the story needs to be read in a limited time
period, and it cannot be viewed by a user who is blind. In addition,
when an input error is made, a list of corrections is provided,
but this list is not read to the user.
Analysis. Most users recognize the potential for voice
recognition software to streamline user input; however, the software
is rarely used because of lengthy software configuration requirements
and accuracy issues. Although the accuracy of voice recognition
software has improved greatly, most users feel that they can work
more efficiently using the keyboard for input. Users of limited-vocabulary
voice recognition applications, such as those found in voice-based
automatic telephone attendants, generally report positive experiences.
In order to be useful, the accuracy of natural-language voice recognition
systems must approach the accuracy of current limited-vocabulary
systems without requiring extensive training.
User Experiences for People Who Are Hard of Hearing
This section discusses hard-of-hearing users’
experiences with ATMs, cell phones, PDAs, distance learning, televisions,
and voice recognition software. Discussion revolved around general
experiences, identification and prioritization of accessibility
issues and features, difficulty level experienced in performing
some specific tasks, and how more accessible designs would alter
usage patterns. The discussion revolved primarily around cell phones
and televisions, as those are the devices participants had the most
experience with and the ones users who are deaf or hard of hearing
might have the most difficulty with. The following sections summarize
the user inputs.
ATM
User Experiences. In general, the users who are hard
of hearing have no difficulty with ATMs. One individual, however,
has experienced a talking ATM in which the screen displayed a talking
head rather than the text menu, and she had difficulty understanding
what was being asked of her. The tones that emanate from ATMs to
serve as a reminder to retrieve the ATM card, for example, are not
always accessible to this population.
Analysis. Users should have the choice of whether
to receive auditory output. If auditory output is provided, redundant
visual information should be available as well.
Cell Phone
User Experiences. Participants commented that it was
rare to find a cellular phone with enough amplification to be useful.
Participants stressed the importance of clarity over amplification.
Many amplification systems sacrifice clarity in order to achieve
amplification, resulting in highly distorted audio that is difficult
to perceive, even at high amplification. One participant has a product
for her car that amplifies the sound through an external speaker
that allows her to use her cellular phone while driving. Unfortunately,
the device has only one volume setting, and it can be uncomfortable
for others in the car when she uses it.
Participants commented that ringers are often not
loud enough to be useful. Often users rely on vibrating or visual
alerts to determine if someone is calling. One participant commented
that while his phone seems to provide a sufficiently amplified sound,
the ability to hear the other person clearly is dependent on network
conditions and the other person’s phone. Some calls come through
clear, and others sound muffled or distant.
It was also noted that there is little to no compatibility
of cell phones for people who have cochlear implants. In addition,
some cell phones used by others in close proximity cause uncomfortable
feedback for some people with hearing aids.
Participants expressed that the most important feature
in a cell phone is the ability for them to hear the conversation.
Other cell phone features are secondary. During the focus group,
each participant tried to use a loopset made available for this
study, but neither had any success with it.
Accessibility Issues. Accessibility issues of cell
phones, as identified by users who are hard of hearing, are listed
in their perceived order of importance:
1. Difficulty hearing or the inability to hear the
other person talking
2. Interference with hearing aids
3. Inability to detect the phone ringing
4. Lack of understanding by the sales force of features
and accessories to enhance the user experience for the hard of hearing
5. Lack of sufficient on-screen information (e.g.,
that the connection has been lost or terminated)
Accessibility Features. Accessibility features of
cell phones, as identified by users who are hard of hearing, are
listed in their perceived order of importance:
1. Adjustable volume control
2. High sound quality (clarity)
3. Hearing aid compatibility
4. Enhanced vibration or flashing as an alternative
to auditory alerts
5. On-screen displays of auditory information
6. Loopsets
Task Assessments. Both participants make a practice
of leaving their cell phone in the same location; if they left it
somewhere else, they might have difficulty locating it when they
are able to detect it ringing. One participant, in particular, has
difficulty with localization, particularly if the hearing aids are
set at different volumes or intensities. The only other difficulties
mentioned were some problems with clarity when retrieving voice
mail and the inability to use headsets, which create interference
or feedback.
Impact of UD. If cell phones were completely accessible,
participants felt they would really benefit. One individual noted
that it is stressful just knowing that the phone is ringing, because
the experience of using the telephone is so frustrating. Knowing
they could use a phone and hear clearly would give them the freedom
available to others in using a cell phone without stress or assistance.
One individual expressed concern, however, that an accessible phone
would not be affordable.
Analysis. The accessibility of cell phones for people
who are hard of hearing is mixed. Some models of cell phones provide
sufficient amplification for some users; however, finding the right
cellular phone can be difficult. Sales personnel often know very
little about the accessibility features of cellular phones and are
not able to advise users on how to select a phone to match their
functional capabilities. Users seldom are able to try using the
phone sufficiently before they are asked to commit to a contract.
Loopsets can potentially provide access to cellular phones; however,
loopsets are not compatible with all hearing aid types, and only
certain phones can be used with a loopset.
Amplification without controlling distortion is not
sufficient. Clarity of the audio signal is more important than amplification
for hard-of-hearing users. If too much distortion is introduced
during amplification, the audio signal is not usable. Cellular phone
manufacturers and developers of assistive devices should focus on
providing reduced distortion amplification for users who are hard
of hearing.
PDA
User Experiences. Only one participant had experience
with PDAs. The participant did not report any accessibility issues
with the use of the PDA. To help overcome her hearing impairments,
she was able to set up her device to have the screen change colors
to remind her of meetings or appointments. It was reported that
a vibrating alert feature would also be useful.
Distance Learning
User Experiences. Only one participant had experience
with distance learning software. The participant observed that the
text and audio were not synchronized when watching captioned video
for the course. The unsynchronized video was very distracting, and
it was difficult to follow course instructions. In some instances,
the video was not captioned and the participant had to rely on lip
reading. The participant reported great difficulty understanding
the instructor because of both the size and the clarity of the video
made available, as well as the instructor’s habit of often
turning away from the camera. The participant felt that she would
greatly benefit if synchronized text or closed captioning were provided
as an accompaniment to the auditory output.
Impact of UD. One participant would really like to
use distance learning more if the frustrations could be removed.
She feels that it is an excellent method of obtaining knowledge
at a fairly inexpensive cost. The second participant felt that he
would use distance learning if the topic were interesting and relevant
to his needs, but he would not benefit much, given his lifestyle
needs.
Analysis. The distance learning experience can be
greatly enhanced for the hard-of-hearing population through provision
of text equivalents of verbal content. These text equivalents can
be provided through electronic text or through closed captioning.
Television
Users reported considerable experience with use of
televisions and related technologies. All participants reported
enjoying watching television.
User Experiences. There is a tendency to either watch
the television with the volume turned very high, which is uncomfortable
for users without hearing impairments, or to turn the volume off
and watch with closed captioning turned on. Only one participant
had experience with high definition television (HDTV). She found
the sound and picture quality to be excellent, enhancing her ability
to both hear and read lips, even reducing the need to use closed
captioning. Users reported that availability of closed captioning
and picture clarity are the most important features to consider
when purchasing a new television, followed by good volume control.
A few problems with closed captioning that were mentioned
are that it is not available for all shows, and it occludes important
information like news tickers and sports scores. Both participants
noted that when problems with closed captioning do occur, they seem
to happen most often when critical information is being relayed.
Also, when there are transitions between shows, the closed captioning
is often truncated. When transmission errors cause a delay in closed
captioning, recovery methods differ. In some cases, the closed captioning
will be displayed so quickly it is difficult or impossible to keep
up while reading it, and in other cases it is way behind for the
remainder of the show. Other minor issues are that it is not always
easy to turn closed captioning on and off, and closed captioning
is not always available as specified by the program guide. While
spelling and other accuracy errors were noticed, they are not prohibitive
issues.
Users noted that frequently pay-per-view shows are
advertised as closed caption, but they are not captioned when purchased.
Some cable or satellite providers may be reluctant to refund the
cost of the pay-per-view movie or event based on the availability
of closed captioning.
Users were asked if they had a preferred closed captioning
format. One participant does not have a preference, stressing instead
the importance that closed captioning is available and that it works.
Another prefers the rolling format in which multiple lines of text
are displayed and the text moves up the screen. This provides a
brief opportunity to go back and review if something was missed.
Another person prefers the scan format, where text appears on the
screen as if being typed, but would like to be able to control the
speed; he has sight in only one eye and finds that he cannot always
keep up. The participant reported that he typically reads only every
other line when multi-line, block-format closed captioning is used.
Accessibility Issues. Accessibility issues of televisions,
as identified by users who are hard of hearing, are listed in their
perceived order of importance:
1. Not all programs closed captioned
2. Poor picture clarity impacting ability to read
lips
3. Inability to hear sounds
Note that the last two items are tied for importance.
Accessibility Features. Accessibility features of
televisions, as identified by users who are hard of hearing, are
listed in their perceived order of importance:
1. Closed captioning
2. Volume control
3. Dedicated remote button to control closed captioning
Note that the first two items are tied for importance.
This is, in part, due to different preferences of the participants,
perhaps resulting from their different levels of impairment. For
one, it was very important to be able to read the closed captioning
or to read lips, because trying to understand the audio tends to
be very frustrating. For the other participant, it was much more
important to be able to hear the audio output.
Impact of UD. If captioning worked 100 percent of
the time, it would cut down the frustration and stress of trying
to obtain information through television. Improved closed captioning
would enhance the enjoyment of watching the shows that are of particular
interest.
Analysis. To accommodate the hard-of-hearing population
that appreciates auditory output, television manufacturers should
have a standard for minimum/maximum volume levels and for decibel
changes for each volume increment. Manufacturers should strive to
produce clear audio signals at higher amplification levels. To accommodate
those who use or depend on closed captioning, content developers
should increase the availability and accuracy of closed captioning.
Users preferred the flexibility of the HDTV closed captioning standard
as opposed to the standard definition closed captioning standard.
Users perceived the HDTV closed caption configuration options, such
as color of text and background and size of text, as valuable. For
all users, the remote control should provide a dedicated button
for control of closed captioning.
Voice Recognition
User Experiences. Only one participant reported experience
with voice recognition; this experience was limited to telephone
technologies rather than computer software. There is some difficulty
in interpreting the voice because of the lack of clarity, and often
the option to replay the output is not available. The participant
prefers to handle all her business through the computer to avoid
the frustration associated with trying to understand audio output.
User Experiences for People Who Are Deaf
This section discusses the experiences of users who
are deaf with ATMs, cell phones, PDAs, distance learning, televisions,
and voice recognition software. Discussion revolved around general
experiences with each of the product lines and related technologies,
with the greatest focus on televisions (closed captioning), as that
is the device all participants had the most experience with. The
following sections summarize the user inputs.
ATM
In general, the participants who are deaf have had
no problems using ATMs.
User Experiences. All participants reported that they
have had no problems using ATMs, though they would like to have
added captioning. Some consumers who are deaf are aware of sounds
emitted from the ATM, though they cannot comprehend the sounds,
and their perception is that they are missing some information.
Participants mentioned some difficulties with other banking methods,
however, like using the drive-thru teller. Even though communication
can be accomplished fairly easily with pen and paper, some drive-thru
tellers try to encourage the customer who is deaf to go inside to
complete the banking transaction. Captioning would be another improvement
to the drive-thru experience.
Analysis. All auditory output should be provided in
a visual fashion as well, either through text or, in the case of
alerts, through lights or flashing to get attention of a user who
is deaf. Mirrors mounted on ATMs can provide an increased level
of safety for individuals who are deaf who may not hear someone
behind them.
Cell Phone
User Experiences. None of the participants had any
experience using a cell phone with TTY capability. There is some
awareness of phone systems that serve as a TTY, and the Sidekick
allows access to the relay system. Users who are deaf feel that
it is important for cell phone access to be combined with PDA functionality
for emergencies, even if they cannot or will not use the service
themselves. In emergencies, the users in the focus group said they
would be inclined to ask someone to place a phone call for them.
PDA
User Experiences. One participant uses a Palm-based
PDA, two have never used a PDA, and the third uses a device called
the Sidekick, which is a very similar technology. Those who have
used PDAs or PDA-like devices have experienced no accessibility
issues. Some added features that users would like to see on the
Sidekick are TTY capability and stylus pen input.
Distance Learning
User Experiences. Participants have had limited experience
with distance learning, but all feel they would much rather be in
the classroom. They feel that being around the other students and
in the classroom environment is part of the educational experience
and helps promote learning. The typical experience with online or
computer-based tutorials is that multimedia resources are not appropriately
captioned. Captioning is essential to the ability of the community
of people who are deaf to obtain information. One participant noted,
however, that some people’s primary language might be sign
language rather than, for example, English. This might create another
barrier to learning and communication, even if text or captioning
is provided. One participant attempted to take an online class but
felt the process was very complicated. She said that she spent all
her time trying to learn the system, leaving little actual time
to do the work. She felt that there would be a benefit to having
an initial face-to-face meeting with the instructor to become familiar
with the system.
Impact of UD. Despite the general preference to be
in the classroom, all participants indicated that they would like
the opportunity to use distance learning if it were completely accessible.
Analysis. All auditory distance learning content needs
to be provided visually as well as through captioning or a text
equivalent.
Television
User Experiences. Almost every television today comes
with captioning built in, but it is not always easy to set up through
the remote control and on-screen menus. Also, some programming is
not closed captioned. Some television stations are not always captioned;
specific shows are not always captioned; and other programming,
such as live news feeds and breaking news, tends not to be captioned.
No users were aware of any trends in availability of captioning.
Even when captioning is available, people who are deaf feel that
they have a disadvantage compared with people with hearing because
captioning does not provide complete translation of spoken words
(e.g., bad language is not captioned), and it is not always completed
at the end of a show.
Consumers would like the choice of being able to move
the captioning. Captioning often occludes sports scores, news tickers,
and other important information. They would also like to be able
to adjust the font size, and under some circumstances they would
like to adjust the background color. Most seem satisfied with white
text on a black background. One person noted that captioning is
easier to read on a larger television, and while larger televisions
are more expensive, she felt it was worth the extra cost. All participants
would like a dedicated button on the remote control to turn closed
captioning on and off. Participants were generally happy with the
speed at which captioning is displayed, though sometimes captioning
is displayed more quickly than normal, which can be a problem.
Captioning needs to be more reliable; sometimes the
captioning just stops working, and the consumer has no way of obtaining
information without the captioning. Users have no way of knowing
when the captioning will again be available. Accuracy is not always
high, but it is generally high enough for people to understand the
message.
Different methods are used to identify the source
of the speaker, and sometimes no distinction is made. All participants
prefer the rolling style of captioning, followed by the left to
right scan method; the block replacement method is least preferred.
None of the participants had direct experience with
captioning on HDTV. One user has heard that there are problems with
it, though she could not remember enough details to clearly describe
what she had heard.
Participants were asked to estimate the availability
of programming with closed captioning. Participants estimated that
between 25 and 70 percent of the shows currently available are captioned.
Accessibility Issues. Issues associated with closed
captioning can be divided into six distinct categories. Accuracy
is defined as the degree with which the closed captioned text matches
the spoken dialogue. Inaccuracies may result from spelling errors,
typing errors, or paraphrasing of the dialogue. Completion is defined
as the tendency for the closed captioning to represent the complete
dialogue. Occasionally, the closed captioning may appear to drop
out for a period of time. Also, users have reported that some dialogue
may be missed when transitioning to commercials or at the end of
the program. Noise is defined as the degree to which closed captioning
appears to be corrupted with random or nonsensical characters. Occasionally,
the closed captioning data stream may become corrupted. As a result,
the captioned fields appear to be filled with random characters.
Occlusion is defined as the degree to which closed captioning covers
important visual information. Captioning may appear over important
information such as sports scores or weather emergency information.
Persistence is defined as the degree to which the closed captioning
persists on the display long enough for a user to read the captioning.
Synchronicity is defined as the degree to which closed captioning
is presented in synchrony with the dialogue. Closed captioning occasionally
is presented slightly before or somewhat after the spoken dialogue.
Unsynchronized captioning may result in confusion for users who
are hard of hearing and still rely on their hearing to some extent.
Unsynchronized captioning may also make it difficult for some users
to comprehend the message of the program, particularly if the captioning
describes a visual image.
Accessibility issues of closed captioning, as identified
by users who are deaf, are listed in their perceived order of importance:
1. Accuracy
2. Completion
3. Persistence
4. Occlusion
5. Noise
6. Synchronicity
Analysis. More shows need to be captioned and captioning
needs to be reliable. The HDTV standard for captioning resolves
some of the issues addressed by the participants.
Voice Recognition
User Experiences. None of the participants could report
any experiences with voice recognition technologies.
User Experiences for People with Mobility Impairments
This section discusses the experiences with ATMs,
cell phones, PDAs, distance learning, televisions, and voice recognition
software for users with upper- and lower-mobility impairments. Discussion
revolved around general experiences, identification and prioritization
of accessibility issues and features, difficulty level experienced
in performing some specific tasks, and how more accessible designs
would alter usage patterns. The following sections summarize the
user inputs.
ATM
The upper mobility participants feel that they have
few problems using ATMs, as long as they can access the ATM to begin
with. Primary reasons for not being able to access the ATM are that
it is mounted too high, it does not have knee room, or the display
is angled poorly for a seated person. The swipe mechanism can also
be a deterrent for some users.
User Experiences. Two of the three participants have
used ATMs. The third participant, who uses a power wheelchair, has
never used one because she assumed she wouldn’t be able to
use it well from a seated position.
The height of the ATM is one of the primary deterrents
for users with mobility impairments. They need to be able to both
reach the buttons and to see the face of the buttons to know which
button is which. The nib on the “5” key is useful if
the button faces cannot be seen. Those who have problems grasping
items have some difficulties retrieving their cash, their card,
and their receipt. Swipe card readers are a bit easier for one participant
because he can maintain his hold on his card, though swiping can
be tricky for him and sometimes causes him to lose his balance.
He feels he would benefit more from a horizontal swipe mechanism
than a vertical swipe mechanism.
Some users have no difficulties with touchscreens,
and one participant feels that it can be a bit tough for the user
to ensure accuracy and that users would benefit from a confirm screen
and larger touch areas. ATMs ask if you want more time, so there
are few problems with timing issues. However, there is an occasional
machine that works differently and may require the user to start
over or to find a different machine.
Accessibility Issues. Accessibility issues of ATMs,
as identified by users who have combined upper- and lower-mobility
impairments, are listed in their perceived order of importance:
1. Lack of knee space
2. Height of machine
3. Viewing angle of display
4. Card slot/swipe mechanism
5. Small active area on touchscreen
6. Size and spacing of buttons
7. Keypad position and pressure requirement
8. Dispense mechanism, which requires grasping
Note that there are a few ties in the prioritization.
Lack of knee space and height of machine were equally rated because
the participants felt that both created barriers to being able to
use the machine at all, and if they can’t use the machine
nothing else matters. The other tie addresses, in part, the type
of control and display panel implemented on the ATM. Typically,
either a hard-button panel or a touchscreen is implemented, and
the participants felt that these items had equal importance. Priority
was based, in part, on the steps involved in using the ATM; if people
cannot reach the buttons, it does not matter to them what the size
and spacing are.
Accessibility Features. Accessibility features of
ATMs, as identified by users who have combined upper- and lower-mobility
impairments, are listed in their perceived order of importance:
1. Placement of machine at appropriate height
2. Proximity of card reader or other nonswipe mechanism
3. Raised buttons on keypad, with a nib on the “5”
and buttons that are easy to press
4. Cash tray with a slot in the middle for dispensing
5. Knee space under the machine
6. Touchscreen
Impact of UD. All participants felt that if the ATM
were completely accessible, it would not change their use. The reasons
for this are that they cannot afford to use the ATM more often than
they currently do, or they have other methods of handling their
funds, through either online banking or credit card use.
Analysis. Height, while more obviously a problem for
lower-mobility impaired users, can also be a problem for upper-mobility
impaired users who have limited reach. Standards need to be set
and enforced for machine height as well as control height and display
angle. All ATMs should have knee room for those who require use
from a seated position.
Cell Phone
All participants have a cell phone, but they are limited
in choice of phone because of size and weight and ability to press
the buttons.
User Experiences. None of the participants have “clamshell”
style phones because they cannot open them. Even if the open mechanism
were accessible, they would prefer the “candy bar” style
because it eliminates the extra step required to open the phone
with the clamshell design. They all use lightweight phones. Two
of the phones have a standard keypad. The other has a toggle key
design, which works really well for the participant without finger
function. The toggle key design also has good spacing between the
keys. Some keys are more difficult for some users to activate than
others. One participant does some text messaging, but he must have
the phone on a surface in order to activate the controls.
Hands-free operation is very useful for the upper-mobility
impaired. One individual has difficulty holding the cell phone to
her ear without elbow support. Hands-free operation also allows
a person in a manual wheelchair to use the phone and still be mobile.
One participant keeps her cell phone in a case that is attached
with Velcro to her wheelchair, adjacent to the wheelchair controls.
One of the phones has a loop attached that facilitates carrying
the phone without having to grasp it in the hand.
Accessibility Issues. Accessibility issues of cell
phones, as identified by users who have combined upper- and lower-mobility
impairments, are listed in their perceived order of importance:
1. Difficulty with flip phones
2. Heavy, hard-to-hold phones
3. Small, hard-to-press buttons
4. Requirement for two-handed operation
5. Poor battery life or antenna range
6. Difficult to insert connectors
7. Display size and quality
8. Requirement for antenna extension
9. Access to battery and subscriber identity module
(sim) card
Note that the first two items are prioritized the
same. If the person cannot hold the phone or access the buttons,
then it cannot be used, and thus none of the other issues matter.
Accessibility Features. Accessibility features of
cell phones, as identified by users who have combined upper- and
lower-mobility impairments, are listed in their perceived order
of importance:
1. Lightweight
2. “Candy bar” style (rather than “clamshell”)
3. Hands-free operation
4. Button size and spacing
5. Long battery life
6. Voice dialing
7. Loop handle to carry phone
8. Keypad shortcuts
Analysis. Users with upper-mobility impairments have
a limited selection of phones that are accessible to them. Lightweight
phones in the “candy bar” style with rather large keys
are most accessible. Fortunately, many cellular phone service providers
offer phones that are accessible to people with upper-mobility impairments
in their least expensive offerings. Premium cellular phones, such
as smart phones or phones with integrated PDA functionality, and
cellular phones with advanced features are less likely to be accessible
because of their clamshell design or size.
PDA
PDAs are appreciated for their portability. They allow
those with limited strength to carry fewer things with them, like
address books and calendars, by combining most essential functions
into a small, lightweight device. All users reported that they would
like an integrated PDA and cell phone.
User Experiences. Two of the three participants own
a PDA. Individuals with use of a single hand have difficulty holding
a PDA while making inputs. One individual requires a built-up (fatter)
stylus, but he has found that some stylus devices do not work as
well as others to activate the screen. Another often uses her fingers
rather than the stylus. All individuals need to have the device
itself supported on a surface or to have their arms supported. While
it is generally not problematic to use the device when it is placed
on a surface, there is often a need to use the device when a stable
surface is unavailable. There are also glare and other readability
issues associated with using a PDA when it is on a flat surface.
One individual has tried an external PDA keyboard,
but the task of folding and unfolding it as well as attaching it
to the PDA was difficult for the user. Two hands were required to
attach the keyboard. Word completion is very helpful for upper-mobility
impaired users because it reduces the number of inputs required.
Analysis. The size of most PDAs on the market today
is appropriate for users with upper-mobility impairments. A convergence
device with an integrated PDA and cellular telephone would be particularly
useful for people with upper-mobility impairments, because it would
reduce the number of devices that they would have to carry with
them. PDAs are designed for two-handed operation; however, most
users with upper-mobility impairments are able to use the PDA if
a stable work surface is available. PDAs and associated applications
are generally designed to be operated with a stylus. Use of the
stylus requires fine motor control that may be beyond the functional
capabilities of some users. An alternative navigation scheme, such
as five-way button navigation, may be helpful to those with limited
fine motor control.
Distance Learning
User Experiences. Only one individual has had experience
with computer-based training and did not feel there were any accessibility
issues.
Television
User Experiences. Users reported difficulty with the
initial set-up and configuration of televisions. The cable connectors
are inaccessible to someone with an upper-mobility impairment. The
connectors are often located behind the television, making it difficult
for someone using a mobility aid to access them.
None of the individuals reported difficulties using
the remote control device. They did not feel that the design of
a remote would influence their purchasing decision for a television;
good picture and sound quality are the most important factors. It
can be difficult to juggle multiple remote control devices, so they
really appreciate the universal remotes. However, not all universal
remotes can control all features of a particular device, so universal
remotes do not eliminate the need to access the individual device
remotes.
Analysis. The need to juggle multiple remotes can
be solved through the design of a universal remote that is easily
configurable to match the user’s equipment. The remote should
be lightweight and easy to hold to accommodate users with limited
strength. The remote control buttons should be large and sufficiently
separated from one another to facilitate operation by someone with
limited fine motor control.
Voice Recognition
User Experiences. All participants feel that voice
recognition can be useful for some circumstances, but generally
they feel they can be faster with their own typing or they prefer
to use the abilities they have for as long as they can. There are
many problems and frustrations with accuracy of voice recognition,
which is a deterrent for most people who have other alternatives
they can use. Some people also have problems putting on a headset,
and environmental factors can limit use of an external microphone
and speaker.
Analysis. Users with mobility impairments reported
that they did not use natural language voice recognition software
for the same reasons as other users. The accuracy of voice recognition
is simply not high enough compared with what can be accomplished
using a keyboard.
Analysis of Georgia Tech Universal Design Survey
Data
A total of 320 individuals with disabilities participated
in the Georgia Tech Universal Design Survey. The survey provided
three general types of accessibility data on six types of devices:
ATMs, cell phones, distance learning or computer-based training
software, PDAs, televisions, and voice recognition software. For
each device, participants were asked to (1) indicate their level
of experience with the device, (2) estimate the level of disability-related
difficulty in using the device, and (3) rate the usefulness of a
set of disability-specific accessibility features that might be
associated with the device. Most data is presented in tabular format.
Where appropriate, the standard deviation (SD) of a measure has
been indicated in parentheses.
The survey captured data from people with a wide range
of disabilities, including vision (40%), hearing (27%), and both
upper (38%) and lower (46%) mobility impairments. Summary statistics
were compiled for six general areas of disability: blindness, low
vision, deafness, hard of hearing, and upper- and lower-mobility
impairments. Most respondents (77%) were 35–64 years of age.
Table 19 contains a breakout of the survey participants by reported
age.
Table 19: Ages of Participants
As a whole, respondents tended to have a good deal
of experience using ATMs, cell phones, and televisions, but little
experience with distance learning/computer-based training, voice
recognition software, and PDAs (although this was sometimes dependent
on a person’s disability, as discussed below). While people
who are deaf seem to have the greatest difficulty in using voice
recognition software, each of the remaining device types under examination
presented the greatest barriers to users who are blind.
Experience with Devices
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of
experience for each device on a four-point scale. Values represent
the mean value on the following scale: 1 = no experience, 2 = little
experience, 3 = some experience, 4 = very experienced. Table 20
summarizes the indicated level of experience reported by users for
each product line. Respondents were familiar with the use of ATMs,
cellular telephones, and televisions. Respondents were less familiar
with the use of distance learning/computer-based training software,
PDAs, and voice recognition software.
Table 20: Experience with the Product Lines
Product Manual Format Preference
Participants were asked for their preferred format
for product manuals. Values represent the proportion of respondents
of a particular disability type that preferred that format. Table
21 contains the proportion of respondents that reported a preference
for product manual format. While most users preferred a standard
print manual, low-vision users reported a preference for large print
manuals, and users who are blind preferred an electronic manual
in accessible HTML or an audio tape manual. Many users who are blind
also reported a preference for a Braille manual. None of the users
who are blind reported a preference for a manual delivered in Adobe
PDF format.
Table 21: Product Manual Preference for Each User Type
Automated Teller Machines (ATMs)
For the most part, respondents indicated a fairly
high level of experience with using ATMs, along with low levels
of difficulty in completing device-related activities. The exception
seemed to be with participants who are blind. These respondents
indicated a slightly lower level of experience with ATMs than the
other disability groups, although the majority of the users who
are blind indicated they had at least some experience on this device.
Furthermore, people who are blind seemed to have a greater level
of difficulty in using ATMs. While people in the other disability
categories tended to have little or no trouble in accomplishing
tasks, respondents who are blind indicated they had at least some
difficulty on many tasks, including basic tasks such as locating
accessible ATMs, making deposits, checking account balances, and
printing a statement.
Level of Experience
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of
experience using ATMs on a four-point scale. Results are presented
in Table 22. Values represent the mean value on the following scale:
1 = no experience, 2 = little experience, 3 = some experience, 4
= very experienced.
Table 22: Level of Experience with ATMs by Disability
Type
Difficulty Completing Device-Related Activities
Respondents estimated the difficulty they had in personally
accomplishing activities in the previous year due to physical or
cognitive limitations caused by a disability. Results are presented
in Table 23. Values represent the mean value on the following scale:
1 = little or no difficulty, 2 = some difficulty, 3 = great difficulty.
Users who are blind reported great difficulty in performing the
following activities:
- Locating an ATM
- Locating an accessible ATM
- Making a cash withdrawal
- Making a deposit
- Checking account balances
- Printing a statement
- Reading a receipt
Low-vision users reported some difficulty in locating
an accessible ATM, making a deposit, and reading the receipt. Users
who are deaf or hard of hearing reported little difficulty in performing
the activities associated with ATM usage. Users with mobility impairments
reported some difficulty in locating an accessible ATM, inserting
the bank card, entering the PIN, making a cash withdrawal, making
a deposit, retrieving a receipt, and retrieving the bank card.
Table 23: Reported Difficulty in Completing ATM Activities
by User Type. (SD)
Usefulness of Features
Participants were asked to estimate the usefulness
of accessibility features associated with the device on a four-point
scale. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1
= not useful, 2 = slightly useful, 3 = moderately useful, 4 = extremely
useful. Features differed by disability type and therefore are presented
as such. Table 24 presents the results of the assessment of the
usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users who are blind.
Features associated with the operation of an ATM with voice displays
(talking ATM) were consistently rated as useful. However, users
rated voice control of ATMs as moderately useful. Users also rated
items associated with touch-discernible keys (nib on the “5”
key, keys discernible by touch, and Braille labels) as useful.
Table 24: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features
as Reported by Participants Who Are Blind
Table 25 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users with low
vision. Users with low vision preferred to enhance the visual displays
by increasing the contrast of the displays and introducing larger
displays and keys, as opposed to using a voice display. Users with
low vision also reported that the ability to request additional
time is useful.
Table 25: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features
as Reported by Participants with Low Vision
Table 26 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users who are deaf.
Users rated accessibility features associated with providing text
or graphical equivalents of auditory information as useful.
Table26: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features
as Reported by Participants Who Are Deaf.
Table 27 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users who are hard
of hearing. Users who are hard of hearing rated the usefulness of
accessibility features associated with providing text or graphical
equivalents of auditory information as useful. The priorities of
the features for users who are hard of hearing and users who are
deaf were identical. However, the rating scores of usefulness for
users who are hard of hearing were slightly lower than scores associated
with users who are deaf.
Table27: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features
as Reported by Participants Who Are Hard of Hearing
Table 28 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users with upper-mobility
impairments. Most users reported the listed accessibility features
as being only moderately useful. The accessibility features receiving
the highest scores are larger keys and increased spacing between
the keys. Ease to press keys was also rated as a useful feature.
Table28: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features
as Reported by Participants with Upper-Mobility Impairments
Table 29 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of ATM accessibility features for users with lower-mobility
impairments. Users rated the accessibility features listed in the
survey as only moderately useful. Accessibility features associated
with making the display screen easier to read (high contrast displays,
large fonts, and large display screens) and larger keys were rated
as most useful.
Table29: Usefulness of ATM Accessibility Features
as Reported by Participants with Lower-Mobility Impairments
Cell Phones
Respondents also indicated a fairly high level of
experience with using cell phones. People who are deaf had a lower
level of experience overall with this device and seem to have a
good deal of trouble using cell phones. People who are blind reported
having great difficulty with many aspects of using this device,
including determining signal strength, sending and receiving text
messages, storing phone numbers, and accessing caller-ID (functions
and information that are normally provided only on the display).
Level of Experience
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of
experience using cell phones on a four-point scale. Results are
presented in Table 30. Values represent the mean value on the following
scale: 1 = no experience, 2 = little experience, 3 = some experience,
4 = very experienced. Most users were experienced with using cellular
phones. Users who are deaf or hard of hearing, particularly users
who are deaf, were less experienced than others.
Table30: Level of Experience with Cellular Phones
by Disability Type
Difficulty Completing Device-Related Activities
Respondents estimated the difficulty they had in personally accomplishing
activities in the previous year due to physical or cognitive limitations
caused by a disability. Results are presented in Table 31. Values
represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = little or no
difficulty, 2 = some difficulty, 3 = great difficulty. Users who
are blind had great difficulty using the advanced functionality
of cellular phones. Users who are blind rated storing a phone number,
recalling a stored phone number, receiving caller-ID information,
determining battery status, determining signal strength, detecting
when the phone is in roam mode, and using text messaging as extremely
difficult, primarily because of the inaccessibility of the visual
display. Low-vision users reported the most difficulty in using
text messaging features. Users who are deaf or hard of hearing reported
difficulty in receiving a phone call and accessing voice mail. Users
with mobility impairments generally found cellular phones to be
accessible but reported some difficulty in using text messaging.
Table31: Reported Difficulty in Completing Cellular
Phone Activities by User Type. (SD)
Usefulness of Features
Participants were asked to estimate the usefulness of accessibility
features associated with the device on a four-point scale. Values
represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = not useful,
2 = slightly useful, 3 = moderately useful, 4 = extremely useful.
Features differed by disability type and therefore are presented
as such.
Table 32 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness
of cellular phone accessibility features for users who are blind.
Users rated accessibility features associated with nonvisual presentation
of visual information as being extremely useful. The highest rated
accessibility feature was talking battery level indicators, as users
who are blind often do not know if they need to recharge their phone
until minutes before the battery is exhausted. Participants also
reported that voiced menu options would be extremely useful. Users
who are blind are not able to use the advanced functionality of
their cellular phones because of the inaccessibility of the display
menus. The raised area (nib) on the “5” key used in
conjunction with a standard telephone keypad layout is also a very
useful feature. Users who are blind are very familiar with the standard
telephone keypad layout and can easily orient themselves to the
cell phone keypad by locating the central “5” key.
Table32: Usefulness of Cellular Phone Accessibility
Features as Reported by Participants Who Are Blind
Table 33 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of cellular phone accessibility features for users
with low vision. In contrast to users who are blind, users with
low vision do not prefer to make use of visual information presented
in other formats. Instead of replacing display menus with voiced
menus, users with low vision prefer to rely on their remaining visual
capability. Therefore, high contrast displays and larger display
screens are perceived as being very useful.
Table33: Usefulness of Cellular Phone Accessibility
Features as Reported by Participants with Low Vision.
Users who are deaf ranked vibrating alerts (average
score = 3.7; SD = 0.9) and TTY compatibility (average score = 3.5;
SD = 1.1) as extremely useful accessibility features for cellular
phones.
Table 34 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness
of cellular phone accessibility features for users who are hard
of hearing. Users who are hard of hearing ranked adjustable volume
as the most useful accessibility feature for cellular phones. Often,
the range of volume adjustment available on standard cellular phones
is not sufficient for users with diminished hearing capacity. Vibrating
alerts were also rated very useful because it is difficult for some
users who are deaf or hard of hearing to detect when a call is being
received.
Table34: Usefulness of Cellular Phone Accessibility
Features as Reported by Participants Who Are Hard of Hearing
Table 35 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of cellular phone accessibility features for users
with upper-mobility impairments. Users with upper-mobility impairments
ranked accessibility features associated with hands-free operation
as being most useful. Users also reported that accessibility features
of the keypad—such as larger keys, increased distances between
adjacent keys, and keypress feedback—are very useful. Speed
dialing features were also ranked as very useful.
Table35: Usefulness of Cellular Phone Accessibility
Features as Reported by Participants with Upper-Mobility Impairments
Users with lower-mobility impairments ranked speakerphones
(average score = 3.2; SD =1.2) and cradles that attach to mobility
aids such as wheelchairs or scooters (average score 3.1; SD = 1.3)
as being moderately useful.
Distance Learning or Computer-Based Training Software
Respondents were much less experienced with distance learning and
computer-based training software. Nonetheless, most participants
indicated they have little difficulty in accomplishing tasks related
to this category. The exception again is people who are blind, who
indicated high levels of difficulty in accomplishing relevant tasks
such as using chat software, viewing PowerPoint presentations, and
reading documents in PDF format.
Level of Experience
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of experience using
distance learning or computer-based training software on a four-point
scale. Results are presented in Table 36. Values represent the mean
value on the following scale: 1 = no experience, 2 = little experience,
3 = some experience, 4 = very experienced. Users of all disability
types were not very experienced with distance learning software.
Table36: Level of Experience with Distance Learning
Software by Disability Type
Difficulty Completing Device-Related Activities
Respondents estimated the difficulty they had in personally accomplishing
activities in the previous year due to physical or cognitive limitations
caused by a disability. Results are presented in Table 37. Values
represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = little or no
difficulty, 2 = some difficulty, 3 = great difficulty. Users who
are blind reported great difficulty in using instant messaging software,
reading documents in Adobe PDF format, viewing presentations in
Microsoft PowerPoint format, and using online chat software.
Table37: Reported Difficulty in Completing Distance
Learning Software Activities by User Type
Usefulness of Features
Participants were asked to estimate the usefulness of accessibility
features associated with the device on a four-point scale. Values
represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = not useful,
2 = slightly useful, 3 = moderately useful, 4 = extremely useful.
Features differed by disability type and therefore are presented
as such.
Table 38 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness
of distance learning software accessibility features for users who
are blind. Users ranked screen-reader compatibility and text description
of visual items as extremely useful.
Table38: Usefulness of Distance Learning Software Accessibility
Features as Reported by Participants Who Are Blind
Table 39 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of distance learning software accessibility features
for users with low vision. In contrast to users who are blind, users
with low vision rated items associated with increased utility of
the visual displays higher than screen-reader compatibility or described
visual items. Users with low vision would prefer to increase the
font size of the visual display over using a screen magnifier.
Table39: Usefulness of Distance Learning Software Accessibility
Features as Reported by Participants with Low Vision
Participants who are deaf rated closed captioned video
as extremely useful (average score = 4.0; SD = 0.00). Participants
who are hard of hearing rated closed captioned video (average score
= 3.4; SD = 1.2) and adjustable volume (average score = 3.4; SD
= 0.9) as being very useful.
Table 40 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness
of distance learning software accessibility features for users with
upper-mobility impairments. Users with upper-mobility impairments
may require additional time while interacting with classroom materials
or taking an online test. The ability to request additional time
was ranked as the most useful accessibility feature.
Table40: Usefulness of Distance Learning Software Accessibility
Features as Reported by Participants with Upper-Mobility Impairments
Participants with lower-mobility impairments rated
touchscreen displays as moderately useful (average score = 2.8;
SD = 1.3).
Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs)
Most respondents seemed to have very little experience with using
PDAs. Related tasks presented only a small degree of difficulty
to most user groups, although respondents with visual impairments
noted great difficulty in several areas, including adjusting controls
and installing software.
Level of Experience
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of experience using
a PDA on a four-point scale. Results are presented in Table 41.
Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = no experience,
2 = little experience, 3 = some experience, 4 = very experienced.
All user types reported similar levels of experience with PDAs.
Table41: Level of Experience with PDAs by Disability
Type
Difficulty Completing Device-Related Activities
Respondents estimated the difficulty they had in personally accomplishing
activities in the previous year due to physical or cognitive limitations
caused by a disability. Results are presented in Table 42. Values
represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = little or no
difficulty, 2 = some difficulty, 3 = great difficulty. Users who
are blind reported extreme difficulty in using mainstream PDA consumer
products. Mainstream PDAs rely on the use of a stylus-operated display
that is completely inaccessible to users who are blind. However,
users who are blind may rely on Braille note takers or other alternative
input devices that allow them to perform some of the same functions
of mainstream PDAs. In general, when users who are blind reported
experience with using PDAs, they were reporting their experiences
with alternative interface devices.
Table42: Reported Difficulty in Completing PDA Activities
by User Type. (SD)
Usefulness of Features
Participants were asked to estimate the usefulness of accessibility
features associated with the device on a four-point scale. Values
represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = not useful,
2 = slightly useful, 3 = moderately useful, 4 = extremely useful.
Features differed by disability type and therefore are presented
as such.
Table 43 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness
of PDA accessibility features for users who are blind. The most
useful accessibility feature for users who are blind is compatibility
with screen-readers. Currently, screen-reader technology is not
available for mainstream consumer products powered by the Microsoft
Pocket PC or the Palm operating systems. Availability of screen-reader
technologies would greatly increase the accessibility of PDAs for
users who are blind.
Table43: Usefulness of PDA Accessibility Features as
Reported by Participants Who Are Blind
Table 44 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness
of PDA accessibility features for users with low vision. Users with
low vision ranked accessibility features associated with increasing
the readability of visual displays as very useful. In contrast to
users who are blind, users with low vision ranked compatibility
with screen-readers as only moderately useful.
Table44: Usefulness of PDA Accessibility Features as
Reported by Participants with Low Vision
Participants who are deaf rated vibrating alerts as
extremely useful (average score = 3.7; SD = 0.9). Participants who
are hard of hearing reported that vibrating alerts (average score
= 3.4; SD = 1.1) and adjustable volume (average score = 3.3; SD
= 1.2) are very useful accessibility features for PDAs.
Table 45 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness
of PDA accessibility features for users with upper-mobility impairments.
Users with upper mobility impairments ranked accessibility features
associated with keys (key size and distance between adjacent keys)
as being most useful.
Table45: Usefulness of PDA Accessibility Features as
Reported by Participants with Upper-Mobility Impairments
Participants with lower-mobility impairments reported
that a cradle that attaches to a mobility aid such as a wheelchair
or scooter would be a useful accessibility feature of PDAs.
Televisions
Televisions were defined to include both standard definition and
high definition (HDTV) models. Most respondents indicated a very
high level of experience using a television, and most reported they
had very little difficulty accomplishing related tasks. Participants
who are blind were once again the exception, as they indicated great
difficulty in using the advanced features of the television, such
as picture-in-picture features, accessing electronic program guides,
and activating features such as closed-captioning and descriptive
video services.
Level of Experience
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of experience using
a television on a four-point scale. Results are presented in Table
46. Values represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 =
no experience, 2 = little experience, 3 = some experience, 4 = very
experienced. All user groups reported high levels of experience
with televisions.
Table46: Level of Experience with Televisions by Disability
Type
Difficulty Completing Device-Related Activities
Respondents estimated the difficulty they had in personally accomplishing
activities in the previous year due to physical or cognitive limitations
caused by a disability. Results are presented in Table 47. Values
represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = little or no
difficulty, 2 = some difficulty, 3 = great difficulty. Users of
all types reported little difficulty in using basic television features
and some difficulty in using more advanced features such as activating
accessibility features, using picture-in-picture, accessing the
program guide, or adjusting picture-quality settings. Users who
are blind could access basic television features as easily as other
users. However, users who are blind had more difficulty accessing
advanced functionality when compared to the other user types.
Table47: Reported Difficulty in Completing Television
Activities by User Type. (SD)
Usefulness of Features
Participants were asked to estimate the usefulness of accessibility
features associated with the device on a four-point scale. Values
represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = not useful,
2 = slightly useful, 3 = moderately useful, 4 = extremely useful.
Features differed by disability type and therefore are presented
as such.
Table 48 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness
of television accessibility features for users who are blind. Users
who are blind rated descriptive video services as the most useful
accessibility feature for televisions. Relatively few programs are
available with audio description, although it is becoming more popular.
Easy access to accessibility features via a dedicated button on
the remote control was also ranked as a very useful function. Several
television manufacturers now offer television sets with dedicated
buttons for closed captioning and control of the secondary audio
program (SAP) for audio description services. Users who are blind
also ranked voiced equivalents for on-screen menus and program guides
as useful accessibility features.
Table48: Usefulness of Television Accessibility Features
as Reported by Participants Who Are Blind
Table 49 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness
of television accessibility features for users with low vision.
Users with low vision ranked the accessibility features associated
with increasing the readability of the on-screen program guide as
being very useful. Users also felt that features associated with
the usability of the remote control, such as large buttons and more
space between adjacent buttons, were also useful.
Table49: Usefulness of Television Accessibility Features
as Reported by Participants with Low Vision
Table 50 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of television accessibility features for users who
are deaf. Users who are deaf ranked closed captioning and the presence
of a dedicated button on the remote control to control closed captioning
as the most important accessibility features for televisions. Users
noted that the ability to adjust the presentation of closed captioned
text was also useful.
Table50: Usefulness of Television Accessibility Features
as Reported by Participants Who Are Deaf
Table 51 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of television accessibility features for users who
are hard of hearing. Accessibility feature priority identified by
users who are hard of hearing was identical to that of users who
are deaf. Users who are hard of hearing judged each accessibility
feature as being slightly less useful than did users who are deaf.
Table51: Usefulness of Television Accessibility Features
as Reported by Participants Who Are Hard of Hearing
Table 52 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of television accessibility features for users with
upper-mobility impairments. Users with upper-mobility impairments
judged accessibility features associated with remote controls as
being most useful.
Table52: Usefulness of Television Accessibility Features
as Reported by Participants with Upper-Mobility Impairments
Participants with lower-mobility impairments ranked
voice-activated remote controls (average score = 2.8; SD = 1.4)
and talking remote controls (average score = 2.4; SD = 1.3) slightly
to moderately useful.
Voice Recognition Software
Voice recognition software was defined to include both software
that can be installed on computers as an alternative input device
and software that is embedded within other applications, such as
automatic telephone attendants and kiosks. Most respondents had
very little experience with using voice recognition software, although
respondents who are blind seemed to have slightly more experience
with this technology than people in the other disability groups.
Tasks associated with voice recognition were deemed fairly difficult
to accomplish by respondents in all disability groups, especially
using it in public settings and over a headset. Respondents who
are deaf rated all of the associated tasks as especially difficult.
Level of Experience
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of experience using
voice recognition software on a four-point scale. Results are presented
in Table 53. Values represent the mean value on the following scale:
1 = no experience, 2 = little experience, 3 = some experience, 4
= very experienced. Users who are blind had the most experience
using voice recognition software. Users who are deaf, in general,
had little or no experience with voice recognition software.
Table53: Level of Experience with Voice Recognition
Software by Disability Type
Difficulty Completing Device-Related Activities
Respondents estimated the difficulty they had in personally accomplishing
activities in the previous year due to physical or cognitive limitations
caused by a disability. Results are presented in Table 54. Values
represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = little or no
difficulty, 2 = some difficulty, 3 = great difficulty. Users who
are blind reported little difficulty in using automatic voice recognition
phone attendants and understanding computerized voices, perhaps
because they tended to rely on voice interfaces as an alternative
user interface more than other user groups. Most users reported
difficulty in using voice recognition software to control the computer
or in public settings. Users who are deaf in general could not use
the software.
Table54: Reported Difficulty in Completing Voice Recognition
Software Activities by User Type
Usefulness of Features
Participants were asked to estimate the usefulness of accessibility
features associated with the device on a four-point scale. Values
represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = not useful,
2 = slightly useful, 3 = moderately useful, 4 = extremely useful.
Features differed by disability type and therefore are presented
as such.
Table 55 presents the results of the assessment of the usefulness
of voice recognition software accessibility features for users who
are blind. Users who are blind indicated that adjustable volume
and the ability to control the parameters of voice playback were
desirable accessibility features. Users also suggested that assistance
with error correction was a very desirable accessibility feature
with voice recognition software.
Table55: Usefulness of Voice Recognition Software Accessibility
Features as Reported by Participants Who Are Blind
Table 56 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of voice recognition software accessibility features
for users with low vision. The desirability of accessibility features
reported by low-vision users for voice recognition software was
similar to that reported by users who are blind. Notably the ability
to adjust the volume and playback speed were ranked lower by users
with low vision than by users who are blind, perhaps because of
less experience with voice recognition software.
Table56: Usefulness of Voice Recognition Software Accessibility
Features as Reported by Participants with Low Vision
Table 57 presents the results of the assessment of
the usefulness of voice recognition software accessibility features
for users who are hard of hearing. Users who are hard of hearing
ranked accessibility features associated with playback control as
very useful. The ability to adjust the volume of the voice was also
ranked as a desirable feature.
Table57: Usefulness of Voice Recognition Software Accessibility
Features as Reported by Participants Who Are Hard of Hearing
Users with upper-mobility impairments rated the automatic
suggestion of alternatives for voice recognition errors (average
score = 3.1; SD = 1.2) as being moderately useful. Users with lower-mobility
impairments rated wireless microphones (average score = 3.1; SD
= 1.3) and adjustable microphones (average score = 3.0; SD = 1.3)
as being moderately useful accessibility features of voice recognition
software.
Discussion
The purpose of the user study was to document the use and acceptance
of accessibility features in products representative of the product
lines selected for study. Table 58 summarizes the reported level
of experience with each product line by disability type, as documented
in the analysis of the Georgia Tech Universal Design Survey. Values
represent the mean value on the following scale: 1 = no experience,
2 = little experience, 3 = some experience, 4 = very experienced.
Standard deviations are presented in parentheses.
Table58: User Experience with Each of the Product Lines
by Disability Type
In general, users were very experienced with using
ATMs, cellular phones, and televisions. Users who are blind were
less familiar with ATMs that were all other user groups. Recently,
many banks have added voice display functionality to ATMs. The talking
ATM design has greatly increased the accessibility of ATMs to users
who are blind; however, many users who are blind are still reluctant
to use ATMs.
Users who are deaf reported less experience with cellular phones
than other user types. Users who are deaf reported in the Georgia
Tech Universal Design Survey that TTY compatibility (average score
= 3.5, out of a maximum score of 4.0) is an extremely useful accessibility
feature; however, few users reported making TTY calls with their
cellular phone. According to the focus group participants, users
who are deaf are much more likely to make use of text messaging
features offered by their cellular service provider than to connect
their TTY device to their cellular phone. Fifty-nine percent of
the users who are deaf or hard of hearing who used cell phones reported
in the Wireless RERC survey that text messaging was at least somewhat
important to them.
Users were less familiar with distance learning software, PDAs,
and voice recognition software. In some cases, unfamiliarity with
a device is directly attributable to the accessibility of the device.
For example, users who are blind were not very familiar with using
PDAs because the technology is largely inaccessible to them. Likewise,
users who are deaf are not likely to use voice recognition software.
Familiarity with a product line is also dependent on its demand
and availability. Most participants in the user study reported that
they did not have a need to take distance learning courses and therefore
had very little experience in using the software. The availability
of distance learning courses is also somewhat limited compared with
the other product lines. Finally, familiarity with voice recognition
software is limited by the perceived utility of the software. Most
focus group participants reported negative experiences with using
voice recognition software packages designed for computer input.
Users are less likely to use the software if the perceived utility
is low.
ATM. Users with visual impairments
find ATMs difficult to use. Table 59 indicates the reported use
difficulty by disability type from the Wireless RERC survey. All
values in the table are percentages of users indicating a particular
use difficulty category. Users who are deaf or hard of hearing reported
little difficulty using ATMs. Users with mobility impairments reported
moderate levels of difficulty using ATMs.
Table59: ATM Use Difficulty by Disability Type
Talking ATMs have increased the accessibility of ATMs
to users who are blind; however, many important issues have not
yet been resolved.
Although accessibility issues encompass social as well as technological
barriers, manufacturers tend to focus on solving only the latter,
without due consideration of the entire user experience. In the
focus group, users who are blind indicated that although talking
ATMs are likely to be an improvement in terms of accessibility,
they may still be reluctant to use these devices. First, users who
are unfamiliar with the technology may be reluctant to try it out
if other bank customers must wait while they learn to use the device.
Second, users who are blind and users with lower-mobility impairments
are concerned about security. Users who are blind have no way of
knowing if someone is watching them enter their PIN. Users with
lower-mobility impairments cannot adequately mask their fingers
as they enter their PIN code. In designing accessibility solutions,
it is necessary to consider the entire user experience and keep
these types of accessibility solutions in mind.
Cellular Phone. Table 60
shows the proportion of responses associated with three major disability
types on an ease-of-use scale employed in the Wireless RERC survey.
Overall, users who are deaf or hard of hearing find cellular phones
rather difficult to use. Users who are visually impaired report
considerable difficulty in using the advanced features of cellular
phones. Users with mobility impairments report moderate levels of
difficulty.
Table60: Cellular Phone Use Difficulty by Disability
Type
A large number of cellular phone options are available.
New cell phones are constantly introduced, and users have difficulty
keeping up with the available options.
Users have difficulty finding devices that match their functional
capabilities.
Cellular service provider sales associates are unlikely to be familiar
with the accessibility features of cellular phones. Therefore, users
have a difficult time finding phones that match their functional
capabilities. Users often rely on recommendations from their peers
or on “trial and error” when selecting a new phone.
The lack of useful information about accessibility features contributes
to the perception that cellular phones are more inaccessible than
they are in reality.
Accessibility features seem to be present on phones that are more
expensive. For example, voice technologies that increase the accessibility
of cellular phones for people who are blind are typically available
only on high-end business model phones.
Users dislike paying more for equal access or paying for features
that are inaccessible.
Users in the focus groups expressed discontent with being expected
to pay high prices for accessibility features. Users with disabilities
are also often asked to pay high prices for phones with feature
sets that are not useful to them.
Distance Learning Software.
Most users reported little or no experience using distance learning
software. For most user groups, most tasks could be accomplished
with little difficulty. Users who are blind reported greater levels
of difficulty than other groups, especially in using chat software,
viewing PowerPoint presentations, and reading PDF files.
In general, developers of distance learning software have been successful
at building accessibility features into their products. However,
once the software is delivered, it is the responsibility of the
instructor or professor to develop course materials in an accessible
manner.
Content providers must adhere to accessibility standards during
content production.
The effort required to produce accessible course materials is great,
and many instructors do not have the experience or the resources
to produce accessible content. For example, WGBH, the PBS affiliate
in Boston, reports that it can take an experienced technician 14
hours to add closed captioning to a one-hour television program.
Instructors simply do not have the skill sets or the time to produce
accessible content, even though accessibility is technically achievable.
PDA. Users who are blind,
users with low vision, and (to a lesser extent) users with upper-mobility
impairments found PDAs difficult or impossible to use. Table 61
indicates the reported use difficulty by disability type from the
Wireless RERC survey. All values in the table are percentages of
users indicating a particular use difficulty category. For users
with visual impairments, reading and manipulating the touchscreen
is an extremely difficult or impossible task. In addition, operating
the device often requires two hands, making simultaneous use of
some forms of assistive technology (e.g., a magnifier) impossible.
Users with upper-mobility impairments stated that the two-hand requirement
could usually be avoided by placing the device on a suitable surface.
Users who are deaf or hard of hearing reported difficulty in using
the PDA alerting function if the PDA does not support the vibrating
alert feature.
Table61: PDA Use Difficulty by Disability Type
Most users in the focus group reported that they were
reluctant to invest in a technology until the accessibility of the
product was sufficiently demonstrated.
Users are reluctant to invest in technologies that have an unproven
accessibility record.
Incremental increases in accessibility are unlikely to generate
large increases in sales within the disability community. Substantial
increases in accessibility will be required before increased sales
to members of the disabled community are realized.
Television. Most users found
televisions fairly easy to use. Table 62 indicates the reported
use difficulty by disability type from the Wireless RERC survey.
All values in the table are percentages of users indicating a particular
use difficulty category.
Table62: Television Use Difficulty by Disability Type
Users who are deaf or hard of hearing reported some
frustration with closed captioning services. Users complained that
captioning should be available on a greater proportion of programs
and wished that existing captioning would match audio content more
closely. Some remarked that accessibility could be improved by allowing
the user to select the size, color, style, and position of the captioning.
Users who are blind reported difficulty in interacting with on-screen
menus, using electronic program guides, and understanding some television
programming that is not audio described.
Some television accessibility features seem to have been implemented
without complete consideration of the needs of users. For example,
audio description services often provide descriptions that are not
necessary. One user recalled a movie where the sound of a door being
slammed was accompanied by a narrator’s voice saying that
a door was slammed. The slammed door was immediately apparent to
the user, so the narrator’s audio description was not necessary.
Accessibility solutions must consider the needs of the individual
with disabilities.
On-screen menus and electronic program guides are largely inaccessible
to people who are blind.
Rapid changes in technology often cause decreases in accessibility.
Satellite television providers rely on on-screen menus for channel
selection and device configuration. Many cable providers, as they
move toward digital television, also utilize electronic program
guides and complex on-screen menus. As a result, some television
receivers are becoming less accessible to users who are blind.
Voice Recognition. Users
had only limited experience with voice recognition technology. Most
users in the focus group who had experiences with natural language
voice recognition recalled accuracy problems and difficulties in
configuring the software. For these reasons, most considered this
technology a last resort, preferring the accuracy and ease of use
of the keyboard. Users who are deaf or hard of hearing found many
tasks associated with this technology difficult or impossible to
complete. Natural language voice recognition software has continued
to evolve, and software manufacturers have made great advances in
improving the accuracy and efficiency of the voice recognition algorithms;
however, users reported a reluctance to purchase additional software.
Users are reluctant to adopt technologies that have proven frustrating
in the past.
Voice recognition technology must mature before it will be considered
a viable option to replace keyboard input.
Section H: Product Analysis: Breakdown by Disability Groups
This section documents the results of a detailed product line analysis
for each of the product lines selected for study. The purpose of
this research is to document accessibility issues that prevent people
with disabilities from fully accessing the selected products and
to document accessibility features that are either currently offered
or could be offered by manufacturers.
The accessibility of a given product is based primarily on the determination
of access to core features of a product, with some consideration
for additional features that enhance the product but which are not
necessary for use of the product for its primary purpose. For the
purpose of this research, both accessible and universal design features
are considered. Accessible design is defined to be the design of
products such that they are accessible to people with disabilities
without requiring the purchase of additional equipment or specialized
training. Universal design, or design for inclusion, is the design
of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the
greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized
design. A disability is considered any restriction or lack of ability
(resulting from an impairment) to perform an activity in the manner
or within the range of activity considered normal for a human being.
Under Section 508, when developing, procuring, maintaining, or using
electronic and information technology, each federal department or
agency, including the United States Postal Service (USPS), shall
ensure, unless an undue burden would be imposed, that the E&IT
allows, regardless of the type of medium of the technology, that—
- Federal employees with disabilities have access
to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access
to and use of the information and data by federal employees who
do not have disabilities.
- Individuals with disabilities who are members of
the public seeking information or services from a federal department
or agency have access to and use of information and data that
is comparable to the access to and use of the information and
data by such members of the public who are not disabled.In general,
Section 508 requires that products be available that are—
- Usable without visionUsable with low vision without
relying on audioUsable with little or no color perception
- Usable without hearing
- Usable with limited hearing
- Usable with limited manual dexterity, reach, and/or
strength
- Usable with time-dependent controls or displays
- Usable without speech Usable with limited cognitive
or memory abilities
- Usable with language or learning disabilities
- Available with audio cut-off (private listening)
- Designed to prevent visually induced seizures
- Available with biometric identification/activation
bypassing
- Usable with upper-extremity prosthetics
- Hearing aid compatible
- Usable from a wheelchair or similar personal vehicleAlso,
Section 508 requires compatibility with peripheral devices and
accessibility of information, documentation, labeling, and support
provided to customers. Section 508 provides guidelines for software
applications and operating systems, Web-based Internet information
and applications, telecommunications products, video and multimedia
products, self-contained closed products, desktop and portable
computers, and functional performance criteria.
Product designers should consider features that facilitate the following
capabilities: Users with visual impairments need to be able to identify,
differentiate, and operate all controls and displays, without accidentally
activating undesired controls; they should be able to detect control
activation and outcome; they should not be required to depend on
color to differentiate control and display states to successfully
use the device. Users who are deaf or hard of hearing need to be
able to acquire information via a nonauditory format, detect control
activation and outcome, and use assistive listening devices. Users
with mobility impairments need to be able to view, reach, and activate
all controls and displays; manipulate levers, drawers, panels, and
all controls; activate controls without accidentally activating
adjacent controls; activate controls with the use of an assistive
device; and have sufficient time to enter commands. Finally, users
with cognitive disabilities need to be able to understand the controls
and displays and have sufficient time to enter commands.
Product Line Assessment Methodology
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. The assessment of
accessibility issues involves the calculation of 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 is calculated at the
task level based on two separate dimensions. The first dimension,
task priority, is defined as a measure of task importance. High-priority
tasks are those that are essential to the device, and 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, is 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.
Task Priority
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. There are
three levels of priority:
- PRIORITY 1—Core functionality
- PRIORITY 2—Secondary functionality
- PRIORITY 3—Set-up of maintenance
functionality
Priority 1 tasks must be able to be successfully completed, irrespective
of impairment, in order for the product to be usable for all users.
An inability to perform a priority 1 task because of an impairment
would likely severely limit the accessibility of the product under
evaluation for users with that impairment. Priority 2 tasks are
secondary tasks that may be performed on an occasional basis to
access advanced functionality. The inability to perform a priority
2 task because of an impairment, while not critical to the basic
use of the product, may negate the value of advanced features of
the product. Priority 3 tasks are tertiary tasks that are not necessarily
performed by all users of the device, but must be performable by
some operator on occasion. These tasks include initial set-up tasks
that are not ordinarily repeated, major troubleshooting tasks, and
major maintenance tasks that users are expected to perform, albeit
infrequently. The inability to perform a priority 3 task because
of an impairment would not affect the basic accessibility of the
product unless all users had the same impairment. Maintenance tasks
may be associated with any priority level. Some simple maintenance
tasks expected to be performed by the end-user, such as charging
a cell phone, are judged to be priority level 1. Most maintenance
tasks, however, are judged to be priority level 3.
Estimates of Accessibility
Each task was 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—Users
with a given set of functional limitations are likely to complete
the task.
- Some difficulty—Users with
a given set of functional limitations will experience some difficulty
in completing the task.
- Great difficulty—Users with
a given set of functional limitations are not likely to be able
to complete the task.
Impact Score Calculation
Accessibility impact score is an indicator of the importance of
a given accessibility issue for the overall accessibility of the
device. The accessibility impact scale reflects the joint influence
of task priority and accessibility level for tasks. Task priority
is the strongest component of the impact score. The accessibility
impact score for a given task is set by determining the task priority
(high, medium, and low) and accessibility level (likely, some difficulty,
and unlikely). Table 63 shows the accessibility impact score for
each combination of these three values.
Table63: Accessibility Impact Associations
As is indicated in the table, if a task is likely
to be able to be performed despite consideration of a given accessibility
issue, the accessibility impact of that issue is judged to be zero,
irrespective of the task priority. The highest impact score is defined
by a high-priority task that is not likely to be performed by the
user with a given impairment because of the given accessibility
issue. The lowest impact score is for a low-priority task that can
be performed with some difficulty. Between these two extremes, impact
scores at a given task-priority level differ by a factor of two
for Great Difficulty versus Some Difficulty. For a given accessibility
level, impact scores differ for task-priority levels by a factor
of four per level. The formula that was used to produce these values
is as follows:
I = P * L
Where I = accessibility impact
P = 16 for priority 1 tasks, 4 for priority 2 tasks, and 1 for priority
3 tasks
L = 0 for accessibility level “Little or no Difficulty,”
1 for accessibility level “Some Difficulty,” and 2 for
accessibility level “Great Difficulty”
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 following definitions are offered for each grade:
A = Excellent accessibility. Users
with an impairment are generally able to make full use of the
product, with few limitations.
B = Good accessibility. Users with
an impairment are able to make good use of the product, but some
areas of product functionality are not accessible.
C = Fair accessibility. Users with
an impairment can access some of the functionality of the device,
but many aspects of product functionality are not accessible.
D = Poor accessibility. Users with
an impairment can make use of a small proportion of the functionality
of a device, but most aspects of product functionality are not
accessible.
F = Accessibility Failure. Users
with an impairment are generally not able to use the product.
The accessibility letter grades are assigned as follows:
- A—No impact scores above a 12
- B—One or two impact scores of 48, no impact
scores of 96
- C—Three or more impact scores of 48, no impact
scores of 96
- D—One or two impact scores of 96
- F—Three or more impact scores of 96
Product Line Assessments
The sections below describe 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.
Each product line section will be organized as follows: background,
task-based accessibility analysis, accessibility features, compliance
with government regulations, and conclusions.
The task-based accessibility analysis consists 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 estimation. The task accessibility
score is derived from expert evaluations, a Georgia Tech survey
on universal design, and user testing. The combination of the task-priority
levels and the task-accessibility estimation is used to calculate
an impact score, which is then used to create an accessibility grade
for the product line for each disability type.
ATMs
ATMs allow individuals to make transactions independently and privately
without requiring human interaction at times that are convenient
for the individual. They are used for banking purposes: making cash
withdrawals, making deposits, checking balances, and printing statements.
Eventually, they are likely to be used for transactions other than
banking, such as purchasing stamps or transit cards. Despite their
popularity and their capabilities, ATMs are not available to everyone.
People who have a visual disability may have difficulty reading
the display and providing accurate inputs. People who have a mobility
disability may have difficulty approaching the device, reaching
the controls, and reading the display. People who have a cognitive
disability may have difficulty reading the display and understanding
the options. Each of these challenges can be overcome, to some extent
through proper design.
Task-Based Accessibility Analysis
The core functionality considered to be necessary to effectively
use an ATM consists of the following:
- Locating an ATM
- Locating an accessible ATM
- Inserting the bank card
- Remembering a PIN
- Entering a PIN
- Making a cash withdrawal
- Making a deposit
- Checking account balances
- Transferring money
- Printing a statement
- Retrieving a receipt
- Retrieving the bank card
- Reading a receipt
People may have difficulty accomplishing these basic tasks, depending
on functional limitations resulting in an impairment, environmental
or situational factors that create barriers, and the design of the
ATM. Accessibility issues for each disability population are identified,
along with an impact rating for each issue. The disability populations
include people who have an impairment resulting from environmental
or situational factors.
Low Vision
Individuals with low vision may be unable to use an ATM or portions
of the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They cannot read printed materials (receipts) because transaction
records are not available in alternative formats or they are not
printed with adequate foreground/background contrast. They cannot
locate or identify controls, because button labels are small, not
all labeling on mechanical buttons has contrast (e.g., recessed
labels), auditory/voice output is not available, they cannot read
text on the screen (glare, no large print option, or no contrast
adjustment), or they have difficulty determining how options map
to controls because they are not well aligned. They may have difficulty
receiving visual information, because the screen text is small with
no large print option, there is no or inadequate contrast adjustment,
or auditory/voice output is not available or auditory indicators
are not easily differentiable (for retrieval of ATM card, cash,
receipt, etc.).
Table 64 lists the tasks identified as important for ATM use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table64: Derivation of Impact for Low-Vision ATM Users
Individuals who have low vision may have difficulty
locating an accessible ATM because the machines are not widespread
or they are not available through their banking institutions. They
may have difficulty inserting the bank card because they cannot
find the slot or are not sure which slot to use. Difficulty for
the high-impact tasks of entering a PIN, making a cash withdrawal
or deposit, checking account balances, transferring money, and printing
a statement may result because of the use of small print, insufficient
contrast, or glare. Users with low vision will have difficulty reading
the receipt because it is not available in large print and often
has poor contrast.
Blind
Individuals who are blind may be unable to use an ATM or portions
of the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They cannot read printed materials (instruction manuals) because
documentation is not available in alternative formats. They cannot
locate or identify controls because documentation is not available
in alternative formats, Braille is not available on buttons, auditory/voice
output is unavailable, there is no nib on the “5” key,
or mapping of options is not standardized across ATM devices (for
a given bank). They cannot read text on the screen, receive graphics
and video information or visual alerts and signals, or verify the
transaction because auditory/voice output is unavailable. They have
difficulty inserting the ATM card or the deposit envelope because
the slots are not differentiable by touch or the proper orientation
cannot be determined.
Table 65 lists the tasks identified as important for ATM use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table65: Derivation of Impact for ATM Users Who Are
Blind
Note that this analysis is based on an evaluation
of ATMs without talking features. Talking ATMs may greatly improve
accessibility for people who are blind. Individuals who are blind
may have difficulty locating an accessible ATM because the machines
are not widespread or they are not available through their banking
institutions. They may have difficulty locating any ATM because
the machines are always in different locations at banking institutions
and other public facilities. Individuals who are blind may have
difficulty making a deposit, transferring money, printing a statement,
entering a PIN, making a cash withdrawal, and checking account balances
because there is no audio output, they cannot read the screens,
and screens vary from one ATM to another, preventing memorization.
People who are blind cannot read an ATM receipt because it is only
available in print. Those who are blind may have difficulty inserting
the bank card because they cannot find the slots or the slots are
not differentiated by tactile indicators. Retrieving the receipt
and bank card may be difficult because the locations vary by machine
and it may take some extra time to feel around the ATM to find the
items to retrieve.
Hard of Hearing
Individuals who are hard of hearing may be unable to use an ATM
or portions of the core functionality for one or more of the following
reasons: They cannot receive acoustic alerts and signals because
volume level is not adequately adjustable, alerts for different
things are not differentiable by tone or frequency level, or alerts
are not available in either a visual or tactile format.
Table 66 lists the tasks identified as important for ATM use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table66: Derivation of Impact for Hard-of-Hearing ATM
Users
Users who are hard of hearing should have little difficulty
using an ATM, though they may not benefit from the auditory reminders
for bank card and money retrieval.
Deaf
Individuals who are deaf may be unable to use an ATM or portions
of the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They are unable to receive any auditory information because alerts
are not available in either a visual or a tactile format.
Table 67 lists the tasks identified as important for ATM use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table67: Derivation of Impact for ATM Users Who Are
Deaf
Users who are deaf should have little difficulty using
an ATM, though they may not benefit from the auditory reminders
for bank card and money retrieval.
Upper Mobility
Individuals who have an upper-mobility impairment may be unable
to use an ATM or portions of the core functionality for one or more
of the following reasons: They have difficulty making inputs because
the force required to activate the controls is too great, or voice
recognition is not available, or they cannot reach the controls
(because inputs are not mapped to the numeric keypad or machine
height is not standardized for a given bank). They have difficulty
inserting the ATM card or the deposit envelope because of the precision,
arm movement, or force required. They have difficulty retrieving
transaction items such as envelopes, money, receipts, or ATM cards,
because simultaneous actions are required (e.g., lifting envelope
lid and removing envelope), the object for retrieval does not protrude
enough to grasp, the force required to release the item is too great,
or they cannot retrieve the item within the allotted time.
Table 68 lists the tasks identified as important for ATM use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table68: Derivation of Impact for Upper-Mobility Impaired
ATM Users
Users with upper-mobility impairments have difficulty
locating accessible ATMs because while there are guidelines, there
is no standard height or configuration for placing ATMs. Some, but
not all, ATMs allow equivalent inputs via the number pad, and the
keys adjacent to the display may be difficult for people with limited
reach to access. Talking ATMs may increase the accessibility for
some upper-mobility impaired users, but talking ATMs are not widespread
and are not available at all banking institutions. Voice display
controlled ATMs are typically controlled through the keypad or other
simplified control mechanisms. The idea is that the primary beneficiaries
of the voice display (those without vision) should have the benefit
of a centralized control that is easy to find and use. Users with
upper mobility impairment may benefit from the voice display simplified
control as well because the controls (typically the keypad) are
easier to reach and operate. All other tasks rated a high impact—inserting
the bank card, entering a PIN, making a cash withdrawal, making
a deposit, checking account balances, transferring money, printing
a statement, retrieving a receipt, and retrieving the bank card
may be difficult because of the reach requirements and, in some
cases, because of the force requirements to activate the controls.
Some people with upper-mobility impairments may also have difficulty
retrieving items and inserting the bank card because of the need
to grasp the items.
Lower Mobility
Users with lower-mobility impairments may be unable to use an ATM
or portions of the core functionality for one or more of the following
reasons: They have difficulty locating or identifying controls because
they cannot read text on the screen (glare or no contrast adjustment),
or they have difficulty determining how options map to controls
because they are not well aligned or are aligned from the perspective
of a standing person. They have difficulty making inputs because
they cannot reach the control panel (from a wheelchair or similar
device) because of the machine configuration or physical obstacles,
or height is not standardized (for a given bank). They cannot receive
visual information, because of either glare on the screen or orientation
of the screen with respect to their lower perspective.
Table 69 lists the tasks identified as important for ATM use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table69: Derivation of Impact for Lower-Mobility Impaired
ATM Users
Users with lower-mobility impairments have difficulty
locating accessible ATMs because, although there are guidelines,
there is no standard height or configuration for placing ATMs. Not
all ATMs have knee space for seated individuals. While an ATM itself
may be within the height guidelines, the height of the controls
and display vary across machines and may be too high to reach or
see from a seated position. Glare is a problem for many people in
a seated position, as is determination of alignment of menu options
with controls. The remaining high impact tasks—inserting the
bank card, entering a PIN, making a cash withdrawal, making a deposit,
checking account balances, transferring money, printing a statement,
retrieving a receipt, and retrieving the bank card—may all
be difficult because of reach limitations.
Cognitive
Users with cognitive disabilities may be unable to use an ATM or
portions of the core functionality for one or more of the following
reasons: They may have trouble reading text or interpreting graphics
presented on the screen, either because the graphical metaphors
or the language is too complex, or because verbal output is unavailable.
They may have difficulty entering information because they do not
understand how the options map to the controls.
Table 70 lists the tasks identified as important for ATM use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table70: Derivation of Impact for ATM Users Who Have
a Cognitive Disability
Individuals who have a cognitive disability may have
difficulty remembering a PIN because of reduced memory function
or confusion of one PIN with another security code they may need
to use. They may have difficulty making a cash withdrawal or deposit,
checking account balances, transferring money, or printing a statement
because of limited reading ability and comprehension or lack of
clarity in instructions or menu options.
Accessibility Features
A review of various ATM manufacturers’ marketing data identified
a number of features identified as accessible design components.
Each of these components is listed, along with a description of
the component and an assessment of the usefulness of the feature
for disability groups. Some of these features may have been designed
with a particular disability population in mind; others may have
been designed simply as desirable features. In many cases, the accessibility
features benefit or are used by a variety of people, and they may
be considered to provide universal access.
Large, sunlight-readable color
display: ATM displays can be very difficult for the average
person to use simply because of lighting issues, natural or otherwise.
Sunlight often creates glare on electronics displays, sometimes
making it impossible to even discern that any text appears on
the display. In some cases this can be overcome by shifting the
viewing orientation, but this is not an option for all people.
These sunlight-readable displays can increase accessibility by
preventing glare. With the exception of people who are blind,
this will have a medium impact for all users and will help solve
the issue of not being able to receive visual information.
Touchscreen displays: Touchscreens
allow the manufacturer to present a dynamic display, providing
more information in less space. Touchscreens can be designed with
large, high-contrast buttons or icons, which can provide an alternative
solution for those with partial visual impairment or with motor
disabilities. Selection via large touch areas on the screen may
be preferable to some users as an alternative to keyboard or function-key
input. Additionally, for users with complete vision loss, touchscreen
functions can be mapped—or directed—down to the tactile
keyboard. But unless the functions are mapped in this way, or
an alternate audio interface is provided, touchscreens are not
accessible to people who are blind. If implemented in design,
touchscreens will have a high negative impact for people who are
blind, unless keyboard mapping or an alternative audio interface
is also provided, in which case they will have no impact. They
will have a medium impact for those with low vision and mobility
impairments if implemented with large touch areas and text or
graphics. If good graphical metaphors are used, touchscreens will
have a medium positive impact for people who have a cognitive
disability. It will help solve the issue of making inputs and
possibly of receiving and interpreting visual information.
Talking ATM: A talking ATM is
one with voice displays. Talking ATMs are useful in circumstances
in which it is difficult to read the text display because of a
visual impairment, low reading ability, significant glare on the
screen, or possibly having to view the screen from a seated position.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for those who are
blind, a medium impact for those with low vision or cognitive
disability, and a low impact for all other users. It will help
solve the issue of receiving and interpreting visual information.
Private headphone jacks for talking
ATMs: Voice instructions can be provided publicly or privately
through use of headphones. Voice instructions can help guide the
user through the transaction and provide information such as feedback
on keypress entries and account balance (things that would typically
be presented visually). This would allow a person who is blind
to perform an ATM transaction independently; however, it is likely
that audio feedback would not be available for PIN entry for security
reasons, which would probably only inconvenience the user and
not prevent use of the ATM. Implementation in design will have
a high impact for people who are blind, a medium positive impact
for users with low vision, and a neutral impact for other users.
Choice of private audio will help solve the issues of not being
able to receive visual information.
Mapping of the function keys to
the keypad: This is a software feature that allows the
function keys that are at the side of the ATM display to be mapped,
or directed, down to the keyboard. This means that the user can
perform the entire transaction from the keyboard, which minimizes
the extent a user has to stretch to reach the keys. It also assists
people who are blind by providing a more familiar key layout to
use for input. Function key mapping will have a medium impact
for people who are blind and people who have upper- or lower-mobility
impairments, and a neutral impact for all others. It will help
solve the issues of not being able to locate or identify controls
and not being able to make inputs.
Raised tactile symbols:
Raised tactile symbols help those with visual impairments, particularly
people who are blind, distinguish keys that most people differentiate
through a text label or graphic. In some cases, these symbols
may include a Braille keypad, though Braille proficiency is not
widespread. Other alternatives include protruding key tips, which
enable the visually impaired to feel the edge of individual keys
and so determine the end of one key and the start of another,
and increased character size, to assist those with visual impairments.
Implementation in design will have a neutral impact for most users,
but a medium impact for those who are vision impaired. It will
help solve the issue of not being able to locate and identify
controls.
Raised area (nib) on the “5”
key: A nib is a raised area that serves to help users identify
the location of the center of the keypad. Given a standard telephone
keypad layout with the addition of nonnumeric keys, the nib helps
the user (particularly the user with a visual impairment) to find
the “5” key, from which the remaining numeric keys
can be easily identified. Inclusion in design will have a high
impact for users who are blind, a medium impact for those with
low vision, and a neutral impact for other users. It will help
solve the issue of not being able to locate and identify controls.
Keys on the keypad that are discernible
by touch: Tactile separators typically provide either raised
or indented spaces between controls to assist in tactile differentiation
of numeric keys from other keys. Inclusion in design will have
a high impact for those who are blind, a medium impact for those
with upper-mobility impairments, and a low impact for all others.
It will help solve the issue of not being able to locate and identify
controls and not being able to make accurate inputs.
Tactile feedback keypad:
Tactile feedback results from the keys springing back to position
once pressed, indicating that a key has been pressed and input
accepted. Touchscreens, for example, do not have tactile feedback.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for people who are
blind, a medium positive impact for those with low vision, and
a low impact for other users.
User-controllable playback speed:
User-controllable speed allows the user to make adjustments to
auditory output to meet information processing needs. Visual output
tends to be available until the next selection is made, but auditory
output is temporal, and user-control allows review of information
as needed. This is particularly beneficial to people who are blind
and perhaps some users with low vision or cognitive disabilities.
Implementation in design will have a medium positive impact for
people who are blind and a low impact for other users. It will
help solve the issue of difficulty receiving auditory information.
User-controllable volume: Volume
control allows the user to make adjustments to auditory output
to meet sound level needs, particularly in noisy environments.
This is particularly beneficial to the hard of hearing. Implementation
in design will have a high positive impact for the hard of hearing
and a low impact for other users. It will help solve the issue
of difficulty receiving auditory information.
Visual alerts: Visual alerts
may be in the form of a change in text display or a light. They
serve as an alternative or supplement to vibrating and auditory
alerts. Visual indicators are particularly beneficial for the
hearing impaired. Inclusion in design will have a high impact
for users who are deaf, a medium impact for those who are hard
of hearing, and a low impact for all others. They will help solve
the issue of not being able to receive auditory information.
Pause control for talking ATMs:
Pause control allows the user to pause the verbal output from
the device. This is helpful by giving someone time to write something
down or to think about what option might be desired. Inclusion
in design will have a medium impact for users who are blind and
a low impact for all other users. Pause control will help solve
the issue of not being able to read text on the screen.
Replay control for talking ATMs:
Replay control allows the user to listen to a message more than
once. This is helpful if the voice output was not understood or
could not be heard over environmental sounds. Inclusion in design
will have a medium impact for users who are blind and hard-of-hearing
users and a low impact for all other users. Pause control will
help solve the issue of not being able to read text on the screen.
Voice recognition for talking
ATMs: Voice recognition provides the capability for a user
to use his or her voice to make inputs to the device. This is
useful particularly for those who cannot physically activate the
controls or who cannot tactilely differentiate the controls to
know, for example, which button to press. Inclusion in design
will have a high impact for users who are blind, a medium impact
for users with low vision and upper-mobility impairments, and
a low impact for all others. Voice recognition will help solve
the issues of not being able to locate, identify, and activate
the controls.
ATMs that can be controlled by
a cell phone or PDA: External control of the ATM allows
individuals to use their own personal device, which is accessible
to them, to interact with an ATM that may not be accessible for
a particular disability type. Inclusion in design will have a
medium impact for users who are blind, have low vision, or have
an upper-mobility impairment and a low impact for all other users.
PDA or cell phone control will help solve the issues of not being
able to read text on the screen or to locate, identify, and activate
the controls.
Large keys for the keypad:
Large keys on the keypad increase the ability to accurately press
the desired key without inadvertently pressing any adjacent keys.
Inclusion in design will have a medium impact for those who are
blind, have low vision, or have poor fine motor control and a
low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issue of
having difficulty making accurate inputs.
Large fonts on the display:
Large fonts on the display increase the text size for circumstances
in which small text is difficult to read. Inclusion in design
will have a high impact for those with low vision, a low impact
for users who are blind, and a medium impact for all other users.
It will help solve the issue of not being able to read text on
the screen.
Large display screens:
Large display screens reduce screen clutter and increase the space
available for larger text and graphics. Inclusion in design will
have a medium impact for low vision users and a low impact for
all others. It will help solve the issue of not being able to
read text on the screen.
High-contrast displays:
High contrast provides the option for users to adjust the color
or brightness of the foreground and background colors so that
the text stands out from the background, increasing readability.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for those with low
vision and most users under very bright-or low-light conditions.
It will have a low impact for other disability populations. High
contrast will help solve the issue of not being able to receive
visual information.
Ability to request additional
time: Ability to request additional time allows the user
to complete a transaction despite the need to use more than the
normal amount of allotted time to complete individual transaction
components. Inclusion in design will have a high impact for most
users, depending on the output mode (visual or auditory) from
the device. Additional time will help solve the issues of not
being able to receive visual or auditory information, not being
able to reach controls, and not being able to grasp objects.
Graphical instructions:
When good metaphors are used and display resolution is sufficient,
graphical instructions may be easier to see than text instructions,
particularly if the font size for text is small. Inclusion in
design will have a medium impact for those who have low vision
and a low impact for all other users. Graphical instructions will
help solve the issue of not being able to read text on the screen.
Text equivalents for auditory
information: Text equivalents are a means of providing
redundant information so that someone who has difficulty with
one sense (in this case, hearing) has an alternative method of
obtaining the information being provided (in this case, through
eyesight). Inclusion in design will have a high impact for those
who are deaf or hard of hearing and a low impact for all other
users. Text equivalents will help solve the issue of not being
able to receive auditory information.
Detachable controls: Detachable
controls provide the option for individuals to place the control
panel in their lap, for example, limiting the amount of reach
required to activate the control, increasing the ability to have
the hand and arm supported, and possibly making the difference
between being able to use the device or not. Inclusion in design
will have a high impact for those with those with a lower-mobility
impairment or any user operating the ATM while seated in a wheelchair,
and a low impact for all other users. Detachable controls will
help solve the issue of not being able to reach the controls from
a seated position.
More space between keys on the
keypad: More space between the keys increases the ability
to differentiate the keys by touch and to accurately press the
desired key without inadvertently pressing any adjacent keys.
Inclusion in design will have a medium impact for those who are
blind, have low vision, or have an upper-mobility impairment and
a low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issue
of having difficulty locating controls and making accurate inputs.
Concave keys on the keypads:
Concave or curved-inward keys help prevent fingers from slipping
off the keys, which often results in inadvertent activation of
adjacent keys. This type of key also increases the ability to
differentiate the keys from each other and from the surrounding
area on the device. Inclusion in design will have a medium to
high impact for users who are blind, have low vision, or have
an upper-mobility impairment and a low impact for all other users.
Concave keys will help solve the issue of locating controls and
making accurate inputs.
Keys that may be operated without
human contact: Some individuals use pointing devices or
other mechanisms to help them reach or activate controls. However,
some electronic devices require some kind of moisture content
or heat (characteristics of touch) to activate the controls; these
electronic devices cannot be used by someone who needs to use
an alternative input device. Controls that are operable without
physical human contact will have a high impact for someone with
an upper-mobility impairment and a low impact for all other users.
Rubberized keys: Rubberized
keys help prevent fingers from slipping off the keys, which often
results in inadvertent activation of adjacent keys. Textured keys
also help the user differentiate the key itself from the surface
of the device, particularly if the keys are not raised sufficiently.
Inclusion in design will have a medium to high impact for users
who are blind, have low vision, or have an upper mobility impairment
and a low impact for all other users. Concave keys will help solve
the issue of locating controls and making accurate inputs.
Additional features that may enhance accessibility include the following:
Type of card reader—swipe,
dip, or motorized: Card readers are typically accompanied
by tactile indicators and flashing lights to assist in card insertion.
People with different capabilities may benefit more from one type
of reader versus another. For example, a vertical card swipe may
be difficult to operate for someone with limited reach. It may
be difficult for users without fine motor control to retrieve
a fully inserted card (dip card reader) from the device. Users
who are blind may have difficulty finding the card reader or determining
the proper orientation of the card. Implementation of a certain
style will have a high impact for users who are blind or have
upper-mobility impairments. Use of a motorized reader or a horizontal
swipe with tactile cues will help solve the issue of having difficulty
inserting the ATM card into the machine.
Customer telephone: This
can be used to acquire human input if there are customer difficulties
using the ATM. A customer telephone will have a low impact for
all users. It can help solve the issues of not being able to receive
visual information or not being able to locate and identify controls.
Digital video camera: This
can be used in conjunction with the customer telephone to provide
the customer service representative with a visual of the customer’s
difficulty. A digital video camera will have a low impact for
all users. This can help solve the issues of not being able to
receive visual information or not being able to locate and identify
controls.
Multilingual capabilities:
Multilingual capabilities will assist those who have difficulty
with the native language. This will have a medium impact for users
with cognitive disabilities and may help solve the issue of not
being able to interpret visual information.
LED indicators: LEDs provide
a visual indication of status information or they may provide
guidance on what to select next or where to insert an object.
They serve as an alternative or supplement to vibrating and auditory
alerts. Visual indicators are particularly beneficial for the
hearing impaired. LED indicators will have a low impact for all
users and will help solve the issue of not being able to receive
auditory output.
User manuals in alternate formats:
Alternate formats consist of large print, Braille, and audio.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for users who are
blind or have low vision and a neutral impact for other disability
populations. It will help solve the issues of not being able to
read or handle printed materials.
Compliance with Government Regulations
The primary parts of Section 508 that are applicable to ATMs address
self-contained, closed products (1194.25); functional performance
requirements (1194.31); and documentation (1194.41). Many of these
regulations have an impact on all users; others have a larger impact
on one disability group versus another. More specifically, the regulations
that mostly impact users who are blind address issues such as availability
of visual information through an alternative sense (i.e., touch
or sound), tactilely discernible controls, and voice output. The
regulations that mostly impact users with low vision address the
issues of font size, audio output, and color and contrast settings.
The regulation that mostly impacts users who have a cognitive disability
addresses the issue of providing text equivalents for graphical
or other nontext elements. The regulations that mostly impact users
with upper-mobility impairments address the issues of multiple key
entry for a single button press, requirements for grasping and simultaneous
input, and force requirements. The regulations that mostly impact
users who are deaf or hard of hearing address volume control and
sound level output.
The following Section 508 regulations are seen as issues for ATMs:
- Verify that all controls and keys are tactilely
discernible without activating the controls or keys. Some ATMs
only use touchscreens, which are counter to this regulation.
- Verify that at least one mode of operation and
information retrieval is provided that does not require user vision
or, alternatively, that support is provided for assistive technology
used by people who are blind or visually impaired. The majority
of ATM information is provided through a text display, which cannot
be seen by a user who is blind.
- At least one mode of operation and information
retrieval that does not require visual acuity greater than 20/70
must be provided in audio and enlarged print output working together
or independently, or support for assistive technology used by
people who are visually impaired must be provided. ATMs do not
always provide voice output, and they use fonts smaller than 14
points, which is inadequate for someone with low vision.
- At least one mode of operation and information
retrieval that does not require fine motor control or simultaneous
actions and that is operable with limited reach and strength must
be provided. ATMs are often mounted at a height that is difficult
or impossible to access for people in a seated position. The level
of the display and control panel varies from one ATM to the next,
and some are better suited to individuals in wheelchairs than
others.
Conclusions
Based on the normalized impact score data, the calculated accessibility
grade for each target population is described in Table 71.
Table71: Accessibility Grade by Target Population for
ATMs
Cell Phones
Cell phones allow individuals to keep in contact with friends, family,
and business associates. They provide a communication option in
case of an emergency. People truly enjoy their portability, and
for many people, cell phones have become indispensable. Despite
their popularity and their capabilities, though, cell phones are
not accessible to everyone. There are limitations that make cell
phones either inaccessible or difficult to use (and therefore, possibly,
undesirable). People who have a visual disability may have the most
difficulty reading the display and accessing visual information.
People who are deaf or hard of hearing may have difficulty carrying
on a verbal conversation and detecting auditory alerts. People who
have a mobility disability may have difficulty making accurate inputs
and simultaneously handling the phone and manipulating the controls.
People who have a cognitive disability may have difficulty understanding
metaphors that are used and remembering how to access information.
Each of these challenges can be overcome, to some extent, through
proper design.
Background
Digital cellular telephone service is growing rapidly in the United
States because of the advantages it offers over older analog service.
Digital service allows for more users, less expensive service, higher
sound quality, more features, and better security. There are different
types of digital cellular technology, including code-division multiple
access (CDMA) and several varieties of time-division multiple access
(TDMA), global system for multiple communications (GSM), and integrated
digital enhanced network (iDen). The particular type of digital
technology in use varies by service provider.
The introduction of digital cellular telephone service in the mid-1990s
also introduced a new access barrier for people who wear hearing
aids. Analog systems work fairly well with teletype devices (TTYs).
Some phones have built in modular jacks into which a TTY can be
plugged; other phones can be used with an adaptor. Initially, digital
systems did not work well with TTYs. Digital wireless transmissions
inherently contain errors, but error correction techniques can reduce
the problem for speech. Digital networks are less forgiving in the
case of the tones generated by TTY devices, however, and the transmission
errors can cause characters to be lost or changed, resulting in
unintelligible messages.
When digital cellular telephones are in close proximity to hearing
aids, interference may be heard through the hearing aid. The interference
may be perceived as a buzzing, humming, or squealing inside the
hearing aid. This interference does not occur with all combinations
of telephone, hearing aid, and cellular service; but when it does
occur, it can make use of the telephone annoying, difficult, or
impossible. In general, older, larger hearing aids are more susceptible
to interference than newer models. Studies have shown that a distance
of one to two feet between the phone and the hearing aid will reduce
or eliminate the interference in most cases.
The electromagnetic field surrounding the antenna of the telephone
is the primary source of interference. Moving the antenna farther
from the hearing aid may reduce or eliminate interference. The loudness
of the interference also depends on the power of the transmission,
which in turn varies based on the distance from the telephone to
the cellular base station. “Flip phone” designs may
reduce interference by placing the antenna farther from the hearing
aid and by shielding the hearing aid from the antenna. But the antenna
is not the only source of interference; internal telephone electronics,
such as the back light on the screen, can also cause interference.
Possible solutions from the cellular industry may include reducing
the required transmission power by adding more base stations, improving
antenna technology and shielding the telephone, and providing accessories
like neckloops that induce sound into the T-coil of hearing aids
without requiring proximity of the telephone to the hearing aid.
Possible solutions from the hearing aid industry include increased
shielding of hearing aids and modification of the circuitry and
design of hearing aids to minimize interference.
Digital Cell Phone Compatibility with TTY
In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a requirement
that wireless carriers be capable of connecting 911 calls over a
digital wireless network for callers using a TTY. The deadline for
compliance was subsequently extended repeatedly as various wireless
carriers worked to provide a solution.
Since September 1997, the TTY Forum (sponsored by the Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions, or ATIS) has worked to develop
technically feasible solutions that will enable TTY users to make
TTY calls over digital wireless systems. The TTY Forum is composed
of various stakeholders, including wireless carriers, wireless handset
manufacturers, wireless infrastructure manufacturers, manufacturers
of TTYs, 911 and telecommunications relay service providers, and
consumer organizations representing people with hearing and speech
disabilities.
In January 2000, Lucent Technologies announced a solution for TTY
access using digital cellular telephones. The solution was developed
by the Bell Labs Speech and Audio Processing Technologies group
and involves upgrading software both in the network and in the handset.
The solution involves detecting the TTY characters being sent and
repeatedly transmitting those characters to the receiving end, allowing
the receiving end to correctly regenerate the tones corresponding
to the characters.
At its meeting on June 4, 2002, the TTY Forum announced that many
wireless service providers were prepared to meet the FCC’s
June 30, 2002, deadline for TTY compatibility, and that testing
had shown that digital wireless TTY consistently performed better
than TTY over analog circuits. To enable the TTY calls over digital
voice channels, digital wireless handsets and networks had to be
redesigned to accommodate the speed and tone of TTY Baudot signals.
Numerous problems had to be overcome, including setting standards
for the interface between TTY devices and digital wireless mobile
phones operating with several different digital standards.
However, while wireless TTY compatibility services work well for
nonemergency communication, at the time of the announcement there
were some remaining issues for emergency situations. Wireless 911
TTY calls may suffer high character error rates when received by
some public service answering points (PSAPs). Test results from
the ATIS-sponsored TTY Technical Standards Implementation Incubator
show that the problem encountered may be related to older and nonstandardized
TTY equipment or software used by some PSAPs. The wireless telecommunications
industry has performed due diligence to ensure that the digital
network will be capable of transmitting TTY calls by the June 30,
2002, deadline and is committed to continue to work to provide access
to 911 for their customers using TTYs. There is some indication
that wireless networks now support digital TTY with compatible phones,
but this cannot be verified since it is illegal to test 911 services.
A number of carriers petitioned the FCC for an extension to the
911 requirements.
Hearing Aid Compatibility with Cellular Telephones
The Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 (HAC Act) required the
FCC to ensure that all telephones manufactured or imported for use
in the United States after August 1989, and all “essential”
telephones, were hearing aid compatible. Secure telephones and mobile
telephones were exempt from the HAC Act, however.
In November 2001, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
to reexamine the exemption of mobile phones from the requirements
of the HAC Act. On August 14, 2003, the FCC released a Report and
Order modifying the exemption for wireless phones under the HAC
Act to require that digital wireless phones be capable of being
effectively used with hearing aids.
The FCC ruling requires digital wireless phone manufacturers to
make available within two years at least two HAC-compliant handsets
with reduced radio frequency (RF) emissions for each air interface
(e.g., CDMA, TDMA, and GSM) it offers. It also requires each carrier
providing digital wireless services, except for nationwide (Tier
I) wireless carriers, to make available to consumers within two
years at least two HAC-compliant handset models with reduced RF
emissions for each air interface it offers.
Nationwide (Tier I) wireless carriers must offer within two years
two HAC-compliant handset models with reduced RF emissions for each
air interface it employs, or ensure that one quarter of its total
handset models are HAC-compliant with reduced RF emissions within
two years, whichever option yields a greater number of handsets.
Digital wireless phone manufacturers must make available to carriers
within three years at least two HAC-compliant models with telecoil
coupling for each air interface it produces, and each carrier providing
digital wireless access must make available to consumers within
three years at least two HAC-compliant handset models with telecoil
coupling for each air interface it offers.
Further, one-half of all digital wireless phone models offered by
a digital wireless manufacturer or carrier must be compliant with
the reduced RF emissions requirements by February 18, 2008, and
manufacturers must label packages containing compliant handsets
and must make information available in the package or product manual.
Service providers must make available to consumers the performance
ratings of compliant phones.
In addition, the FCC established an exemption for digital wireless
manufacturers and carriers that offer a minimal number of handset
models. The FCC encourages digital wireless phone manufacturers
and service providers to offer at least one compliant handset that
is a lower-priced model and one that has higher-end features, and
encourages hearing aid manufacturers to label their precustomization
products according to the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) standard.
On September 5, 2003, ATIS established its Hearing Aid Compatibility
Incubator. The ATIS HAC incubator consists of a diverse mix of wireless
service providers, wireless manufacturers, hearing aid manufacturers,
and other parties. The mission of the HAC incubator is to investigate
performance between hearing aids and wireless devices to determine
methods of enhancing interoperability and usability for consumers
with hearing aids.
On October 1, 2003, DAMAX, a manufacturer of cellular telephone
antennas, announced a line of directional antennas that show promise
in improving the hearing aid compatibility of existing handsets.
Task-Based Accessibility Analysis
The core functionality considered to be necessary to effectively
use a cell phone consists of the following:
- Locating the cell phone
- Identifying the current state of the phone: on or off
- Turning the phone on and off
- Locking the phone
- Unlocking the phone
- Dialing numbers on the keypad
- Storing a phone number
- Recalling a stored phone number
- Receiving a phone call
- Receiving caller-ID information
- Accessing voice mail
- Attaching a headset
- Using a headset
- Determining battery status
- Determining signal strength
- Detecting when the phone is in roam mode
- Receiving a text message
- Sending a text message
- Charging the phone
Additional functionality that is typically inherent in cell phone design includes the following:
- Using a calculator
- Playing games
People may have difficulty accomplishing these basic tasks, depending
on functional limitations resulting in an impairment, environmental
or situational factors that create barriers, and the design of the
phone. Accessibility issues for each disability population are identified,
along with an impact rating for each issue. The disability populations
include people who have an impairment resulting from environmental
or situational factors.
Low Vision
Individuals with low vision may be unable to use a cell phone or
portions of the core functionality for one or more of the following
reasons: They cannot read printed materials (instruction manuals)
because documentation is not available in alternative formats. They
cannot locate or identify controls because documentation is not
available in alternative formats, button labels are small, not all
labeling on mechanical buttons has contrast (e.g., recessed labels),
auditory/voice output is not available, or they cannot read text
on the screen (no large print option or no contrast adjustment).
They may have difficulty receiving visual information because the
screen and text are small with no large print option, there is no
or inadequate contrast adjustment, or auditory/voice output is not
available.
Table 72 lists the tasks identified as important for cell phone
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table72: Derivation of Impact for Low-Vision Cell Phone Users
Users with low vision may have difficulty locking
and unlocking the phone because of difficulty reading the display
and/or difficulty finding the keys. They tend to rely on their vision,
in some cases more than necessary, and as a result may have difficulty
reading key labels and finding keys to dial the phone. They may
have difficulty receiving caller-ID information or recalling a stored
phone number because of the small font size on the display. Users
with low vision may have difficulty accessing voice mail because
of the difficulty in navigating on-screen menus, particularly those
with smaller fonts. Difficulty attaching a headset may result from
trouble finding the headset port or aligning connectors. They may
have difficulty determining battery status and signal strength because
the visual indicators may be small and difficult to perceive. Often
small changes in the visual representation of status indicate significant
change. Unfortunately, users with low vision may have difficulty
perceiving the small changes in the visual appearance of the icons.
The same is true for detecting when the phone is in roam mode.
Blind
Individuals who are blind may be unable to use a cell phone or portions
of the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They cannot read printed materials (instruction manuals) because
documentation is not available in alternative formats. They cannot
locate or identify controls because documentation is not available
in alternative formats, auditory/voice output is unavailable, or
there is no nib on the “5” key. They cannot read text
on the screen or receive graphics and video information or visual
alerts and signals because auditory/voice output is unavailable.
Table 73 lists the tasks identified as important for cell phone
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table73: Derivation of Impact for Cell Phone Users Who Are Blind
Users who are blind may have difficulty locking and
unlocking the phone because of the inability to read the display
and/or difficulty finding the keys. They cannot read key labels
and may have difficulty finding keys to dial the phone. They may
have difficulty receiving caller-ID information or recalling a stored
phone number because of the inability to read the display. Users
who are blind may have difficulty accessing voice mail because of
the difficulty in navigating on-screen menus. Difficulty attaching
a headset may result from trouble finding the headset port or aligning
connectors. They may have difficulty determining battery status
and signal strength because that information is only presented visually.
The same is true for detecting when the phone is in roam mode.
Hard of Hearing
Individuals who are hard of hearing may be unable to use a cell
phone or portions of the core functionality for one or more of the
following reasons: They cannot receive acoustic (verbal) information
or understand speech information because TTY compatibility is unavailable,
volume level is not adequately adjustable, or the device is incompatible
with hearing aids and other assistive mechanisms. They cannot receive
acoustic alerts and signals because volume level is not adequately
adjustable, frequency ranges for ringer and tone options are unavailable,
or alerts are not available in either a visual or tactile format.
Table 74 lists the tasks identified as important for cell phone
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table74: Derivation of Impact for Hard-of-Hearing Cell Phone Users
Individuals who are hard of hearing may have difficulty
locating the phone because of an inability to localize the sound
and determine the direction from which the ring is coming. Receiving
a phone call is difficult because they may not hear the phone ring
or may not be able to differentiate the ringing phone from other
background noises. They may have difficulty accessing voice mail
because of insufficient volume or lack of clarity in the voice mail
messages. Users who are hard of hearing may not perceive the low
battery audio indicator when a call is in progress. Similarly, users
may not be able to detect when a signal has faded and they are no
longer connected without referring to the display screen. Not all
hearing aids are compatible with headsets or loopsets, and not all
cell phones are hearing aid compatible.
Deaf
Individuals who are deaf may be unable to use a cell phone or portions
of the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They are unable to receive any auditory information because TTY
compatibility is unavailable, speech-to-text conversion is unavailable,
or incoming-call notification and other alerts are not available
in either a visual or a tactile format. Text devices greatly enhance
the communications capability of the community of people who are
deaf. One popular device is the Sidekick, which is a text-based
device that is also a cell phone. The Sidekick offers many of the
features of a typical cell phone as well as additional functionality
more common to a PDA. Communications functions of the Sidekick include
text messaging, email, chat, and instant messaging.
Table 75 lists the tasks identified as important for cell phone
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table75: Derivation of Impact for Cell Phone Users Who Are Deaf
Individuals who are deaf are unlikely to be able to
access voice mail unless it is translated into text. They may not
be able to receive a call unless the phone is TTY compatible. Users
who are deaf may have difficulty detecting that the phone is ringing
unless the ring is accompanied by vibration or flashing.
Upper Mobility
Individuals who have an upper-mobility impairment may be unable
to use a cell phone or portions of the core functionality for one
or more of the following reasons: They have difficulty handling
printed materials (instruction manuals). They cannot lift or hold
the device because it is too heavy, awkward in size, or difficult
to grasp because of shape or lack of detents or rubbery material;
this is particularly problematic when they must also manipulate
the device. They have difficulty making inputs (via a pointing device,
keyboard, dial, or other mechanical control mechanism), particularly
accurate inputs, because the controls are too close together or
too small, or the force required to activate the controls is too
great, key-entry requirements are not minimized, or voice recognition
is not available.
Table 76 lists the tasks identified as important for cell phone
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table76: Derivation of Impact for Upper-Mobility Impaired Cell
Phone Users
Small controls that are close together, particularly
if they have a slippery texture, may cause difficulties for people
with upper-mobility impairments when turning the phone on and off,
locking and unlocking the phone, dialing numbers on the keypad,
recalling a stored phone number, and accessing voice mail. In some
cases, typically with the power button, the control requires too
much force or extended pressure to activate for some people with
upper-mobility impairments. They may have difficulty receiving a
phone call because of their inability to quickly access the phone
and press the answer button, particularly without a hands-free feature.
They may have difficulty attaching a headset and charging the phone
because of nonstandard connectors that require pinching or two-handed
operation, or ports that have plugs that must be manipulated before
and while attaching the headset or charger. Some users with upper-mobility
impairments may be unable to lift their arms up to attach a headset.
Lower Mobility
Users with lower-mobility impairments should have no difficulties
using a cell phone as a result of their disability, unless they
have multiple disabilities.
Table 77 lists the tasks identified as important for cell phone
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table77: Derivation of Impact for Lower-Mobility Impaired Cell
Phone Users
Cognitive
Users with cognitive disabilities may be unable to use a cell phone
or portions of the core functionality for one or more of the following
reasons: They may have trouble responding with an input in the allotted
amount of time, possibly because the time provided is too short;
the input mechanism is difficult to use; or the menu structures
are too complex, in terms of the language or graphical metaphors
used or the navigation required. They may have trouble reading text
or interpreting graphics presented on the screen, because the graphical
metaphors or the language are too complex and verbal output is unavailable.
They may have trouble finding desired features because the menu
structures, language, or graphical metaphors are too complex. They
may have difficulty entering information because they cannot spell
to make text inputs or do not understand how to use an input device.
Table 78 lists the tasks identified as important for cell phone
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table78: Derivation of Impact for Cell Phone Users Who Have a Cognitive
Disability
Individuals who have cognitive disabilities may have
difficulty locking and unlocking the phone, recalling a stored phone
number, and accessing voice mail because they cannot remember the
commands or sequence of operations, or the instructions or menu
options may be unclear. They may have difficulty detecting when
the phone is in roam mode because the icon is difficult to interpret
or they do not remember what the icon means.
Accessibility Features
A review of various cell phone manufacturers’ marketing data
found a number of features identified as accessible design components.
Each of these components is listed, along with a description of
the component and an assessment of the usefulness of the feature
for disability groups. Some of these features may have been designed
with a particular disability population in mind; others may have
been designed simply as desirable features. In many cases, the accessibility
features benefit or are used by a variety of people, and they may
be considered to enhance universal access.
Loopsets for hearing aids:
A loopset is an accessory that increases clarity and reduces background
noise when translating from sound over the telephone line to a
hearing aid device. Inclusion in design will have a high impact
for users who are hard of hearing and who use T-coil equipped
hearing aids and will help solve the issue of not being able to
receive verbal information. Availability of loopsets will have
no impact for other disability populations.
Voice dialing: Voice dialing
provides users with the option to speak the name of the person
they want to call rather than using numeric dialing or accessing
a name from the directory. Inclusion in design will have a high
impact for people who are blind and a medium positive impact for
users with low vision and upper-mobility impairments. It will
have a low impact for other disability groups. All users (except
perhaps the speech impaired) may find the feature useful; but
it is not likely to increase accessibility under general circumstances,
though it will in some situational contexts in which the user’s
hands are unavailable. This is an example of a feature that is
nearly universally usable, but it should not replace traditional
dialing methods; voice dialing may be problematic for people without
speech, people with laryngitis, or people in noisy environments.
Voice dialing will help solve the issues of not being able to
locate or identify controls and not being able to make accurate
inputs.
Adjustable contrast: Adjustable
contrast provides the option for users to adjust the color or
brightness of the foreground and background colors on the display
screen to increase clarity and readability. Inclusion in design
will have a high impact for those with low vision and most users
under very bright- or low-light conditions. It will have a low
impact for other disability populations. Adjustable contrast will
help solve the issue of not being able to receive visual information.
Roller key: The roller
key provides an alternative to successive button presses, allowing
the user to slide the thumb or finger over a roller in order to
scroll through contents on a screen. This is an example of a feature
that is nearly universally usable, but it should not replace traditional
navigation methods. Inclusion in design will have a low impact
for all disability groups.
User manuals in alternate formats:
Alternate formats consist of large print, Braille, and audio.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for those who are
blind or have low vision and a neutral impact for other disability
populations. It will help solve the issues of not being able to
read or handle printed materials.
One-touch dialing: One
touch dialing provides the option to map phonebook entries to
numeric keys; once programmed, the key can be held for an extended
period of time to dial the number rather than dialing it in full
or navigating through the phonebook. This is a desirable feature
for all people, regardless of disability. Inclusion in design
will have a high impact for people with upper-mobility impairments
(if they can sustain the key press) and visual impairments and
a low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issues
of locating or identifying controls and making accurate inputs.
Customized ring tones/alerts:
Ring-tone options provide the user with a choice of the ring sound
that is heard when there is an incoming call. In some cases, the
phone can be set to ring differently for different callers. Customized
alerts provide the user with a choice of the sound or tone that
is heard when different alerts (e.g., reminders) are triggered.
This user profiling is particularly useful for individuals who
are blind who may not otherwise be able to determine the source
of an incoming call, and inclusion in design will have a medium
high positive impact. Some ring tones may be more perceptible
than others for the hard of hearing, and inclusion of ring-tone
options in design will have a medium impact for this group; it
will help solve the issue of not being able to receive acoustic
alerts and signals. While inclusion for other disability groups
does not impact accessibility, ring-tone options are a highly
desirable feature. Different ring tones also help users distinguish
their cell phone ring from someone else’s.
Text-based functionality:
Similar to sending email, text messaging via cell phone provides
a mobile communication mechanism and has become highly popular.
It allows individuals to communicate in environments in which
verbal conversations are inappropriate or in which the environment
is noisy. It is particularly beneficial for the hearing impaired,
who may not be able to hold a verbal conversation. Cell phones
with text messaging and dedicated text-messaging devices are very
popular among users who are hearing impaired. Inclusion in design
will have a high impact for the hearing impaired and low impact
for other population groups (higher, depending on the environment
in which they use the cell phone). Text messaging is a somewhat
slower communication method, and it is difficult to share and
perceive emotion accurately from text messaging. Text messaging
will help solve the issue of not being able to receive auditory
information by providing a viable alternative.
Vibrating alerts and visual indicators:
Vibrating alerts are an alternative to auditory alerts.
Vibrating alerts are valuable for all users in various situational
contexts, such as a business meeting, but they really enhance
accessibility for the hearing impaired and deaf, who may not otherwise
be able to detect an incoming call. Inclusion in design will have
a high impact for users who are deaf, a medium impact for users
who are hard of hearing, and a low impact for all other users.
Vibrating alerts will help solve the issue of not being able to
receive auditory information. Visual indicators may be in the
form of a change in text display or a light. They serve as an
alternative or supplement to vibrating and auditory alerts. Visual
indicators are particularly beneficial for the hearing impaired.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for users who are
deaf, a medium impact for those who are hard of hearing, and a
low impact for all others. Visual indicators will help solve the
issue of not being able to receive auditory information.
Cradle that attaches to mobility
aid: A mobile holder is a mounting mechanism that can be
attached to a wheelchair or other mobility aid or installed in
a car to provide a consistent, secure place to store the cell
phone. It also facilitates one-handed dialing by removing the
requirement to simultaneously hold the phone and manipulate the
controls. Mobile holders are particularly useful for the people
with upper-mobility impairments. Inclusion in design will have
a high impact for this group and a low impact for other groups,
and it will help solve the issue of not being able to lift and
hold the device.
Raised area (nib) on the “5”
key: A nib is a raised area that serves to help users identify
the location of the center of the keypad. Given a standard telephone
keypad layout with the addition of nonnumeric keys, the nib helps
the user (particularly the user with a visual impairment) to find
the “5” key, from which the remaining numeric keys
can be easily identified. Inclusion in design will have a high
impact for users who are blind, a medium impact for those with
low vision, and a neutral impact for other users. It will help
solve the issue of not being able to locate and identify controls.
Keypress feedback: Tactile
feedback results from the keys springing back to position once
pressed, and it is typically accompanied by a clicking sound,
both of which are indicators that the key has been pressed and
input accepted. Touchscreens, for example, do not have tactile
or tonal feedback. Inclusion in design will have a high impact
for those who are blind, a medium impact for those with low vision,
and a low impact for other users.
TTY compatibility: A TTY
is a small device with a keyboard that allows the user to type
input rather than speak. This is then transmitted to the person
on the other end of the line, who must also have a TTY device.
If only one individual in the conversation has a TTY device, a
relay service can be used to translate from text to voice. Inclusion
of TTY compatibility in design will have a high impact for the
hearing impaired and a neutral impact for other users. It will
help solve the issue of not being able to receive auditory information.
Text messaging is a good alternative to TTY if all parties have
access to it.
Voice tags for menu navigation:
Voice tags are spoken commands that can be used to bypass keypress
inputs to control the phone. Voice tag use is quite common, although
it is most beneficial for those with vision and mobility impairments
who might otherwise not be able to make accurate inputs. Inclusion
in design will have a high impact for these groups and a low impact
for all others. It will solve the issues of not being able to
locate and identify controls, not being able to receive visual
information, difficulty with inputting information, and difficulty
finding desired features.
Zoom displays: A zoom display
provides the option to increase the predefined text size, reducing
the number of lines of text available at any given time. Inclusion
in design will have a medium impact for users with low vision
and a low impact for others. It will help solve the issue of not
being able to receive visual information.
Brightly backlit displays:
Backlighting provides the option to adjust the screen lighting
to accommodate low-light conditions. This is useful for all individuals
in some contexts and can also be useful for users with low vision
in a wider variety of conditions. Inclusion in design will have
a medium impact for users with low vision and a low impact for
all other users. It will help solve the issue of not being able
to receive visual information.
Adjustable volume: Volume
control is important for both auditory alerts and conversation.
It is particularly important for hard-of-hearing people, but it
is useful for all. Inclusion in design will have a medium impact
for hard-of-hearing people and a low impact for all other users.
It will help solve the issue of not being able to receive auditory
information.
Icon/graphic menus: Pictorial
representations as text alternatives generally allow for more
information to be presented on a single screen. They are particularly
useful for people who might have a reading impairment. They also
provide the opportunity to unclutter the screen, which is useful
for users who have low vision or cognitive disabilities (if good
metaphors are used). Inclusion in design will have a medium impact
for users with low vision and users with cognitive disabilities
(unless implemented with poor metaphors, in which case it may
have a negative impact for users with cognitive disabilities).
This will help solve the accessibility issue of difficulty reading
text.
Audio cue capability: Audio
alerts are typically used for something like providing an audio
cue for a low battery, and they are most useful for those with
vision impairments and others in low-light conditions. Other people
enjoy auditory displays and will use them, although they do not
enhance accessibility. Inclusion in design will have a high impact
for people who are blind, a medium impact for those with low vision
and upper-mobility and cognitive disabilities, and a low impact
for all others. It will help solve the issue of not being able
to receive visual information.
External audio output (via headset):
External audio output allows the user to carry on a conversation
without needing to hold the phone. Amplified headsets enhance
the sound output to increase the clarity of the information. Amplification
is not strictly volume level; it is more an intensity of different
signals. Headsets help to concentrate the sound at the ear while
blocking out some environmental noises. External audio is particularly
useful for people who have an upper-mobility disability, and if
implemented in design will have a high impact. If the headset
is amplified, it will have a high impact for hard-of-hearing users
and will help solve the issue of not being able to understand
speech information. It will have a low impact for other users
and will help solve the issue of not being able to receive auditory
information.
Keys on the keypad that are discernible
by touch: Tactile separators typically provide either raised
or indented spaces between controls to assist in tactile differentiation
of numeric keys from other keys. Inclusion in design will have
a high impact for those who are blind, a medium impact for those
with upper-mobility impairments, and a low impact for all others.
It will help solve the issues of not being able to locate and
identify controls and not being able to make accurate inputs.
Voiced menu options: Voiced
menu options provide verbal output of the different menu screens,
allowing the user to make appropriate inputs without having to
see the display. This greatly increases the number of features
that a visually impaired user, in particular, can benefit from.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for those who are
blind or have low vision, a medium impact for those with upper-mobility
impairments, and a low impact for all others. It will help solve
the issues of not being able to read text on the screen or to
locate and identify controls.
Screen magnifiers: Screen
magnifiers increase the size of the text on the display. Inclusion
in the design will have a high impact for those who have low vision
and a low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issue
of not being able to read text on the screen.
Larger keys on the keypad:
Larger keys on the keypad increase the ability to accurately press
the desired key without inadvertently pressing any adjacent keys.
Inclusion in design will have a medium impact for those who are
blind, have low vision, or have poor fine motor control and a
low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issue of
having difficulty making accurate inputs.
More space between keys on the
keypad: More space between the keys increases the ability
to differentiate the keys by touch and to accurately press the
desired key without inadvertently pressing any adjacent keys.
Inclusion in design will have a medium impact for those who are
blind, have low vision, or have an upper-mobility impairment and
a low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issue
of having difficulty locating controls and making accurate inputs.
Talking battery-level indicators:
Talking battery-level indicators provide users who cannot see
the screen with necessary information about the criticality of
charging the phone. Inclusion in design will have a high impact
for those who are blind or have low vision and a low impact for
all other users. It will help solve the issue of not being able
to read the display.
Talking signal-strength indicators:
Talking signal-strength indicators provide users who cannot see
the screen with necessary information about the availability of
coverage to successfully make and receive calls. Inclusion in
design will have a high impact for those who are blind or have
low vision and a low impact for all other users. It will help
solve the issue of not being able to read the display.
Talking caller-ID: Talking
caller-ID provides users, particularly those with visual impairments,
with information about an incoming call. Caller-ID allows users
to identify the caller before they answer the call, providing
the opportunity to decide to not answer a call without worrying
about missing an important call. Inclusion in design will have
a high impact for those who are blind or have low vision and a
low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issue of
not being able to read text on the screen.
Large fonts on the display:
Large fonts on the display increase the text size for circumstances
in which small text is difficult to read. Inclusion in design
will have a high impact for those with low vision, a low impact
for users who are blind, and a medium impact for all other users.
It will help solve the issue of not being able to read text on
the screen.
Large display screens:
Large display screens reduce screen clutter and increase the space
available for larger text and graphics. Inclusion in design will
have a medium impact for low-vision users and a low impact for
all others. It will help solve the issue of not being able to
read text on the screen.
Simplified connector for power:
Simplified connectors for power allow the user to use a single
hand with minimal pinching or grasping to connect the power cord
to the device. Simplified connectors are not limited to insertion
in a single orientation. Inclusion in design will have a medium
impact for users who are blind, have low vision, or have an upper-mobility
impairment and a low impact for all other users.
Simplified connector for headsets:
Simplified connectors for headsets allow the user to use a single
hand with minimal pinching or grasping to connect the headset
cord to the device. Simplified connectors are not limited to insertion
in a single orientation. Inclusion in design will have a medium
impact for users who are blind, have low vision, or have an upper-mobility
impairment and a low impact for all other users.
Hearing aid compatibility:
Hearing aid compatibility includes the ability for someone using
a hearing aid to both use the cell phone without interference
and to be in proximity of someone else using a cell phone without
experiencing interference. Inclusion in design will have a high
impact for users who are hard of hearing and a low impact for
all others. Hearing aid compatibility will help solve the issue
of not being able to receive auditory information.
Concave keys on the keypads:
Concave or curved-inward keys help prevent fingers from slipping
off the keys, which often results in inadvertent activation of
adjacent keys. This type of key also increases the ability to
differentiate the keys from each other and from the surrounding
area on the device. Inclusion in design will have a medium to
high impact for users who are blind, have low vision, or have
an upper-mobility impairment and a low impact for all other users.
Concave keys will help solve the issue of locating controls and
making accurate inputs.
Keys that may be operated without
human contact: Some individuals use pointing devices or
other mechanisms to help them reach or activate controls. However,
some electronic devices require some kind of moisture content
or heat (characteristics of touch) to activate the controls; these
electronic devices cannot be used by someone who needs to use
an alternative input device. Controls that are operable without
physical human contact will have a high impact for someone with
an upper-mobility impairment and a low impact for all other users.
Rubberized keys: Rubberized
keys help prevent fingers from slipping off the keys, which often
results in inadvertent activation of adjacent keys. Textured keys
also help the user differentiate the key itself from the surface
of the device, particularly if the keys are not raised sufficiently.
Inclusion in design will have a medium to high impact for users
who are blind, have low vision, or have an upper-mobility impairment
and a low impact for all other users. Rubberized keys will help
solve the issue of locating controls and making accurate inputs.
Speakerphone: A speakerphone
allows the user to carry on a conversation without needing to
hold the phone. This is particularly useful for people who have
an upper-mobility disability, and if implemented in design will
have a high impact. It will have a low impact for other users,
and will help solve the issue of not being able to receive auditory
information via hand-held phone.
Additional features that may enhance accessibility
are described in a discussion of accessible phones at http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/phones/tcrd1/summary/index.htm.
These features include:
Key shape: Keys can be
shaped to be associated with their function. This can help someone
relying on the tactile sense to better differentiate keys, and
may help those with cognitive disabilities to learn the appropriate
use of various controls. Inclusion in design will have a high
impact for people who are blind, a medium impact for people who
have a cognitive disability, and a low impact for all others.
Help-request key: A help-request
key allows the user to press a designated key and then press another
key to get information (verbal output), such as the status of
a function or the function name for the selected key. Implementation
in design will have a medium impact for those who are blind and
a neutral impact for all other users. It will help solve the issues
of not being able to locate and identify controls or not being
able to receive visual information.
Key confirmation: Key confirmation
provides feedback about the selected option before activation
of the control. It then requires the user to confirm the selection
to implement activation. Key confirmation helps to prevent accidental
activation, which is common particularly for those who are blind
or have upper-mobility impairments. Implementation in design will
have a medium impact for both of these groups and a neutral impact
for others. (If it is not optional, however, it might have a negative
impact for other users by slowing their transactions.) It will
help solve the issue of having difficulty locating controls and
making accurate inputs.
Compliance with Government Regulations
The primary parts of Section 508 that are applicable to cell phones
address telecommunications (1194.23); self-contained, closed products
(1194.25); functional performance requirements (1194.31); and documentation
(1194.41). Many of these regulations have an impact on all users;
others have a larger impact on one disability group versus another.
More specifically, the regulations that mostly impact users who
are blind address issues such as availability of visual information
through an alternative sense (i.e., touch or sound), tactilely discernible
controls, and voice output. The regulations that mostly impact users
with low vision address the issues of font size, audio output, and
color and contrast settings. The regulation that mostly impacts
users who have a cognitive disability addresses the issue of providing
text equivalents for graphical or other nontext elements. The regulations
that mostly impact users with upper-mobility impairments address
the issues of multiple key entry for a single button press, requirements
for grasping and simultaneous input, and force requirements. The
regulations that mostly impact users who are deaf or hard of hearing
address volume control and sound level output.
The following Section 508 regulations are seen as issues for cell
phones:
- TTY compatibility
- Verify that all controls and keys are tactilely
discernible without activating the controls or keys. Many of the
keys on cell phones do not have adequate tactile separators or
a sufficient nib on the “5” key to facilitate tactile
differentiation.
- The status of all locking or toggle controls or
keys must be visually discernible and discernible through either
touch or sound. The locked status of the phone is not discernible
other than visually.
- When products provide auditory output, the audio
signal must be provided at a standard signal level through an
industry standard connector that will allow for private listening.
Some cell phones use proprietary connectors.
- Verify that at least one mode of operation and
information retrieval is provided that does not require user vision
or, alternatively, that support for assistive technology used
by people who are blind or visually impaired is provided. The
majority of information is provided through a text display on
the
cell phone, which cannot be seen by a user who
is blind.
- At least one mode of operation and information
retrieval that does not require visual acuity greater than 20/70
must be provided in audio and enlarged print output, working together
or independently, or support for assistive technology used by
people who are visually impaired must be provided. Cell phones
do not provide voice output and they typically do not use more
than a 10-point font, which is inadequate for someone with low
vision.
- Where audio information is important for the use
of a product, at least one mode of operation and information retrieval
must be provided in an enhanced auditory fashion, or support for
assistive hearing devices must be provided. While many cell phones
are designated as hearing aid compatible and loopsets are available
for some phones, they do not work for all people with hearing
aids. Some cell phones also provide insufficient volume control
to assist those who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Conclusions
Based on the normalized impact score data, the calculated accessibility
grade of each target population is described in Table 79.
Table79: Accessibility Grade by Target Population for Cell Phones
Distance Learning
Distance learning is a means of providing educational content via
audio, video, or computer technologies, whether for a university
program or a business setting. The content may be live or prerecorded.
The types of technologies for implementing distance learning include
“two-way video with two-way audio (two-way interactive video),
one-way video with two-way audio, one-way live video, one-way prerecorded
video (including prerecorded videotapes provided to students, and
TV broadcast and cable transmission using prerecorded video), two-way
audio transmission (e.g., audio/phone conferencing), one-way audio
transmission (including radio broadcast and prerecorded audiotapes
provided to students), Internet courses using synchronous (i.e.,
simultaneous or ‘real time’) computer-based instruction
(e.g., interactive computer conferencing or Interactive Relay Chat),
Internet courses using asynchronous (i.e., not simultaneous) computer-based
instruction (e.g., e-mail, listservs, and most World Wide Web-based
courses), CD-ROM, multimode packages (i.e., a mix of technologies
that cannot be assigned to a primary mode), and other technologies”
(Tabs, 2003, p. 11). Online education is now offered at more than
56 percent of the nation’s two- and four-year colleges and
universities, and distance learning is beginning to extend to high
schools and lower. It is an excellent option for people with limited
mobility, restricted schedules, those not colocated with the educational
provider, and slower learners. There are some human limitations,
however, that make distance learning either inaccessible or difficult
to use. People who have a visual disability may have difficulty
accessing visual information and making accurate inputs. People
who are deaf or hard of hearing may have difficulty accessing auditory
information. People who have a mobility disability may have difficulty
making accurate inputs and responding quickly enough to prompts.
People who have a cognitive disability may have difficulty understanding
the language and responding quickly enough to prompts. Each of these
challenges can be overcome, to some extent, through proper design
(Tabs, 2003).
Streaming media is audio and video distributed in real time over
the Internet. “Streaming” means the file can be viewed
and heard before it is fully downloaded. An initial portion of the
file is downloaded, or buffered, and begins playing while the remainder
of the file arrives in a continuous stream. In addition, “streaming
media” often refers not only to media distributed in real
time, but also to any media downloaded from the Internet.
In general, there are two sets of users who will benefit the most
from having streaming video made accessible: people who are deaf
or hard of hearing, and those who are blind or have low vision.
People who are deaf or hard of hearing rely on captions to understand
the audio content. People who are blind or have low vision rely
on an audio description of the video content. However, as with all
universal design, everyone benefits when streaming media is made
accessible, even the provider of the streaming media. For example,
captions may be made searchable, allowing for a much more elaborate
video clip search-and-retrieval system. Captions also make streaming
media more accessible for individuals who do not speak English,
those for whom English is their second language, or those for whom
printed English is more accessible than spoken English. Captions
have also been shown to consistently improve reading retention of
presented material.
Background
There are two main pieces of legislation that dictate accessibility
of streaming media. The most obvious is the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990, which requires that all public programs and services
be accessible to people with disabilities. The second, and most
relevant, piece of legislation is an amendment to the Workforce
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, “Section 508.” Section 508
was signed into law in August 1998 and became effective in June
2001. Section 508 provides for a binding, enforceable standard that
requires E&IT that is developed, procured, maintained, and used
by the Federal Government to be accessible by people with disabilities,
unless it poses an undue burden to do so. Section 508 also requires
that individuals with disabilities have access to and use of electronic
information and data that is comparable to that provided to the
public without disabilities.
The provision of captioning for Internet video streams is still
in its infancy compared with the captioning of television programming,
and in some ways it is a more challenging problem because of the
number of different video formats that must be considered. There
is not at present any single predominant standard for the captioning
of Internet video streams. Several similar but distinct techniques
are used for captioning Internet video streams; the techniques that
are available depend on the format of the video stream. Three major
formats are Apple’s Quicktime, Microsoft’s Windows Media
Player, and Real’s RealPlayer. Each format has software bugs
and some level of unreliability with respect to captioning.
Windows Media Player
Windows Media Player adds captions using Microsoft’s Synchronized
Accessible Media Interchange (SAMI). SAMI is an extensible markup
language (XML)-based text language. SAMI files contain the actual
captions as well as information about when and how the captions
should display. SAMI is structured very similarly to hypertext markup
language (HTML), and many HTML formatting tags are allowed in SAMI.
Broadly speaking, SAMI files consist of caption text with tags specifying
the appearance of the text, and time tags that control when each
caption should be displayed (in terms of elapsed milliseconds from
the start of the media file). SAMI files can be created in any text
editor, although using a captioning program like MAGpie to enter
caption times simplifies the process.
There are two ways of adding captions to a media file. If the media
file is embedded in a Web page (a practice that is not recommended
for accessibility), code can be added to the Web page to display
the captions along with the video. The recommended method, however,
involves creating a third file, called an active streaming XML (ASX)
file. The ASX file is a pointer file that contains details about
the media presentation and tells Windows Media Player which files
(media and captions) to retrieve and play.
RealPlayer
RealPlayer uses the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language
(SMIL), developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), to choreograph
the presentation of video and captions. SMIL is written as an XML
application.
To caption a RealPlayer file, first a RealText file containing caption
text as well as timing and formatting information is created. The
RealText file can be created in any text editor, but using a captioning
program like MAGpie to enter caption times simplifies the process.
Next, an SMIL file must be created that links the video (RealPlayer)
file and the caption (RealText) file, and creates the screen regions
in which the video and caption files will be played. Links to the
SMIL files must be provided in the form of real audio movie (RAM)
files. The links point to the RAM file, which in turn points to
the SMIL file, which in turn points to the RealPlayer and RealText
files. The video file can also be embedded in a Web page, but this
practice is not recommended because of accessibility problems that
it creates.
Quicktime
There are two methods for captioning Quicktime movies. The first
involves creating a Quicktime text track and making it a part of
the Quicktime movie. The result is a single file that contains audio,
video, and captions. Quicktime Pro is required for this method.
The second method involves creating a text track movie as a separate
file, which is then synchronized with the movie with SMIL (as described
above for RealPlayer).
In either case, a caption file must be created. This file can be
created using any text editor or by using MAGpie. In the first method,
Quicktime Pro is used to convert the caption file to a text track
and merge it with the video file. In the second method, a separate
SMIL file is created. There are a number of ways to access captioned
Quicktime movies. If the captions are embedded in the movie, a direct
link to the movie can be provided. Quicktime movies (or SMIL files)
can be embedded into Web pages; this is an accessible option for
Quicktime, because there is an option to make the control bar visible
on the screen. Code can also be included in a Web page that will
open a Quicktime movie or SMIL presentation in the Quicktime player.
Task-Based Accessibility Analysis
The core functionality considered to be necessary to effectively
use distance learning programs consists of the following:
- Logging into the system
- Navigating the system
- Obtaining content—text, auditory, visual
(graphics, videos)
- Filling out forms
- Reading email messages
- Using instant messaging software
- Reading documents in Microsoft Word format
- Reading documents in Adobe PDF format
- Viewing presentations in Microsoft PowerPoint format
- Using chat software
Additional functionality that is typically inherent in distance
learning design includes the following:
- Participating in audio or video conferencing
People may have difficulty accomplishing these basic tasks, depending
on functional limitations resulting in an impairment, environmental
or situational factors that create barriers, and the design of the
distance learning program. Accessibility issues for each disability
population are identified, along with an impact rating for each
issue.
Low Vision
Individuals with low vision may be unable to use distance learning
or portions of the core functionality for one or more of the following
reasons: They may have difficulty receiving visual information because
the system is incompatible with screen-readers or enlargement utilities,
the size of multimedia presentations (videos) is too small, there
is visual clutter, there is inadequate contrast, an audio description
is not available for video presentations, text equivalents are not
available for Flash files, or linked files (Word, PowerPoint, Excel,
PDF) are not available in an accessible format. They may have difficulty
making inputs because either form fields are not well associated
with their respective labels or keyboard input is not available
for all mouse actions.
Table 80 lists the tasks identified as important for distance learning
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table80: Derivation of Impact for Low-Vision Distance Learning
Users
Individuals who have low vision may have difficulty
logging into the distance learning system, navigating the system,
obtaining content, filling out forms, and using instant messaging
and software because of an inability to obtain visual information
and an incompatibility with screen-readers.
Blind
Individuals who are blind may be unable to use distance learning
or portions of the core functionality for one or more of the following
reasons: They may have difficulty receiving visual information because
the system is incompatible with screen-readers, an audio description
is not available for video presentations, audio output cannot be
controlled and replayed, sufficient descriptions are not provided
for images, or linked files (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, PDF) are not
available in an accessible format. They may have difficulty making
inputs because either keyboard input is not available for all mouse
actions or navigation is unclear.
Table 81 lists the tasks identified as important for distance learning
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table81: Derivation of Impact for Distance Learning Users Who
Are Blind
Individuals who are blind may have difficulty obtaining
distance learning content, reading documents in Adobe PDF format,
viewing presentations in Microsoft PowerPoint format, using chat
and instant messaging software, logging into and navigating the
system, and filling out forms because information is only available
visually and is there is an incompatibility with screen-readers.
Hard of Hearing
Individuals who are hard of hearing may be unable to use distance
learning or portions of the core functionality for one or more of
the following reasons: They cannot receive auditory information
or understand speech information because a visual equivalent is
not provided for audio output, the quality of audio presentations
is poor, or captioning is unavailable for video or Flash files.
Table 82 lists the tasks identified as important for distance learning
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table82: Derivation of Impact for Hard-of-Hearing Distance Learning
Users
Individuals who are hard of hearing may have difficulty
obtaining distance learning content that is available only in an
auditory fashion.
Deaf
Individuals who are deaf may be unable to use distance learning
or portions of the core functionality for one or more of the following
reasons: They cannot receive auditory information or understand
speech information because a visual equivalent is not provided for
audio output, the quality of audio presentations is poor, or captioning
is unavailable for video or Flash files.
Table 83 lists the tasks identified as important for distance learning
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table83: Derivation of Impact for Distance Learning Users Who
Are Deaf
Individuals who are deaf may have difficulty obtaining
distance learning content that is available only in an auditory
fashion (e.g., multimedia that is not available with closed captioning).
Upper Mobility
Individuals who have an upper-mobility impairment may be unable
to use distance learning or portions of the core functionality for
one or more of the following reasons: They have difficulty making
inputs (via a pointing device, keyboard, dial, or other mechanical
control mechanism), particularly accurate inputs, because the controls
are too close together or too small, key-entry requirements are
not minimized (short cut keys are not available), voice recognition
is not available, the time allotted is too short, keyboard input
is not available for all mouse actions, or there is a significant
requirement for physical activity or repetitive actions.
Table 84 lists the tasks identified as important for distance learning
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table84: Derivation of Impact for Upper-Mobility Impaired Distance
Learning Users
Individuals who have an upper-mobility impairment
may have difficulty navigating the distance learning system, filling
out forms, using chat software, and using instant messaging software
because of difficulties with input devices or because the selection
areas are small and require fine motor control.
Lower Mobility
Table 85 lists the tasks identified as important for distance learning
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table85: Derivation of Impact for Lower-Mobility Impaired Distance
Learning Users
Users with lower-mobility impairments should have
no difficulties using distance learning.
Cognitive
Users with cognitive disabilities may be unable to use distance
learning or portions of the core functionality for one or more of
the following reasons: They may have trouble responding with an
input in the allotted amount of time, possibly because the time
provided is too short, the input mechanism is difficult to use,
or the menu structures are too complex, in terms of the language
or graphical metaphors used or the navigation required. They may
have trouble reading text or interpreting graphics presented on
the screen because the graphical metaphors or the language is too
complex, verbal output is unavailable, or content (e.g., for Flash
presentations) is not repeatable. They may have trouble finding
desired features because the menu structures, language, or graphical
metaphors are too complex or not well organized. They may have difficulty
entering information because they cannot spell to make text inputs
or do not understand how to use an input device.
Table 86 lists the tasks identified as important for distance learning
use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table86: Derivation of Impact for Distance Learning Users Who
Have a Cognitive Disability
Individuals who have a cognitive disability will have
difficulty with distance learning if they have language limitations.
They may have a reading level that is below that necessary for obtaining
the essential content and reading documents. They may not comprehend
graphic depictions provided in PowerPoint presentations. Logging
onto the system may be difficult if they cannot remember their user
ID or password. Navigation may be difficult if the language is unclear
or ambiguous, particularly if the pages are cluttered. Forms may
be difficult to fill out because it may be unclear what is being
asked for, and they may not be able to provide clear inputs. Written
language may be inadequate to participate in instant messaging/chat
software, or the simultaneous nature of the software may be distracting
to the cognitively disabled user.
Accessibility Features
A review of various distance learning providers’ marketing
data found few features identified as accessible design components.
Each of these components is listed, along with a description of
the component and an assessment of the usefulness of the feature
for disability groups. Some of these features may have been designed
with a particular disability population in mind; others may have
been designed simply as desirable features. In many cases, the accessibility
features benefit or are used by a variety of people, and they may
be considered to provide universal access. Each of the accessibility
features listed below is a function of the distance learning software,
as well as the content developed by an administrative user of the
software. Each of the features has the capability to be implemented
in distance learning if the content developers include them in the
course materials. Distance learning vendors provide guidance for
course developers that addresses many of these issues.
Use of alt tags: Alt tags
provided with images allow screen-reader users to obtain information
about the images that are present on the page. Without alt tags,
for example, someone who is blind using a screen-reader may know
only that an image is present, but will have no idea what it represents.
In addition, alt tags can be used as a means to ignore images
that exist for aesthetic reasons and do not provide important
information by providing blank or null alt text for the image,
which simplifies the process of obtaining information through
a screen-reader. Implementation in design will have a high impact
for those who are blind, a medium impact for those who have low
vision, and a low impact for all others. It will help solve the
issues of being unable to receive important visual information
and, in some cases, of having difficulty interpreting visual information.
Synchronized multimedia:
Multimedia can consist of text, video, audio, and other content.
Sometimes multiple sensory outputs are provided, but not directly
in parallel, which can be confusing for the individual performing
multiple sensory processing. Multimedia should be synchronized
with the material, or there should be linked multimedia files
containing synchronized equivalent alternatives to assist those
who may benefit from redundant information sources. Synchronized
multimedia will have a medium impact on most users.
All information conveyed with
color is also available without color: Color is a very
good tool for grouping controls/information or identifying important
information, as long as the viewer can see and differentiate color.
Color provides a means to create contrast, code objects, and provide
meaning without words. However, some people with visual impairments
cannot benefit from the use of color, and the meaning may be lost
to some people with cognitive disabilities. Therefore, although
color is useful and should be used, it should not be the only
means to differentiate objects, provide structure, or provide
useful information. Anything represented with color should also
be available without color. Following this guideline in design
will have a high impact for users who are blind or have low vision,
a medium impact for users with cognitive difficulties, and a low
impact for other users. Ensuring that no information is conveyed
with color alone will help solve the issues of not being able
to receive important visual information and not being able to
interpret some visual information.
Documents are organized so they
are readable without requiring an associated style sheet: When
documents require style sheets, individuals may not be able to
control the appearance (font size, etc.) of the information on
the page or to use their own customized style sheet, and it may
create problems for those who use screen-readers. Implementing
pages that are readable without style sheets will have a high
impact for those with visual impairments. It will help solve the
issue of not being able to receive visual information.
Only client-side image maps are
used (or redundant text links are provided for each active region
of a server-side image map): Client-side image maps make
information available to people browsing with nongraphical user
agents and offer immediate feedback as to whether or not the pointer
is over an active region. Implementation of only client-side image
maps in design will have a high impact for users who are blind
and a medium impact for those with low vision. There will be a
low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issue of
not being able to receive visual information.
Row and column headers are provided
for data tables in order to take advantage of newer screen-reader
capabilities to read this additional information: Tables
that are not constructed in an organized fashion with headers
to describe the row and column contents are very difficult to
interpret for someone relying on a screen-reader. Headers can
help the individual determine the organization of the information
being presented. This facilitates navigation through the table
and comprehension of the information contained in the table. Implementation
in design will have a high impact for those who are blind, a medium
impact for those who have low vision, and a neutral impact for
all others. It will help solve the issue of not being able to
receive visual information.
Framesets are titled to facilitate
identification and navigation: Frame titles let users know,
for example, whether they are in the navigation frame or the content
frame. Providing titles helps a person using a screen-reader to
distinguish the organization of the information and facilitates
navigation. Implementation in design will have a high impact for
people who are blind and a low impact for all other users. It
will help solve the issue of not being able to receive visual
information.
Pages are designed to avoid causing
the screen to flicker with a frequency greater than 2 Hz and lower
than 55 Hz: Some flicker frequencies can induce visual
seizures. Flicker is most often an issue for animations, and pages
should be designed such that only appropriate animations are used.
Moving content can cause difficulty for people with low vision
and cognitive disabilities, particularly if they must react at
the same speed to click an object, for example. In addition, screen-readers
cannot read moving text. Implementation in design will have a
high impact for those who are susceptible to visual seizures;
a medium impact for those who have low vision, cognitive disabilities,
or upper-mobility impairments; and a low impact for other users.
It will help solve the issues of not being able to receive visual
information, having difficulty interpreting visual information,
and having difficulty making inputs, particularly when there is
a time constraint.
Dynamic scripting is not used
for content presentation: Dynamic scripting can be problematic
for screen-readers, which will sometimes provide an inaccurate
description of the page content and prevent the user from receiving
the same information that can be obtained visually. Implementation
in design will have a high impact for users with no vision, a
medium impact for users with low vision, and a neutral impact
for other users. It will help solve the issue of not being able
to receive visual information.
Plug-ins are supported as embedded
content or as automatically launched files: Some plug-ins
that require interaction will only work with mouse input, which
excludes a large number of users. Appropriately applied plug-ins
implemented in design will have a high impact for those who are
blind or have upper-mobility impairments, a medium impact for
those with low vision, and a neutral impact for the remainder
of users. It will help solve the issues of not being able to receive
visual information and make appropriate inputs.
Form labels are placed next to
the form input elements that are referenced, including input boxes
and radio buttons: This allows screen-reader users to appropriately
associate labels with the form elements. A user should be able
to fill out the form with either keyboard or mouse input. Implementation
in design will have a high impact for those who have visual or
cognitive disabilities and a low impact for all other users. It
will help solve the issues of not being able to receive visual
information and of having difficulty interpreting visual information.
For navigation links located in
the body of the main content page, code exists to allow screen-readers
to detect and skip the navigation links: When navigation
links are in the main content page, they are read each time the
page is accessed. This can be very time consuming and unnecessary
for someone using a screen-reader to find or review a part of
the page. Providing code for the user to skip over the navigation
links allows the user to read through the page and get to the
information he or she needs more easily and quickly. Implementation
in design will have a high impact for those who are blind and
a medium impact for those with other visual impairments. It will
help solve the issue of not being able to receive visual information.
Session timeout settings can be
modified by the system administrator to allow for more time, if
necessary: Some systems require an input within a certain
amount of time before they end the session; this provides security
and helps to free up access to others. However, some people cannot
respond within appropriate time limits, possibly because they
are using a screen-reader, which takes longer than expected to
process the page; they themselves are slow to process the page
content; or they have difficulty with fine motor control and making
appropriate inputs. If time-dependent settings can be controlled
as needed for individuals, it will have a high impact for those
who are blind or have cognitive disabilities or upper-mobility
difficulties. It will help solve the issues of not being able
to receive visual information and having difficulty making inputs.
Online help documentation is provided
describing layout, context, functionality of each feature, and
instructions for using the features: Some systems may use
functionality that is atypical or not intuitive, particularly
for those who cannot visually explore the contents. Implementation
of online help documentation will have a medium impact for those
with visual or cognitive disabilities and a low impact for all
other users.
Additional features we feel would make an accessible distance learning
program include the following:
Screen-reader compatibility:
Screen-readers allow users to obtain information without requiring
them to perceive it visually. Visual information is translated
into auditory output that is read to the user. The most common
users of screen-reading technology are those who are blind and
have low vision. Implementation in design will have a high impact
for those who are blind, a medium impact for those with low vision,
and a neutral impact for all others. Screen-reading compatibility
will help solve the issue of not being able to receive visual
information.
Printed materials available in
alternative formats: Alternate formats consist of large
print, Braille, and audio, and they mostly benefit users with
visual impairments, providing a high impact for that user group.
Distribution of documents in an accessible electronic format that
is convertible is often preferred. It will help solve the issue
of not being able to receive visual information.
Uncluttered pages, pages that
are well organized, and pages that don’t have backgrounds
that interfere with processing foreground information:
Pages with a lot of information, colors, patterns, and movement
can be very difficult for some people to process. Avoiding these
things in design will have a medium impact on those with low vision
and cognitive disabilities. It will help solve the issues of having
difficulty receiving and interpreting visual information and of
having difficulty finding desired features.
Consistent layouts from page to
page: Information that is organized in a similar fashion
from one page to the next helps the user to quickly find the items
of interest. Implementation in design will have a medium impact
for those who have a cognitive disability and a low impact for
all other users. It will help solve the issues of having difficulty
receiving and interpreting visual information and of having difficulty
finding desired features.
Closed captioned video:
Videos, audio clips, and live presentations naturally have audio
output, but they do not readily have comparable visual output
available. Graphics and text to describe the audio information,
particularly direct transcriptions, can greatly enhance the accessibility
of this information for those who are deaf or hard of hearing,
having a high impact for this population of users. It will help
solve the issue of not being able to receive auditory information.
A text-only page, with equivalent
information or functionality, should be provided when accessibility
cannot be achieved in any other way: The content of the
text-only page should be updated whenever the primary page changes.
This will have a high impact for those who are blind, a medium
impact for those with low vision, and a low impact for other users.
It will help solve the issue of not being able to receive visual
information.
User manuals in alternate formats:
Alternate formats consist of large print, Braille, and audio.
Inclusion in design will have a high positive impact for users
who are blind or have low vision, possibly the same for those
who are deaf or hard of hearing (depending on the original format),
and no impact for other disability populations. It will help solve
the issue of not being able to receive visual (and possibly auditory)
information.
Screen magnifier compatibility:
A screen magnifier increases the size of the display and
button labels to enhance the readability for those with low vision.
It is an alternative, particularly if adjustable screen resolution
and font size are unavailable. Implementation in design will have
a medium impact for those with low vision and a neutral impact
for other users. It will help solve the issues of not being able
to receive visual information and not being able to locate and
identify controls.
Adjustable font sizes: Small
fonts are very difficult to read for users with low vision, who
typically need to squint or use a magnifying glass to read them.
They are also more difficult to read under low-light conditions
and when users are fatigued. Implementation in design of adjustable
font sizes will have a high impact on users with low vision and,
with the exception of people who are blind, a low impact on all
other users. It will help solve the issue of not being able to
receive visual information.
Adjustable contrast: Adjustable
contrast provides the option for users to adjust the color or
brightness of the foreground and background colors to increase
clarity. Inclusion in design will have a high impact for those
with low vision and most users under very bright- or low-light
conditions. It will have a low impact for other disability populations.
Adjustable contrast will help solve the issue of not being able
to receive visual information.
Graphics that are described in
detail: Graphics may be impossible to see for a person
who is blind, difficult to see and interpret for those who have
low vision, and difficult to understand for those who do not learn
well from pictures. Inclusion of detailed descriptions will have
a high impact for those who are blind or have low vision and a
low to medium impact for all other users. Described graphics will
help solve the issue of not being able to receive visual information.
Video that is described in detail:
Video is impossible to see for a person who is blind, and may
be difficult to see for those who have low vision or are limited
to small video screens with insufficient resolution. Inclusion
of detailed descriptions will have a high impact for those who
are blind or have low vision and a low impact for all other users.
Described video will help solve the issue of not being able to
receive visual information.
Adjustable volume: Volume
control is important for auditory information and alerts. This
is particularly important for hard-of-hearing people, but it is
useful for all. Inclusion in design will have a medium impact
for hard-of-hearing people and a low impact for all other users.
It will help solve the issue of not being able to receive auditory
information.
Ability to request additional
time: Ability to request additional time allows the user
to be able to complete a transaction despite the need to use more
than the normal amount of allotted time to complete individual
transaction components. Inclusion in design will have a high impact
for most users, depending on the output mode (visual or auditory)
from the device. Additional time will help solve the issues of
not being able to receive visual or auditory information and having
difficulty with control inputs.
Voice recognition: Voice
recognition offers the option to provide inputs verbally rather
than through mechanical keypresses. This is particularly useful
for those who cannot see to make the correct inputs or who cannot
reach or have difficulty activating mechanical controls. Implementation
in design will have a high impact for those who are blind, a medium
impact for those who have low vision or an upper-mobility impairment,
and a low impact for other users. It will help solve the issues
of difficulty entering/inputting information, difficulty making
accurate inputs, difficulty lifting and holding the device, and
possibly the difficulties of finding desired features and interpreting
visual information.
Compliance with Government Regulations
The primary parts of Section 508 that are applicable to distance
learning address software applications and operating systems (1194.21),
Web-based Intranet and Internet information and applications (1194.22),
video and multimedia products (1194.24), functional performance
requirements (1191.31), and documentation (1191.41). Many of these
regulations have an impact on all users; others have a larger impact
on one disability group versus another. More specifically, the regulations
that mostly impact users who are blind address issues such as availability
of visual information through an alternative sense (i.e., touch
or sound), tactilely discernible controls, and voice output. The
regulations that mostly impact users with low vision address the
issues of font size, audio output, color and contrast settings,
and text equivalents for graphical or other nontext elements. The
regulation that mostly impacts users who have a cognitive disability
addresses the issue of providing text equivalents for graphical
or other nontext elements. The regulations that mostly impact users
with upper-mobility impairments address the issues of multiple key
entry for a single button press, requirements for grasping and simultaneous
input, and force requirements. The regulations that mostly impact
users who are deaf or hard of hearing address volume control and
sound-level output.
The following Section 508 regulations are seen as issues for distance
learning:
• Sufficient information about a user interface element, including
the identity, operation, and state of the element, must be available
to assistive technology. When an image represents a program element,
the information conveyed by the image must also be available in
text. The creators of distance learning content do not always provide
text equivalents for graphical information. Some features of the
software interface are not recognized by screen-readers.
• A text equivalent for every nontext element must be provided
(e.g., via “alt,” “longdesc,” or in element
content). The creators of distance learning content do not always
provide text equivalents for graphical information.
• Equivalent alternatives for any multimedia presentation
must be synchronized with the presentation. Equivalent alternatives
are often not provided and typically are not synched when they are
available.
• Verify that at least one mode of operation and information
retrieval is provided that does not require user vision or, alternatively,
that support is provided for assistive technology used by people
who are blind or visually impaired. Much content is provided in
a graphical fashion that cannot be seen by those with visual limitations
or that cannot be read by a screen-reader.
• At least one mode of operation and information retrieval
that does not require user hearing must be provided, or support
for assistive technology used by people who are deaf or hard of
hearing must be provided. Distance learning content is often provided
in an auditory fashion without closed captioning or text to accompany
the output.
Conclusions
Based on the normalized impact score data, the calculated accessibility
grade of each target population is described in Table 87.
Table87: Accessibility Grade by Target Population for Distance
Learning Software
Personal Digital Assistants
PDAs provide “anywhere access,” allowing individuals
to keep track of and organize information relevant to their day-to-day
activities. PDAs are portable, allowing individuals to possess information
in a variety of contexts. They can be used as a calculator, address
book, calendar, memo pad, expense tracker, and electronic information
storage device. While PDAs are particularly useful in the business
world, they serve as an excellent memory aid for any individual.
Information can be transferred between the PDA and a personal computer,
providing portable access to information. However, despite their
popularity and their capabilities, PDAs are not accessible to everyone.
There are some human limitations that make PDAs either inaccessible
or difficult to use (and consequently, perhaps, undesirable). People
who have a visual disability may have difficulty accessing visual
information and providing accurate inputs. People who are deaf or
hard of hearing may have difficulty detecting auditory alerts. People
who have a mobility disability may have difficulty simultaneously
handling the PDA and manipulating the controls. People who have
a cognitive disability may have difficulty understanding metaphors
and jargon and remembering how to access information. Each of these
challenges can be overcome, to some extent, through proper design.
Background
Personal digital assistants, or PDAs, are popular for both personal
and business use. There are thousands of applications available
for PDAs, many of them free, that support a wide range of activities.
Although they have the potential to provide benefits to individuals
with disabilities, PDAs are not currently accessible to all users.
Users generally interact with PDAs by use of a small stylus for
input and a small screen for output, producing barriers for users
with visual or mobility impairments in particular.
Text Input and Output
To assist people who are unable to use the stylus, nearly all PDAs
support the attachment of various types of keyboards, including
those that support one-handed typing, such as the halfkeyboard.
The AlphaPad is a software application for PalmOS and Windows CE
that uses a 12-key keyboard along with word prediction software.
The keyboard is displayed on a touchscreen, so fine motor control
is necessary, but it could be useful for low-mobility users. Thumbscript
is another text-entry system that uses gestures on a nine-button
grid to produce characters. It is compatible with any device having
eight actuation points arranged radially around a center, and it
may be useful for users with mobility impairments. There are a number
of other variations on stylus-based text entry, as well.
There are several products that provide some degree of voice interaction
with PDAs. IBM has released a version of its ViaVoice application
for Pocket PCs. This application serves as a text-to-speech screen-reader
and also allows user input using a limited command vocabulary. ScanSoft’s
Dragon PDsay provides similar functionality for Pocket PCs. Both
of these products are command-based and don’t support dictation
or application-specific functionality beyond a basic core set of
popular applications.
Display Features
TealMagnify is a screen magnifier for PalmOS that may be of use
to people with visual impairments, although it requires users to
touch a button on the PDA to activate it and apparently produces
rather pixilated results.
For users with low vision, many PDAs are now available with bright
color displays. Palm claims that some (but not all) of its color
models provide a variety of color and contrast adjustments for users
with visual impairments, and there are also a number of third-party
applications that allow customization of display colors. Pocket
PCs apparently can also be modified to provide a higher contrast
color scheme.
PDAs Designed Specifically for Users with Disabilities
Enkidu makes a line of portable communication devices known as the
IMPACT family that is designed specifically for users with various
disabilities. These devices provide speech output and support input
via touchscreen, integrated buttons, keyboard, or external switches.
Task-Based Accessibility Analysis
The core functionality considered to be necessary to effectively
use a PDA consists of the following:
• Locating the PDA
• Turning the PDA on and off
• Storing an appointment
• Recalling an appointment
• Viewing the calendar
• Using the calculator
• Making and retrieving a memo or notes
• Storing contact information
• Recalling contact information
• Reading/composing/sending email
• Making and retrieving a TO DO list entry
• Syncing with computer
• Adjusting screen contrast
• Adjusting font sizes
• Receiving an alert
• Detecting battery status
• Charging or replacing batteries
• Installing software
Additional functionality that is typically inherent in PDA design
includes the following:
People may have difficulty accomplishing these basic tasks, depending
on functional limitations resulting in an impairment, environmental
or situational factors that create barriers, and the design of the
PDA. Accessibility issues for each disability population are identified
(taken in part from http://www.techdis.ac.uk/PDA/front.htm), along
with an impact rating for each issue. The disability populations
include people who have an impairment resulting from environmental
or situational factors.
Low Vision
Individuals with low vision may be unable to use a PDA or portions
of the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They cannot read printed materials (instruction manuals) because
documentation is not available in alternative formats. They cannot
locate or identify controls because documentation is not available
in alternative formats, button labels are small, not all labeling
on mechanical buttons has contrast (e.g., recessed labels), auditory/voice
output is not available, or they cannot read text on the screen
(no large print option or no contrast adjustment). They may have
difficulty receiving visual information because the screen and text
are small with no large print option, there is no or inadequate
contrast adjustment, the interface is cluttered, or auditory/voice
output is not available.
Table 88 lists the tasks identified as important for PDA use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table88: Derivation of Impact for Low-Vision PDA Users
Individuals who have low vision may have difficulty
turning the PDA on and off because the button label is small or
hard to distinguish if it is an icon. Storing and recalling an appointment,
viewing the calendar, making and retrieving a memo or notes, storing
and recalling contact information, reading/composing/sending email,
making and retrieving a TO DO list entry, adjusting screen contrast,
adjusting font sizes, receiving an alert, and detecting battery
status all may be difficult because of the small font sizes used
on PDAs. Poor contrast can also be a problem. In addition, those
who use magnifiers may have difficulty using the stylus for inputs
while also holding the magnifier. Screen contrast may not be a problem
if a hardware control is provided rather than a software control.
Alerts will not be problematic if they are provided by some means
other than visual. While font sizes are sometimes adjustable, it
is typically only for a limited number of applications, and users
must first navigate through the small font size menus to get to
the option to increase the font size. A similar concept applies
for contrast that is controlled by software.
Blind
Individuals who are blind may be unable to use a PDA or portions
of the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They cannot read printed materials (instruction manuals) because
documentation is not available in alternative formats. They cannot
locate or identify controls because documentation is not available
in alternative formats or auditory/voice output is unavailable.
They cannot read text on the screen or receive graphics and video
information or visual alerts and signals because auditory/voice
output is unavailable. They cannot make inputs because the PDA is
based on a touchscreen (controls are not static and they cannot
be differentiated tactilely), keyboard input is not available, and
voice input is not available.
Table 89 lists the tasks identified as important for PDA use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table89: Derivation of Impact for PDA Users who are Blind
Users who are blind may have difficulty with all high-impact
tasks because of their inability to see the screen in conjunction
with the lack of voice output. In addition, controls are not tactilely
differentiable. While some voice input is available, it is very
limited in the applications that it works with.
Hard of Hearing
Individuals who are hard of hearing may be unable to use a PDA or
portions of the core functionality for one or more of the following
reasons: They cannot receive acoustic alerts and signals because
adjustable volume level is unavailable or is inadequate, frequency
range for tone options is unavailable, or alerts are not available
in either a visual or tactile format.
Table 90 lists the tasks identified as important for PDA use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table90: Derivation of Impact for Hard-of-Hearing PDA Users
Individuals who are hard of hearing should have no
problems using a PDA except for receiving any alerts that are provided
in an auditory fashion. Alerts may not be detectable because of
a lack of volume control, a lack of sufficient volume control, or
the inability to change the frequency of the auditory output to
accommodate an individual’s needs.
Deaf
Individuals who are deaf may be unable to use a PDA or portions
of the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They are unable to receive any auditory information because alerts
are not available in either a visual or a tactile format.
Table 91 lists the tasks identified as important for PDA use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table91: Derivation of Impact for PDA Users Who Are Deaf
Individuals who are deaf should have no problems using
a PDA except for receiving any alerts that are provided in an auditory
fashion. Users who are deaf have no way to receive auditory alerts,
and not all PDAs provide alerts in an alternate mode (visual or
tactile).
Upper Mobility
Individuals who have an upper-mobility impairment may be unable
to use a PDA or portions of the core functionality for one or more
of the following reasons: They have difficulty handling printed
materials (instruction manuals). They cannot lift or hold the device
because it is too heavy, awkward in size, or difficult to grasp
because of shape or lack of detents or rubbery material; this is
particularly problematic when they must also manipulate the device.
They have difficulty making inputs (via a pointing device, keyboard,
dial, or other mechanical control mechanism), particularly accurate
inputs, because the controls are too close together or too small,
or the force required to activate the controls is too great, key-entry
requirements are not minimized and keyboard input is unavailable,
voice recognition is not available, or the stylus is not large enough.
Table 92 lists the tasks identified as important for PDA use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table92: Derivation of Impact for Upper-Mobility Impaired PDA
Users
Individuals who have an upper-mobility impairment
may have difficulty making and retrieving memos or notes and reading/composing/sending
email because of the need to use the stylus for data entry, which
can be difficult for this user population to grasp. The fine motor
control movements that are required make other tasks difficult as
well, including storing an appointment, recalling an appointment,
viewing the calendar, using the calculator, storing and recalling
contact information, making and retrieving a TO DO list entry, adjusting
screen contrast and font sizes, and receiving an alert. While external
keyboards are available and may increase the accessibility of control
inputs, attaching the external keyboard creates another difficulty
for the upper-mobility impaired user, who may have difficulty connecting
the keyboard to the PDA because of a pinching action or needing
to use two hands. The PDA can be difficult to turn on and off because
the buttons are slick and are often recessed.
Lower Mobility
Table 93 lists the tasks identified as important for PDA use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table93: Derivation of Impact for Lower-Mobility Impaired PDA
Users
Users with lower-mobility impairments should have
no difficulties using a PDA.
Cognitive
Users with cognitive disabilities may be unable to use a PDA or
portions of the core functionality for one or more of the following
reasons: They may have trouble responding with an input in the allotted
amount of time, possibly because the time provided is too short
or the input mechanism is difficult to use. The menu structures
may be too complex, both in terms of the language or graphical metaphors
used and the navigation required. Users may have trouble reading
text or interpreting graphics presented on the screen because the
graphical metaphors or the language are too complex, verbal output
is unavailable, screen and font size are small, or the interface
is cluttered. They may have trouble finding desired features because
the menu structures, language, or graphical metaphors are too complex.
They may have difficulty entering information because they cannot
spell to make text inputs, they do not understand how to use an
input device, or the input requirements are not intuitive.
Table 94 lists the tasks identified as important for PDA use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table94: Derivation of Impact for PDA Users Who Have a Cognitive
Disability
Individuals who have a cognitive disability may have
difficulty because of poor reading and writing skills when storing
an appointment, making and retrieving a memo or notes, and reading/composing/sending
email. Navigation of the menus may also contribute to these difficulties.
The terminology may be unclear, as may be the actions required to
perform various inputs (e.g., clicking on “OK” to close
an application). The concept of syncing with the computer may be
difficult to grasp, and the wording and icons used for this feature
may be too complex for the user with a cognitive disability.
Accessibility Features
A review of various PDA manufacturers’ marketing data identified
few features identified as accessible design components. Each accessibility
feature is listed, along with its description, a determination of
availability in the product line, and an assessment of whether the
feature actually improves accessibility.
Screen-reader compatibility:
Screen-readers allow users to obtain information without requiring
them to perceive it visually. Visual information is translated into
auditory output that is read to the user. The most common users
of screen-reading technology are people who are blind or have low
vision. Implementation in design would have a high impact for these
groups and a neutral impact for other groups. It will help solve
the issue of not being able to receive visual information. Jaws
and other screen-readers are not available for mainstream PDAs.
ViaVoice is available, but it is designed more for voice input than
output, and output is very limited. ViaVoice provides some options
for a person who is blind trying to use a PDA, but it is not a substitute
for a screen-reader.
Additional features that would make an accessible PDA include
the following (taken in part from http://www.techdis.ac.uk/PDA/front.htm):
Adjustable display resolution: Display
resolution impacts quality of the visual images provided as well
as the amount of information that can be seen at a single time.
Someone with low vision, for example, may need a lower display resolution,
which increases the size of the images, in order to clearly interpret
the information provided. Thus, allowing the display resolution
to be adjusted enhances accessibility for various individuals. If
implemented in design, it will have a high impact on those with
low vision and, with the exception of people who are blind, a medium
impact on other users. It will help solve the issue of not being
able to receive visual information.
Adjustable font size: Small
fonts are very difficult to read for users with low vision, who
typically need to squint or use a magnifying glass to read them.
They are also more difficult to read under low-light conditions
and when users are fatigued. Implementation in design of adjustable
font sizes will have a high impact on users with low vision and,
with the exception of people who are blind, a low impact on all
other users. It will help solve the issue of not being able to
receive visual information.
Adjustable contrast control:
Adjustable contrast provides the option for users to adjust the
color or brightness of the foreground and background shades to
increase clarity. Ease of contrast adjustment—for example,
through a hardware control—greatly improves the accessibility
for many individuals, but for a low-vision user it could mean
the difference between being able to use the PDA and not. Inclusion
in design will have a high impact for those with low vision and
most users under very bright- or low-light conditions. It will
have a low impact for other disability populations. Adjustable
contrast will help solve the issue of not being able to receive
visual information.
Ability to adjust screen colors:
Adjustable color provides the option for users to adjust the color
or brightness of the foreground and background colors to increase
clarity. Inclusion in design will have a high impact for those
with low vision and most users under very bright- or low-light
conditions. It will have a low impact for other disability populations.
Adjustable color will help solve the issue of not being able to
receive visual information.
Good screen lighting: Adjustable
screen lighting provides the option to modify the screen lighting
to accommodate low-light conditions. This is useful for all individuals
in some contexts, and it can be useful for users with low vision
in a wider variety of conditions. Inclusion in design will have
a medium impact for users with low vision and a low impact for
all other users. It will help solve the issue of not being able
to receive visual information.
Buttons with good tactile quality:
Buttons that have texture and are not slick are easier to distinguish
by feel and to use without slipping and accidentally activating
an adjacent control. Implementation in design will have a medium
impact on those who are blind and those with upper-mobility impairments.
It will help solve the issues of having difficulty locating and
identifying controls and difficulty making accurate inputs.
Adequately sized button labels
and symbols: Users with low vision may have difficulty
reading small labels or interpreting small symbols, particularly
under low-light conditions. Implementation in design of adequately
sized text and graphics will have a high impact on users with
low vision and, with the exception of people who are blind, a
low impact on all other users. It will help solve the issues of
not being able to receive visual information and not being able
to locate and identify controls.
Voice recognition: Voice
recognition provides the option to make inputs verbally rather
than through mechanical keypresses. This is particularly useful
for those who cannot see to make the correct inputs, who cannot
reach, or who have difficulty activating mechanical controls.
Implementation in design will have a high impact for those who
are blind, a medium impact for those who have low vision or an
upper-mobility impairment, and a low impact for other users. It
will help solve the issues of having difficulty entering/inputting
information, difficulty making accurate inputs, difficulty lifting
and holding the device, and possibly the difficulties of finding
desired features and interpreting visual information.
Screen magnifier compatibility:
An external screen magnifier increases the size of the display
and button labels to enhance readability for those with low vision.
It is an alternative, particularly if adjustable display resolution
and font size are unavailable. Implementation in design will have
a medium impact for those with low vision and a neutral impact
for other users. It will help solve the issues of not being able
to receive visual information and not being able to locate and
identify controls.
Good use of visual metaphors;
simple graphical navigational aids: Graphics are very useful
for people who have difficulty reading text. Graphics can help
unclutter a display by reducing the need for text. Implementation
in design will have a high impact on the cognitively disabled,
a medium impact for those with low vision, a neutral impact for
people who are blind, and a low impact for all other users. It
will help solve the issues of not being able to receive or understand
visual information and of not being able to find desired features.
Clear menu structures:
Simple menus and information organization help all users find
the information they are looking for in a timely fashion. They
require fewer inputs, which can be very beneficial for those who
have trouble finding or manipulating controls. Implementation
in design will have a high impact for all users. It will help
solve the issues of not being able to receive or understand visual
information and of not being able to find desired features.
Auditory, visual, and vibrating
alerts: Alerts provided in a redundant fashion assist users
with specific physical impairments as well as those who encounter
a situation in which the normal alerting mode is insufficient.
Implementation in design will have a high impact for users who
are visually or hearing impaired and a medium impact for all other
users. This will help solve the issues of not being able to receive
visual or auditory information.
Use of simple language (not PDA-specific
technical jargon): Some individuals may have difficulty
using a device simply because they do not understand the terms
that are used to refer to various features. Implementation of
simple language will have a high impact on users who are have
a cognitive disability and a medium impact on all other users.
This will help solve the issues of not being able to respond in
the allotted period of time or not being able to interpret visual
information.
Minimal force requirement for
activating controls: The effort required to activate a
control may be more than an individual can provide, preventing
that individual from using the device. Implementation of minimal
force will have a high impact for users with upper-mobility impairments
and a low impact for all other users. This will help solve the
issue of not being able to make inputs.
Input alternatives other than
stylus and touchscreen controls (e.g., keyboard): Users
who cannot see or who have difficulty controlling certain input
devices benefit from having an alternative input mechanism. Implementation
in design will have a high impact for users who are blind, have
a visual impairment, or who have an upper-mobility impairment.
It will have a low impact for all other users. This will help
solve the issue of not being able to provide inputs.
Choice of stylus size and style:
A stylus is typically a very thin, smooth-surfaced pointing device,
which can be difficult for some individuals to hold on to. Implementation
of choice of styli will have a high impact on those with upper-mobility
impairments and a neutral impact on all other users. It will help
solve the issue of not being able to make accurate inputs.
PDA cases designed with materials
that increase friction and grip: A PDA case typically houses
the PDA device, even while in use. The case adds to the size and
potentially awkward shape of the device itself, which can be cumbersome
for some users. Implementation in design of friction will provide
a medium impact for users with upper-mobility impairments and
a neutral impact for all other users. It will help solve the issue
of not being able to lift and hold the device.
An overall shape and size (weight)
that allows the device to be comfortably held in the average adult
hand: The shape and size of a PDA can impact the ability
to hold the device, in general, and more specifically, to hold
and manipulate the device simultaneously. A lightweight, contoured
shape will have a high to medium impact on users with upper-mobility
impairments and a low impact on all other users. It will help
solve the issue of not being able to lift and hold the device.
The availability or feasibility
of mounting brackets for use with a desk or a wheelchair, or in
a fixed location: A mobile holder is a mounting mechanism
that can be attached to a wheelchair or other mobility aid or
installed in a car to provide a consistent, secure place to store
the PDA. When using a PDA, people often hold the device with one
hand and make inputs with the other. This is problematic for people
who may be unable to hold and manipulate the device simultaneously.
If the device can be secured to another surface to handle the
“holding component” of using the PDA, it will increase
the accessibility for those with an upper-mobility impairment.
If implemented in design, it will have a high impact for those
with upper-mobility impairments and a low impact for other groups.
It will help solve the issue of not being able to lift and hold
the device.
Adjustable zoom: A zoom
display provides the option to increase the predefined text size,
reducing the number of lines of text available at any given time.
Inclusion in design will have a medium impact for users with low
vision and a low impact for others. It will help solve the issue
of not being able to receive visual information.
Availability of user-defined sounds:
Auditory alerts sometimes accompany visual alerts, which can serve
to help differentiate one from another. For those who cannot see,
however, or for the hearing impaired, a way to make the alerts
more distinct and meaningful for each user will increase the ability
to process and make use of the auditory alerts by themselves.
Implementation in design will have a high impact for those who
are hard of hearing or have visual impairments and a low impact
for all other users. It will help solve the issues of not being
able to receive visual information and difficulty receiving auditory
information.
User manuals in alternate formats:
Alternate formats consist of large print, Braille, and audio.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for users who are
blind or have low vision, a medium impact for users with upper-mobility
impairments, and no impact for other disability populations. It
will help solve the issues of not being able to read or handle
printed materials.
Large fonts on the display:
Large fonts on the display increase the text size for circumstances
in which small text is difficult to read. Inclusion in design
will have a high impact for those with low vision, a low impact
for users who are blind, and a medium impact for all other users.
It will help solve the issue of not being able to read text on
the screen.
Large display screens:
Large display screens reduce screen clutter and increase the space
available for larger text and graphics. Inclusion in design will
have a medium impact for low-vision and cognitively disabled users
and a low impact for all others. It will help solve the issue
of not being able to read text on the screen.
High-contrast displays:
High contrast provides the option for users to adjust the color
or brightness of the foreground and background colors so that
the text stands out from the background, increasing readability.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for those with low
vision and most users under very bright- or low-light conditions.
It will have a low impact for other disability populations. High
contrast will help solve the issue of not being able to receive
visual information.
Large keys: Large keys
on the keypad increase the ability to accurately press the desired
key without inadvertently pressing any adjacent keys. Inclusion
in design will have a medium impact for those who are blind, have
low vision, or have poor fine motor control and a low impact for
all other users. It will help solve the issue of having difficulty
making accurate inputs.
More space between keys:
More space between the keys increases the ability to differentiate
the keys by touch and to press the desired key accurately without
inadvertently pressing any adjacent keys. Inclusion in design
will have a medium impact for those who are blind, have low vision,
or have an upper-mobility impairment and a low impact for all
other users. It will help solve the issues of having difficulty
locating controls and making accurate inputs.
Keys that are discernible by touch:
Tactile separators typically provide either raised or indented
spaces between controls to assist in tactile differentiation of
numeric keys from other keys. Inclusion in design will have a
high impact for those who are blind, a medium impact for those
with upper-mobility impairments, and a low impact for all others.
It will help solve the issues of not being able to locate and
identify controls and not being able to make accurate inputs.
Simplified connector for power:
Simplified connectors for power allow the user to use a single
hand with minimal pinching or grasping to connect the power cord
to the device. Simplified connectors are not limited to insertion
in a single orientation. Inclusion in design will have a medium
impact for users who are blind, have low vision, or have an upper-mobility
impairment and a low impact for all other users.
Simplified connector for headsets:
Simplified connectors for headsets allow the user to use a single
hand with minimal pinching or grasping to connect the headset
cord to the device. Simplified connectors are not limited to insertion
in a single orientation. Inclusion in design will have a medium
impact for users who are blind, have low vision, or have an upper-mobility
impairment and a low impact for all other users.
Adjustable timeouts: Adjustable
timeouts allow the individual to set the amount of time for features
that have timeout settings. This accommodates those who may be
slower in making inputs or who prefer to minimize the number of
inputs, which may increase when a setting times out. Inclusion
in design will have a medium impact for those who are blind, have
low vision, or have upper-mobility impairments. Adjustable timeouts
will help solve the issues of not being able to receive visual
information or not being able to respond within an allotted period
of time.
Ability to request additional
time: Ability to request additional time allows the user
to be able to complete a transaction, despite the need to use
more than the normal amount of allotted time to complete individual
transaction components. Inclusion in design will have a high impact
for most users, depending on the output mode (visual or auditory)
from the device. Additional time will help solve the issues of
not being able to receive visual or auditory information, not
being able to reach controls, and not being able to grasp objects.
Adjustable volume: Volume
control is important for auditory alerts. It is particularly important
for hard-of-hearing people, but it is useful for all. Inclusion
in design will have a medium impact for hard-of-hearing people
and a low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issue
of not being able to receive auditory information.
Concave keys on the keypads: Concave
or curved-inward keys help prevent fingers from slipping off the
keys, which often results in inadvertent activation of adjacent
keys. This type of key also increases the ability to differentiate
the keys from each other and from the surrounding area on the
device. Inclusion in design will have a medium to high impact
for users who are blind, have low vision, or have an upper-mobility
impairment and a low impact for all other users. Concave keys
will help solve the issues of locating controls and making accurate
inputs.
Keys that may be operated without
human contact: Some individuals use pointing devices or
other mechanisms to help them reach or activate controls. However,
some electronic devices require some kind of moisture content
or heat (characteristics of touch) to activate the controls; these
electronic devices cannot be used by someone who needs to use
an alternative input device. Controls that are operable without
physical human contact will have a high impact for someone with
an upper-mobility impairment and a low impact for all other users.
Rubberized keys: Rubberized
keys help prevent fingers from slipping off the keys, which often
results in inadvertent activation of adjacent keys. Textured keys
also help the user differentiate the key itself from the surface
of the device, particularly if the keys are not raised sufficiently.
Inclusion in design will have a medium to high impact for users
who are blind, have low vision, or have an upper-mobility impairment
and a low impact for all other users. Rubberized keys will help
solve the issues of locating controls and making accurate inputs.
Compliance with Government Regulations
The primary parts of Section 508 that are applicable to PDAs address
self-contained, closed products (1194.25); functional performance
requirements (1191.31); and documentation (1191.41). Many of these
regulations have an impact on all users; others have a larger impact
on one disability group versus another. More specifically, the regulations
that mostly impact users who are blind address issues such as availability
of visual information through an alternative sense (i.e., touch
or sound), tactilely discernible controls, and voice output. The
regulations that mostly impact users with low vision address the
issues of font size, audio output, color and contrast settings,
and text equivalents for graphical or other nontext elements. The
regulation that mostly impacts users who have a cognitive disability
addresses the issue of providing text equivalents for graphical
or other nontext elements. The regulations that mostly impact users
with upper-mobility impairments address the issues of multiple key
entry for a single button press, requirements for grasping and simultaneous
input, and force requirements. The regulations that mostly impact
users who are deaf or hard of hearing address volume control and
sound level output.
The following Section 508 regulations are seen as issues for PDAs:
• Verify that all controls and keys are tactilely discernible
without activating the controls or keys. Because the system is primarily
touchscreen based, it is not possible to have tactilely discernible
controls unless they are redundant with hardware controls.
• Verify that this self-contained product is usable by people
with disabilities, without requiring the end-user to attach assistive
technology to the product. There is very little a user who is blind
can accomplish with a PDA without the assistance of voice output.
Unfortunately, screen-reader software is not yet available for a
PDA.
• Verify that at least one mode of operation and information
retrieval is provided that does not require user vision or, alternatively,
that support is provided for assistive technology used by people
who are blind or visually impaired. As indicated above, there is
very little a user who is blind can accomplish with a PDA without
the assistance of voice output. Unfortunately, screen-reader software
is not yet available for a PDA.
• At least one mode of operation and information retrieval
that does not require visual acuity greater than 20/70 must be provided
in audio and enlarged print output, working together or independently,
or support for assistive technology used by people who are visually
impaired must be provided. PDAs do not provide voice output, and
they typically do not use more than a 10- or 12-point font, which
is inadequate for someone with low vision. Increased font size is
available only for a limited application set.
Conclusions
Based on the normalized impact score data, the calculated accessibility
grade of each target population is described in Table 95.
Table95: Accessibility Grade by Target Population for PDAs
Televisions
TVs allow individuals to acquire news and other information, and
they serve as a source of entertainment for those interested in
sports, comedy, music, and other areas of interest. TVs are a particularly
good source of information for people who cannot read. There are
some human limitations that make TVs either inaccessible or difficult
to use. People who have a visual disability may have difficulty
perceiving visual information and providing accurate inputs. People
who are deaf or hard of hearing may have difficulty perceiving auditory
information. People who have a mobility disability may have difficulty
activating controls. People who have a cognitive disability may
have difficulty understanding control options.
Background
Television is the medium that entertains, informs, and educates;
it can also serve as a companion to people who, due to circumstances
beyond their control, are limited to their homes. Traditionally,
people have used TVs to get news reports and watch movies, sports
events, and sitcoms. However, televisions are not currently accessible
to all users. Certain services have become available to make television
more accessible to users with disabilities. Closed captioning and
real-time captioning for live broadcasts has made televisions more
accessible to users who are deaf or hard of hearing by allowing
them to understand the auditory portion of television programs.
Descriptive video services (DVSs) have increased accessibility for
users with visual impairments by allowing them to better understand
the visual portion of television programs. New challenges to accessibility
have been posed with the rise of digital television and interactive
services, but accessible design solutions have been proposed to
overcome the barriers associated with this new technology.
History of Closed Captioning
In 1970, the National Bureau of Standards began investigating the
possibility of using a portion of the network television signal
not used for picture information to broadcast time information.
The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) network took part in this
project; and although the project didn’t work, ABC suggested
that it might be possible to send captions in the unused bandwidth.
In 1971, two captioning technologies were demonstrated at the First
National Conference on Television for the Hearing Impaired. A second
demonstration was held at Gallaudet College on February 15, 1972.
In the second demonstration, ABC presented closed captions embedded
in the normal broadcast of The Mod Squad. The Federal Government
agreed to fund the development and testing of captioning.
In 1973, engineers at the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) started
working on the project under contract to the Bureau of Education
for the Handicapped of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
The closed captioning system was successfully tested that year in
Washington, D.C., with the captions broadcast using Line 21 of the
vertical blanking interval. In 1976, the FCC set aside Line 21 for
the transmission of closed captions in the United States.
The first closed captioned television series was broadcast on March
16, 1980. In 1982, the National Captioning Institute (NCI) developed
real-time captioning for use in newscasts, sports events, and other
live broadcasts.
NCI partnered with the ITT Corporation in the late 1980s to develop
the first caption-decoding microchip that could be built directly
into new television sets in 1989. In 1990, the Television Decoder
Circuitry Act was passed. This act mandated that, by mid-1993, all
new television sets 13 inches or larger manufactured for sale in
the United States must contain caption-decoding technology.
In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. Title III
of ADA requires that public facilities such as hospitals, bars,
shopping centers, and museums (but not movie theaters) provide access
to verbal information on televisions, films, or slide shows. (Captioning
is considered one way of making this information available.) Federally
funded public service announcements must also be captioned.
To implement the closed captioning requirements of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, the FCC established rules and implementation schedules
for the captioning of television programming. These rules went into
effect on January 1, 1998, and established an eight-year transition
period for new programming. (At the end of the transition period,
100 percent of nonexempt new programs must be captioned.) A similar
schedule was established for the captioning of Spanish-language
programming.
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as strengthened by the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998, requires that federal agencies make their
E&IT accessible to people with disabilities, including employees
and the general public. The requirements of Section 508 apply to
an agency’s procurement of E&IT as well as to the agency’s
development, maintenance, or use of E&IT. All training and informational
video and multimedia productions that support the agency’s
mission, regardless of format, must be open or closed captioned
if they contain speech or other audio information necessary for
the comprehension of the content. All training and informational
video and multimedia productions that support the agency’s
mission, regardless of format, must include an audible description
of the video content if they contain visual information necessary
for the comprehension of the content.
As of 1998, new standards for captioning in high definition television
were being created. These new standards greatly expanded the capabilities
of captioning for HDTV, including—
• Variable size captions
• Multiple fonts and colors
• Different font and background styles
• More information bandwidth
• A larger symbol set
In addition to the obvious benefits to persons who are deaf or hard
of hearing, captioned television is also a valuable tool for young
children who are learning to read, illiterate adults who are learning
to read, children and adults with learning disabilities, and people
learning English as a second language.
A 1984 NCI study showed that hearing children who watched captioned
TV were able to significantly improve their vocabulary and oral
reading fluency.
Numerous studies on teaching ESL have shown that captioned television
improves reading and listening comprehension, vocabulary, word recognition,
and overall motivation to read among people who are learning English
as a second language.
For children and adults with learning disabilities, captioned television
helps improve comprehension and increases self-confidence.
Descriptive Video Service
DVS, also known as descriptive video information, is a service that
enables visually impaired people to better understand the visual
portions of television programs. A TV program with DVS has an additional
audio track with a narrator describing the setting, what actions
are taking place, who is talking, and any other important information
that a visually impaired person would not be able to see. The narration
is timed so it does not interfere with the dialogue.
The roots of DVS date back to the 1960s, when some attempts were
made to fill in the gaps for Star Trek episodes through audio cassettes.
In the 1970s, a former radio broadcaster began describing movies
on a radio station in Philadelphia. In 1981, Margaret Pfanstiehl
began describing live theatrical performances in Washington, D.C.,
and later developed descriptive techniques and described some programs
that were broadcast over the radio reading service.
In 1985, stereo television broadcasting began. WGBH, a Boston public
television station, began exploring possible ways to use the secondary
audio program (SAP) channel to carry narrated descriptions of a
program’s key visual elements. The goal was to eliminate the
need for a specially developed assistive device in order to receive
the descriptions.
In 1988, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting awarded WGBH a
grant to develop a complete business and operational plan for the
permanent establishment of DVS. At the same time, WGBH funded all
aspects of a national test of the service that was conducted in
conjunction with PBS and other groups.
In 2000, spurred by the major networks’ failure to offer DVS
voluntarily, the FCC mandated the provision of DVS from broadcasters.
But various groups (including the National Association of Broadcasters,
the Motion Picture Association of America, and the National Cable
and Telecommunications Association) challenged the mandate in court,
claiming that the FCC exceeded its authority and, by compelling
speech, violated the First Amendment. The core of the issue appeared
to be one of cost.
The FCC measure required that network affiliates offer four hours
a week of prime time or children’s shows with DVS by June
2002; cable and satellite operators were to have a similar requirement
for top networks. Certain programming, including live news, sports,
and talk shows, would be exempt.
A number of legal decisions between 2000 and 2002 variously upheld
and overturned the FCC mandate. In mid-June 2003, Senator John McCain
introduced a bill (S. 1264, FCC Reauthorization Act of 2003) to
reinstate the FCC mandate. The bill was approved by the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and is now awaiting approval
by the full Senate. There is no House bill as of this printing.
The application of DVS is still somewhat more limited than closed
captioning. On television, it is available mainly in programming
on PBS and a few other networks. Certain movies with descriptions
added are available by direct mail, in libraries, and in video rental
stores.
Real-Time Captioning
In 1982, NCI developed real-time captioning, a process for captioning
newscasts, sports events, specials, and other live broadcasts as
the events are being televised. In real-time captioning, court reporters
with special training type at speeds of more than 225 words per
minute to give viewers instantaneous access to live information.
The viewer sees the captions within two to three seconds of the
words being spoken, with the delay resulting from the time it takes
the captioner to hear the words and key them using a stenotype machine,
and for the captions to be encoded.
Real-time captioners write what they hear phonetically. The steno
machine (also known as a shorthand machine) has only 24 keys and
a number bar. The basic concept behind machine shorthand is phonetics,
where combinations of keys represent sounds, but the actual theory
used is much more complex than straight phonetics. Multiple keys
can be depressed simultaneously on steno machines to create different
word combinations. No two captioners write exactly the same way,
so each has a custom dictionary (typically containing 50,000 to
100,000 entries) composed of the phonetics and the corresponding
English, which the captioner uses to build words and to create punctuation.
The steno then goes into a computer system, where it is translated
into text and commands. The captioning software on the computer
formats the stream of text into captions and sends it to a caption
encoder.
Accessibility of Digital Television and Interactive Services
Interacting with a modern television set, even for an action as
basic as selecting a program, has become far more complex with the
advent of digital television. The digital set-top boxes (STBs) used
to access digital programming offer access to a large amount of
information, entertainment, and services via electronic program
guides (EPGs), which require users to scroll through lots of on-screen
text and graphics to select programs, as well as to access advanced
features like parental controls and advance scheduling. The highly
visual nature of this style of interface has created serious barriers
for blind or low-vision consumers.
These barriers are similar in nature to those that were created
by graphical user interfaces for computer operating systems and
by the rise of the World Wide Web. Over time, screen-readers and
other technologies emerged to provide access to these environments,
but those solutions have not yet been applied to STBs for digital
television. The automatic conversion of EPGs to synthesized speech
has proven problematic.
In February 2001, the National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM)
at Boston public broadcasting station WGBH partnered with America
Online to explore ways to make interactive TV accessible to audiences
who are blind or visually impaired. They focused initially on making
the EPG more accessible, with the idea that the majority of the
solutions required to make the EPG accessible will also apply to
making other content accessible with the STB. Funding for the research
was provided by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research.
In August 2003, NCAM published A Developer’s Guide to Creating
Talking Menus for Set-top Boxes and DVDs. This document discusses
the accessibility problems posed by the EPG and presents possible
technological solutions to the problems and guidelines for content
development.
According to the guide, there are challenges in finding the best
strategy for translating on-screen visual information into a spoken
equivalent, and there are also technological challenges in actually
delivering the spoken information. The primary technological challenges
result from the operating constraints of current STB hardware. The
computers inside American STBs are too primitive to support the
additional capability needed to provide voice output.
The guide states that speech synthesis is a far more feasible solution
than the use of prerecorded speech, because the number of audio
samples that would be required in the latter case would be unworkable.
A system could be designed where the synthesized speech is provided
from a central server along with the current program guide information,
but the bandwidth and storage requirements of this approach make
it unfeasible. The STB itself could perform the speech synthesis,
which is a trivial task for most modern computers, but until the
computing power of STBs catches up with that of desktop systems,
this approach is not possible.
Other alternatives include using a more powerful third-party STB,
such as a TiVO or other personal digital recorder, to do the speech
synthesis, or to dispense with the STB altogether and route the
cable signal through a desktop computer.
For users with low vision and/or other disabilities, the ability
to adjust various aspects of the display (such as font sizes and
text/background contrast settings) would be beneficial. In the article
“Interactive Digital Television Services for People with Low
Vision,” Sylvie Perera (n.d.) advocates the use of a smart
card identification system to allow low-vision users to set personal
preferences for such features as text size, content layout, speech
output, audio description, color combinations, timeouts, reminders
and alerts, and so forth. This scheme could also be extended to
assist users with other disabilities by allowing the smart card
preferences to include subtitles, signing, and other features.
Task-Based Accessibility Analysis
The core functionality considered to be necessary to effectively
use a TV consists of the following:
• Turning the TV on and off
• Changing the input source
• Changing the channel
• Adjusting the volume
• Activating closed captioning (CC)
• Accessing the EPG
• Activating DVS
• Adjusting picture quality settings
• Using picture-in-picture (PIP) features
Additional functionality that is typically inherent in TV design
includes the following:
• Setting the time
• Automatically or manually adding/deleting channels
• Setting the TV to turn on and off automatically
In many cases, these functions require or are facilitated by use
of the remote control.
People may have difficulty accomplishing these basic tasks, depending
on functional limitations resulting in an impairment, environmental
or situational factors that create barriers, and the design of the
TV. Accessibility issues for each disability population are identified,
along with an impact rating for each issue. The disability populations
include people who have an impairment resulting from environmental
or situational factors.
Low Vision
Individuals with low vision may be unable to use a TV or portions
of the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They cannot read printed materials (instruction manuals) because
documentation is not available in alternative formats. They cannot
locate or identify controls because documentation is not available
in alternative formats, button labels are small, not all labeling
on mechanical buttons has contrast (e.g., recessed labels), or auditory/voice
output is not available. They may have difficulty receiving visual
information because the text is small with no large print option,
there is no or inadequate contrast adjustment, or the screen resolution
(picture quality) is poor.
Table 96 lists the tasks identified as important for TV use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table96: Derivation of Impact for Low-Vision TV Users
Individuals who have low vision may have difficulty
changing the channel because the text labels on the remote is small,
there is no verbal output to verify the selected channel, and they
cannot read the text on the TV screen, which is at a distance. They
may also have difficulty activating DVS because there is no dedicated
button on the remote control and the font size of the menus to activate
the feature is too small.
Blind
Individuals who are blind may be unable to use a TV or portions
of the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They cannot read printed materials (instruction manuals) because
documentation is not available in alternative formats. They cannot
locate or identify controls because documentation is not available
in alternative formats, auditory/voice output is unavailable, or
there is no nib on the “5” key (on the remote control).
They may have difficulty receiving visual information because there
is no audio output for TV set-up.
Table 97 lists the tasks identified as important for TV use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table97: Derivation of Impact for TV Users Who Are Blind
Individuals who are blind may be unable to activate
DVS because there is no dedicated button for those services on the
remote control or because there is no auditory output for the menus,
which users who are blind are unable to read.
Hard of Hearing
Individuals who are hard of hearing may be unable to use a TV or
portions of the core functionality for one or more of the following
reasons: They have difficulty receiving auditory information or
understanding speech information because CC is not available or
is difficult to activate; the quality of CC is poor; or CC is not
available with sound output (i.e., CC is only available when the
TV is muted), which may be desired by a companion who is not hearing
impaired.
Table 98 lists the tasks identified as important for TV use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table98: Derivation of Impact for Hard-of-Hearing TV Users
Individuals who are hard of hearing may have difficulty
adjusting the volume because the volume does not go high enough
or the sound becomes distorted as the volume increases. They may
have difficulty using CC because the quality is poor.
Deaf
Individuals who are deaf may be unable to use a TV or portions of
the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They are unable to receive any auditory information because CC is
not available or is difficult to activate; the quality of CC is
poor; or CC is not available with sound output (i.e., CC is only
available when the TV is muted), which may be desired by a companion
who is not hearing impaired.
Table 99 lists the tasks identified as important for TV use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table99: Derivation of Impact for TV Users Who Are Deaf
People who are deaf may have difficulty using CC because
closed captioning is unavailable or the quality is poor.
Upper Mobility
Individuals who have an upper-mobility impairment may be unable
to use a TV or portions of the core functionality for one or more
of the following reasons: They have difficulty handling printed
materials (instruction manuals). They cannot lift or hold the remote
control because it is too heavy, awkward in size, or difficult to
grasp because of shape or lack of detents or rubbery material; this
is particularly problematic when they must also manipulate the device.
They have difficulty making inputs, particularly accurate inputs,
because the controls are too close together or too small, or the
force required to activate the controls is too great, key-entry
requirements are not minimized, or voice recognition is not available.
Table 100 lists the tasks identified as important for TV use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table100: Derivation of Impact for Upper-Mobility Impaired TV
Users
Users may have difficulty handling large remotes or
pressing keys on the remote that require fine motor control.
Lower Mobility
Table 101 lists the tasks identified as important for TV use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table101: Derivation of Impact for Lower-Mobility Impaired TV
Users
Users with lower mobility impairments should have
no difficulties using a TV.
Cognitive
Users with cognitive disabilities may be unable to use a TV or portions
of the core functionality for one or more of the following reasons:
They may have trouble responding with an input in the allotted amount
of time, possibly because the time provided is too short; the input
mechanism is difficult to use; or the menu structures are too complex,
in terms of both the language and graphical metaphors used and the
navigation required. They may have trouble reading text or interpreting
graphics presented on the screen because the graphical metaphors
or the language is too complex and verbal output is unavailable.
They may have trouble finding desired features because the menu
structures, language, or graphical metaphors are too complex.
Table 102 lists the tasks identified as important for TV use. For
each task, the priority is given, along with a task accessibility
score and the resulting impact score. The tasks are arranged according
to impact score.
Table102: Derivation of Impact for TV Users Who Have a Cognitive
Disability
Individuals who have a cognitive disability should
have no difficulties using the TV.
Accessibility Features
A review of various TV manufacturers’ marketing data found
a single feature identified as an accessible design component. This
component is listed along with its description and an assessment
of the usefulness of the feature for disability groups. While this
feature was designed with a particular disability population in
mind, it benefits and has been used by a much wider variety of people
than anticipated and may be considered a universal design feature.
Closed captioning: TV supplies
information both visually and acoustically. But for some programs—news
broadcasts, for example—the visual information is very limited,
which inhibits hearing-impaired people from benefiting from the
TV as an information source. The Television Decoder Circuitry
Act of 1990 requires decoder chips in U.S. TVs; as of 1993, all
13-inch or larger TVs are required to have decoder circuitry built
in to provide CC. A phase-in is underway to make CC available
for all TV programming. In addition to helping the hearing impaired,
CC benefits those whose native language differs from the programming
language, and children or others learning to read (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html).
CC has greatly enhanced the accessibility of TVs for the hearing
impaired, having a high impact if implemented in design, and serves
as a useful feature for the population as a whole (low impact).
It helps solve the issue of not being able to receive auditory
information.
Additional features that would make a TV more accessible include
the following:
Selection of SAP via a dedicated
button on the remote control: SAP is an often-used program,
most commonly used for translation of English programming into
Spanish, or less commonly to provide sign language interpretation.
Access to this programming option is often nonintuitive and cannot
be done quickly. Access through a dedicated remote control button
would greatly enhance accessibility for those challenged by sound
or cognition, having a medium impact for these groups if implemented
in design, and a neutral impact for other users. It will help
solve the issue of not being able to interpret auditory or visual
information.
Selection of DVS via a dedicated
button on the remote control: Access to DVS is typically
through a menu structure that is often nonintuitive and cannot
be done quickly. Access through a dedicated remote control button
would greatly enhance accessibility for those who are blind or
have low vision, having a high impact for these groups if implemented
in design, and a neutral impact for other users. It will help
solve the issue of not being able to interpret visual information.
Selection of CC via a dedicated
button on the remote control: Access to CC is typically
through a menu structure that is often nonintuitive and cannot
be done quickly. Access through a dedicated remote control button
would greatly enhance accessibility for those challenged by sound,
having a medium impact for this group if implemented in design,
and a neutral impact for other users. It will help solve the issue
of not being able to interpret auditory information.
Vivid picture for clarity of CC:
CC is typically provided in all capital letters, which
is harder to read than mixed caps. In addition, the readability
varies with the quality of the television on which it is viewed.
For example, HDTV sets offer a higher resolution image and typically
greater clarity of CC material. Good picture quality can greatly
enhance accessibility of information provided textually. Implementation
in design will have a high impact for those with visual and hearing
impairments and a low impact for all others. It will help solve
the issues of not being able to receive auditory and visual information.
High-quality audio system:
For those people who depend on the auditory output of the TV to
obtain information, quality of audio output can have a large impact
on ability to perceive information accurately, especially for
those who have a visual disability and cannot benefit from the
redundancy provided by the images. Implementation in design will
have a high impact for those who are hard of hearing and a medium
impact for all other users, with the exception of those who are
deaf. It will help solve the issue of having difficulty receiving
auditory information.
User manuals in alternate formats:
Alternate formats consist of large print, Braille, and audio.
Accessible electronic formats are also often acceptable. Inclusion
in design will have a high impact for users who are blind or have
low vision and a neutral impact for other disability populations.
It will help solve the issues of being unable to read or handle
printed materials.
Voice-activated remote controls:
A voice-activated remote control will allow the user to provide
all inputs via voice rather than through mechanical keypresses.
If implemented in design, this will have a high impact for people
who are blind and those with upper-mobility impairments, a medium
impact for those with low vision, and a neutral impact for other
users. It will help solve the issues of not being able to locate
or identify controls, not being able to lift and hold the remote
control, or not being able to make accurate inputs, and it may
help with not being able to find desired features or respond within
the allotted time.
Talking remote controls:
A talking remote control is one with voice displays. Talking remote
controls are useful in circumstances in which it is difficult
to make control inputs or to read the text display because of
a visual impairment, significant glare on the screen, or possibly
having to view the screen from a seated position. Inclusion in
design will have a high impact for those who are blind, a medium
impact for those with low vision, and a low impact for all other
users. It will help solve the issue of receiving and interpreting
visual information.
Large buttons on the remote:
Large keys on the keypad increase the ability to press the desired
key accurately without inadvertently pressing any adjacent keys.
Inclusion in design will have a medium impact for those who are
blind, have low vision, or have poor fine motor control and a
low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issue of
having difficulty making accurate inputs.
More space between keys on the
remote: More space between the keys increases the ability
to differentiate the keys by touch and to accurately press the
desired key without inadvertently pressing any adjacent keys.
Inclusion in design will have a medium impact for those who are
blind, have low vision, or have an upper-mobility impairment and
a low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issues
of having difficulty locating controls and making accurate inputs.
DVS: DVS provides auditory
output of key visual elements in visual programming. Inclusion
in design will have a high impact for those who are blind or have
low vision and a low impact for all other users. It will help
solve the issue of not being able to receive visual information.
Voiced on-screen menus:
Voiced on-screen menus provide verbal output of the visual displays
from the TV, allowing a user to be familiar with the menus without
having to see them. On-screen menus are used for functions like
controlling TV features (such as CC or DVS) and setting up a VCR
to tape a program. Inclusion in design of voiced menus will have
a high impact for those who are blind or have low vision and a
low impact for all other users. Voiced menus help solve the issue
of not being able to receive visual information.
Voiced program guides:
Voiced program guides provide verbal output of the programming
available on the TV. Inclusion in design of voiced program guides
will have a high impact for those who are blind or have low vision
and a low impact for all other users. Voiced program guides help
solve the issue of not being able to receive visual information.
Ability to adjust program guide
font size: Adjustable font size allows the user to set
the program guide font size so that is comfortable and effective
for a given user. Font size can be an issue for those with visual
disabilities and for anyone who is seated at a fair distance from
the TV. Inclusion in design will have a high impact for those
who have low vision and a low impact for all other users. Adjustable
font size will help solve the issue of not being able to receive
visual information.
Ability to adjust program guide
font color: Adjustable font color can be used to increase
contrast for text information. Inclusion in design will have a
high impact for those who have low vision and a low impact for
all others. Adjustable color will help solve the issue of not
being able to receive visual information.
Ability to adjust program guide
background color: Adjustable background color can also
be used to increase contrast for text information. Inclusion in
design will have a high impact for those who have low vision and
a low impact for all others. Adjustable color will help solve
the issue of not being able to receive visual information.
Ability to adjust CC font size:
Adjustable font size allows the user to set the CC font size so
that is comfortable and effective for a given user. Font size
can be an issue for those with visual disabilities and for anyone
who is dependent on using CC. Inclusion in design will have a
high impact for those who are deaf and hard of hearing, a medium
impact for those who have low vision, and a low impact for all
other users. Adjustable font size will help solve the issues of
not being able to receive visual or auditory information.
Ability to adjust CC font color:
Adjustable font color can be used to increase contrast for text
information. Inclusion in design will have a high impact for those
who are deaf or hard of hearing, a medium impact for those who
have low vision, and a low impact for all other users. Adjustable
font color will help solve the issues of not being able to receive
visual or auditory information.
Ability to adjust CC background
color: Adjustable background color can also be used to
increase contrast for text information. Inclusion in design will
have a high impact for those who are deaf or hard of hearing,
a medium impact for those who have low vision, and a low impact
for all other users. Adjustable CC background color will help
solve the issues of not being able to receive visual or auditory
information.
Ability to adjust CC display rate:
Adjustable display rate allows the user to set the speed at which
CC is displayed. All people read at different rates, and those
who have a visual impairment in addition to being deaf or hard
of hearing may need some additional time to process the CC information.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for those who are
deaf or hard of hearing, a medium impact for those who have low
vision, and a low impact for all other users. Adjustable CC display
rate will help solve the issues of not being able to receive visual
or auditory information.
Concave keys on remote control:
Concave or curved-inward keys help prevent fingers from
slipping off the keys, which often results in inadvertent activation
of adjacent keys. This type of key also increases the ability
to differentiate the keys from each other and from the surrounding
area on the device. Inclusion in design will have a medium to
high impact for users who are blind, have low vision, or have
an upper-mobility impairment and a low impact for all other users.
Concave keys will help solve the issues of locating controls and
making accurate inputs.
Compliance with Government Regulations
The primary parts of Section 508 that are applicable to TVs address
video and multimedia products (1194.24); self-contained, closed
products (1194.25); functional performance requirements (1191.31);
and documentation (1191.41). Many of these regulations have an impact
on all users; others have a larger impact on one disability group
versus another. More specifically, the regulations that mostly impact
users who are blind address issues such as availability of visual
information through an alternative sense (i.e., touch or sound),
tactilely discernible controls, and voice output. The regulations
that mostly impact users with low vision address the issues of font
size, audio output, color and contrast settings, and text equivalents
for graphical or other nontext elements. The regulation that mostly
impacts users who have a cognitive disability addresses the issue
of providing text equivalents for graphical or other nontext elements.
The regulations that mostly impact users with upper-mobility impairments
address the issues of multiple key entry for a single button press,
requirements for grasping and simultaneous input, and force requirements.
The regulations that mostly impact users who are deaf or hard of
hearing address volume control and sound level output.
The following Section 508 regulation is seen as an issue for TVs.
• At least one mode of operation and information retrieval
that does not require user hearing must be provided, or support
for assistive technology used by people who are deaf or hard of
hearing must be provided. Not all programs are captioned, and many
captions, when they are available, are inaccurate or incomplete.
Conclusions
Based on the normalized impact score data, the calculated accessibility
grade of each target population is described in Table 103.
Table103: Accessibility Grade by Target Population for TVs
Voice Recognition Software
Voice recognition software provides a method of providing input
via voice rather than mechanical means. It is particularly useful
for people who do not have hands, who have limited functioning of
their hands, or who cannot see the input options or activate the
correct control to submit input. It is typically used in desktop
applications as well as menu navigation for telephone interactive
voice response (IVR) systems. There are some human limitations that
make speech recognition either inaccessible or difficult to use
(and consequently, perhaps, undesirable). While there are very few
limitations for any one disability population, all groups may be
challenged by training the software, making accurate inputs, overcoming
problematic voice characteristics, and dealing with noisy environments.
Some of these issues can be overcome through proper design.
There are different types of speech recognition systems, some of
which are better suited for some people than for others. Some systems
require training, and some don’t. Speaker-dependent systems
are better able to process an individual’s quirky speech patterns,
but they can take a significant amount of time to train. There are
also continuous versus discrete speech recognition systems, in which,
respectively, the user can talk at a normal rate or is required
to talk with pauses between words.
Task-Based Accessibility Analysis
The core functionality considered to be necessary to effectively
use speech recognition programs consists of the following:
- Using automatic voice recognition phone attendants
- Understanding computerized voices
- Using your voice to control your computer
- Using voice recognition software in public settings
- Using voice recognition software over a headset
- Activating voice input
- Providing appropriate voice input (consider training, vocabulary,
speech characteristics)
- Correcting errors
People may have difficulty accomplishing these basic tasks, depending
on functional limitations resulting in an impairment, environmental
or situational factors that create barriers, and the design of the
voice recognition system. Accessibility issues for each disability
population are identified, along with an impact rating for each
issue. The disability populations include people who have an impairment
resulting from environmental or situational factors.
Low Vision
Individuals with low vision may be unable to use voice recognition
software or portions of the core functionality for one or more of
the following reasons: They cannot read printed materials (instruction
manuals) because documentation is not available in alternative formats.
They cannot locate or identify controls because documentation is
not available in alternative formats, button labels are small, not
all labeling on mechanical buttons has contrast (e.g., recessed
labels), or they cannot read text on the screen (no large print
option or no contrast adjustment). They cannot read text on the
screen to verify their inputs because the voice output is inadequate
or cumbersome or there is no large print option or contrast adjustment.
Table 104 lists the tasks identified as important for voice recognition
software use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a
task accessibility score and the resulting impact score. The tasks
are arranged according to impact score.
Table104: Derivation of Impact for Low-Vision Voice Recognition
Users
Individuals who have low vision may have difficulty
activating voice input, providing voice input, and correcting errors
because the voice input software may not be compatible with a screen-reader.
Blind
Individuals who are blind may be unable to use voice recognition
software or portions of the core functionality for one or more of
the following reasons: They cannot read printed materials (instruction
manuals) because documentation is not available in alternative formats.
They cannot locate or identify controls because documentation is
not available in alternative formats or there is no nib on the “5”
key.
Table 105 lists the tasks identified as important for voice recognition
software use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a
task accessibility score and the resulting impact score. The tasks
are arranged according to impact score.
Table105: Derivation of Impact for Voice Recognition Users Who
Are Blind
Individuals who are blind may have difficulty activating
voice input, providing voice input, and correcting errors because
the voice input software may not be compatible with a screen-reader.
Users may not be able to read visual instructions for training the
voice input system or accessing a voice input system in a public
setting. For example, printed instructions may indicate the appropriate
button presses to activate the voice system or may indicate the
position of a headphone jack.
Hard of Hearing
Individuals who are hard of hearing may be unable to use voice recognition
software or portions of the core functionality for one or more of
the following reasons: They cannot receive auditory feedback because
volume level is not adequately adjustable, the quality of the voice
output is poor, or information is not available in a visual format.
Table 106 lists the tasks identified as important for voice recognition
software use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a
task accessibility score and the resulting impact score. The tasks
are arranged according to impact score.
Table106: Derivation of Impact for Hard-of-Hearing Voice Recognition
Users
Individuals who are hard of hearing may have difficulty
understanding computerized voices and using automatic voice recognition
phone attendants because they lack clarity or are not loud enough.
They may have difficulty using voice recognition software in public
settings because of the environmental noise. They may have difficulty
using their voice to control the computer, providing appropriate
input, and correcting errors because of a speech impairment (associated
with the hearing impairment) that is not well processed by the voice
recognition software.
Deaf
Voice-based software control is generally inaccessible to people
who are deaf.
Upper Mobility
Individuals who have an upper-mobility impairment may be unable
to use voice recognition software or portions of the core functionality
because they have difficulty handling printed materials (instruction
manuals).
Table 107 lists the tasks identified as important for voice recognition
software use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a
task accessibility score and the resulting impact score. The tasks
are arranged according to impact score.
Table107: Derivation of Impact for Upper-Mobility Impaired Voice
Recognition Users
Individuals who have upper-mobility impairments should
have little difficulty, as a result of their impairment, using voice
recognition software.
Lower Mobility
Table 108 lists the tasks identified as important for voice recognition
software use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a
task accessibility score and the resulting impact score. The tasks
are arranged according to impact score.
Table108: Derivation of Impact for Lower-Mobility Impaired Voice
Recognition Users
Users with lower-mobility impairments should have
no difficulties using voice recognition software.
Cognitive
Users with cognitive disabilities may be unable to use voice recognition
software or portions of the core functionality for one or more of
the following reasons: They may have difficulty entering information
because the software requires a different rate of speech or does
not provide enough flexibility in choice of vocabulary.
Table 109 lists the tasks identified as important for voice recognition
software use. For each task, the priority is given, along with a
task accessibility score and the resulting impact score. The tasks
are arranged according to impact score.
Table109: Derivation of Impact for Voice Recognition Users Who
Have a Cognitive Disability
Individuals with cognitive disabilities may have difficulty
using automatic voice recognition attendants because the menu options
are unclear. They may have difficulty providing appropriate voice
input and correcting errors because they have a speech impairment
that is not well processed by the software, they do not understand
the instructions for training and providing voice input, or they
have difficulty remembering the voice commands.
Accessibility Features
A review of various speech recognition manufacturers’ marketing
data failed to identify any features as accessible design components.
Features that would make speech recognition accessible include the
following:
Automatic suggestion of alternatives
for voice recognition errors: A dictionary is available
from which words can be suggested that resemble those that are
not understood by the software. If the software is capable of
providing good alternatives, this prevents the user from having
to continue to attempt the speech input. Implementation in design
will have a high impact for people who have a cognitive disability
and a medium impact for all other users. It will help solve the
issue of having difficulty entering information.
Ability to filter out background
noise: Noise filters help prevent accidental and perhaps
inappropriate input that may go undetected or may cause the user
to enter a different mode than desired. Implementation in design
will have a high impact for all users and will help solve the
issues of not being able to receive visual or auditory information.
Availability of macros:
Macros can be used to enter groupings of information that are
often used as input, such as name and address. One voice command
is used to cue the system to enter the data set, greatly reducing
the amount of verbal input required and reducing error. Implementation
in design will have a high impact for all users.
Readback options: Readback
allows the user to get feedback of how the voice input has been
interpreted. It may be provided as each input is given, or after
multiple inputs to allow for more continuous data entry. Implementation
in design will have a high impact for those with visual impairments
and a neutral impact for other users. It will help solve the issue
of not being able to receive visual information.
User manuals in alternate formats:
Alternate formats consist of large print, Braille, and audio.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for users who are
blind or have low vision, a medium impact for those who have an
upper-mobility impairment, and a neutral impact for other disability
populations. It will help solve the issues of not being able to
read or handle printed materials.
Ability to pause voice messages:
Pause control allows the user to pause the verbal output from
the device. This is helpful to give one some time to write something
down or to think about what option might be desired. Inclusion
in design will have a medium impact for users who are blind and
a low impact for all other users. Pause control will help solve
the issue of not being able to read text on the screen.
Ability to replay voice messages:
Replay control allows the user to listen to a message more
than once. This is helpful if the voice output was not understood
or could not be heard over environmental sounds. Inclusion in
design will have a medium impact for users who are blind and users
who are hard of hearing and a low impact for all other users.
Replay control will help solve the issue of not being able to
read text on the screen.
Adjustable volume: Volume
control is important for auditory alerts. It is particularly important
for hard-of-hearing people, but it is useful for all. Inclusion
in design will have a medium impact for hard-of-hearing people
and a low impact for all other users. It will help solve the issue
of not being able to receive auditory information.
Ability to change voice types:
Voice types may consist of male and female, for example. Some
voices are more comfortable for a user to listen to, and some
are better understood by one user than another. Inclusion in design
will have a medium impact for all users. It will help solve the
issue of not being able to receive auditory information.
Ability to adjust the speed of
voice messages: A speed that is too slow can negatively
impact productivity, but a faster speed may not be well understood
by all users. Adjustable speed of voice messages allows the user
to set the level that is comfortable for him or her. Inclusion
in design will have a medium impact for all users. It will help
solve the issue of not being able to receive auditory information.
Ability to request additional
time: Ability to request additional time allows the user
to be able to complete a transaction despite the need to use more
than the normal amount of allotted time to complete individual
transaction components. Inclusion in design will have a high impact
for most users, depending on the output mode (visual or auditory)
from the device. Additional time will help solve the issues of
not being able to receive visual or auditory information, not
being able to reach controls, and not being able to grasp objects.
Headset compatibility: Headsets
provide privacy for the user and reduce distraction to neighboring
individuals. Headsets also help to control environmental noises
that may be misinterpreted by the voice recognition software.
Inclusion in design will have a high impact for all users.
Adjustable microphone: Adjustable
microphones allow users to reposition the microphone so that it
is at a comfortable level for the user. Users with lower-mobility
impairments will benefit from inclusion in design.
Wireless microphone: Wireless
microphones allow users to move about without being directly attached
to the device that is being controlled. Users with lower-mobility
impairments will benefit from the added freedom of movement.
Compliance with Government Regulations
The primary parts of Section 508 that are applicable to voice recognition
software address software applications and operating systems (1194.21),
functional performance requirements (1191.31), and documentation
(1191.41). Many of these regulations have an impact on all users;
others have a larger impact on one disability group versus another.
More specifically, the regulations that mostly impact users who
are blind address issues such as availability of visual information
through an alternative sense (i.e., touch or sound), tactilely discernible
controls, and voice output. The regulations that mostly impact users
with low vision address the issues of font size, audio output, color
and contrast settings, and text equivalents for graphical or other
nontext elements. The regulation that mostly impacts users who have
a cognitive disability addresses the issue of providing text equivalents
for graphical or other nontext elements. The regulations that mostly
impact users with upper-mobility impairments address the issues
of multiple key entry for a single button press, requirements for
grasping and simultaneous input, and force requirements. The regulations
that mostly impact users who are deaf or hard of hearing address
volume control and sound level output.
The following Section 508 regulation is seen as an issue for voice
recognition software:
• Verify that at least one mode of operation and information
retrieval is provided that does not require user vision or, alternatively,
that support for assistive technology used by people who are blind
or visually impaired is provided.
Conclusions
Based on the normalized impact score data, the calculated accessibility
grade of each target population is described in Table 110.
Table110: Accessibility Grade by Target Population for Voice Recognition
Software
Section I: Industry Study
The purpose of the industry study was to document universal design
practices within industries represented by the six product lines
selected for study. Six different companies, representing each of
the six product lines, were selected as industry partners. Selection
of industry partners was primarily based on their leadership in
the marketplace and their ability to deliver candid representations
of their experiences with UD. During data collection, every effort
was extended to foster an environment in which companies would be
able to deliver documentation of actual processes and experiences.
Each company was individually approached by Georgia Tech and asked
to participate in the research program. Nondisclosure agreements
(NDAs) were signed to assure the companies that Georgia Tech would
protect any proprietary data disclosed during the course of the
study, as well as to foster a general environment of open and frank
discussions. Full disclosure was critical to the success of the
industry study, because it was important that actual experiences
be documented, as opposed to ideal situations or marketing hype.
The NDA restricts Georgia Tech from releasing any proprietary information
belonging to the industry partners. Therefore, it is not the intent
of this study to provide detailed descriptions of experiences recorded
as part of the research. This section documents the general experiences
of companies that are representative of the six product lines selected
for analysis and provides a basis for identifying candidate interventions
or approaches for the promotion of UD.
As part of the industry study, we investigated the presence of barriers
and facilitators to accessible design. When an industry partner
indicated experiences with a particular barrier, key personnel were
interviewed to determine the policies and procedures that were used
to overcome the barrier. Before interviewing the industry partners,
we identified a candidate list of facilitator and barriers.
Analysis of Facilitators and Barriers to Accessible Design
Source materials, generated as part of the Information Technology
Technical Assistance and Training Center (ITTATC), were reviewed
to identify potential facilitators to accessible design. Facilitators
are defined as concepts, procedures, or actions that can be employed
by industry that might result in the development of accessible technologies.
We read the needs assessment literature review, a survey of ITTATC
National Advisory Committee participants, and a survey of accessibility
visionaries in order to create the initial list of facilitators.
The list was supplemented by our experience consulting with industry
and our preliminary findings from the ITTATC case studies project.
The list of facilitators is divided into five categories: design,
organizational, informational, financial, and legal facilitators.
Design facilitators are methods or tools that can be implemented
in the design process to possibly achieve a more accessible design.
Organizational facilitators include augmentations to communications
and infrastructure that may enhance the effectiveness of an accessibility
program in a company. Informational facilitators address the lack
of knowledge in accessible design and the continuation of common
misperceptions. Financial facilitators include factors that make
accessibility appear to be fiscally attractive. Finally, legal facilitators
include legal positions that make accessibility easier to achieve.
Design Facilitators
• Integrate accessibility into engineering processes. Often
accessibility of a product can be improved by integrating the consideration
of the product’s accessibility as a formal step in the engineering
design process. The most desirable outcome is usually observed when
accessibility is addressed very early in the design process.
• Develop standardized mechanisms for connecting assistive
technologies. A common complaint from industry is that it is difficult
to ensure that their products successfully interface with AT, because
not enough is known about the detailed interface requirements of
the variety of AT products on the market.
• Make technological advancements for handling adaptive devices
and flexible design. For example, develop smaller components for
connecting assistive devices so that products can be smaller and
lighter.
• Develop innovative strategies to promote awareness and understanding
of universal design issues. For example, a company could sponsor
a design challenge contest to address a specific accessibility concern
or award bonuses to those who significantly contribute to the design
of a more accessible product.
• Share ideas, concepts, and research with other organizations,
including encouragement of peer-reviewed research. Two possible
means to accomplish this are by hosting a conference or publishing
a journal of accessible design.
• Develop awareness of efforts in accessible design from competing
companies.
• Develop accessible design standards and guidelines.
• Develop a tool to help individuals understand their role
in universal design.
• Provide training for understanding accessible design, including
demonstrations of why a particular approach may not work for an
individual with a particular limitation. This will help the designers
adjust their approach to thinking about accessible design and developing
accessibility design practices in the early phases.
• Fund the acquisition of ergonomic and human performance
data for people with disabilities.
• Develop methods for measuring accessibility and comparing
the accessibility of two similar products. One approach to addressing
these issues would be to start or participate in a working group
to develop standardized measurement methods.
• Develop a working group to formulate a clear definition
of design goals related to accessibility.
• Promote the benefits of UD. Accessible design is likely
to benefit a much larger population than the target group.
• Perform accessibility evaluations on new and existing products
and services.
• Include elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities
in the design process. Get input from them early and recruit them
to participate in evaluations. This can be done through prototype
and product testing, focus groups, direct contact with the designers,
discussion forums, and other mechanisms.
• Test for product compatibility with assistive technologies.
• Hire product designers with disabilities or with experience
in creating universally designed products.
• Hire support personnel with disabilities to work directly
with designers.
• Designate an accessibility coordinator to monitor accessibility
issues and become familiar with related standards and guidelines.
• Provide concrete design examples of universally designed
products.
Organizational Facilitators
• Share accessibility information companywide, and make it
part of the culture. Ensure that all departments have the same understanding
of accessibility requirements.
• Educate the company on the tangential benefits of accessible
design. While most companies recognize that increased accessibility
will result in an increase in the user base, some do not realize
the benefit of UD for the existing user base.
• Increase diversity in the workforce.
• Develop brown bag and discussion groups regarding accessibility
efforts so that upper management has the opportunity to learn about
these efforts and factor this information into corporate decisions.
• Ensure that the personnel responsible for making marketing,
product development, and design decisions are educated about accessibility
and accessible design.
• Educate middle management on how accessible design can be
made part of the design process without burdening schedule and budget
requirements.
• Recognize accessibility as a necessity for the general population
rather than as an exception.
• Incorporate accessibility standards into quality assurance
programs.
Informational Facilitators
• Educate employees that people with disabilities have the
same wants and needs as people without disabilities (e.g., communication,
bill paying, travel). Remind them that the general population suffers
from a number of temporary disabilities as well as disabilities
related to aging.
• Recognize that relatively small changes can have a large
impact on accessibility. Something as simple as reducing the force
required to press a button can greatly increase the usability of
a product for all potential users without taking away from design
creativity.
• Provide accessibility training for managers, designers,
sales representatives, customer service personnel, and any other
groups that may benefit from the knowledge.
• Advertise accessibility features of products, and emphasize
the benefits for everyone.
• Gather as much information about accessibility and disabilities
as possible. Survey employees, canvas disability groups for information,
hold community meetings to get direct input from people familiar
with disabilities, and provide a Web link and/or phone number dedicated
to obtaining feedback on product accessibility.
• Form partnerships/relationships with organizations devoted
to promoting accessibility.
• Provide information to consumers about their rights under
section 508 and section 255 and the company’s efforts to comply
with those regulations. Complete voluntary product accessibility
templates (VPATs) for products so that consumers can make informed
decisions.
• Purchase assistive technologies for designers to work with,
and train them to use the devices properly.
• Increase exposure of engineers and designers to accessible
design. Train them when they’re hired, develop a short course
that can be made available through local universities, and encourage
someone in the company to teach at local universities to increase
exposure at the university level.
• Recruit employees who have a background in universal design.
• Ask employees (particularly those with temporary or permanent
disabilities) to comment on the usability of products they use and
to provide design suggestions. Establish a mechanism for employees
to provide feedback, and possibly develop a discussion forum from
which additional informal feedback can be acquired. Use the people
already in the company, as many of them may have experiences with
others who have limitations.
Financial Facilitators
• Recognize accessibility as a product enhancement, not as
a prohibitive-cost retrofit.
• Market products with accessible features to a large population,
not just to the target market for which they are believed to be
appropriate.
• Use employees to reduce costs associated with funding research
in accessible design.
• Include accessible design as a regular part of the design
process rather than as a feature that needs to be addressed separately
at added cost.
• Factor accessibility upgrades into the cost of other important
upgrades.
• Study the cost of not designing accessible products. For
example, revenue may be lost because of the inability to effectively
market to a federal customer.
Legal Facilitators
• Demonstrate efforts to comply with section 508. Create VPATs.
• Review consumer complaints received by legislators and industry.
• Designate an accessibility expert to monitor government
regulations.
• Pressure the government for more detailed requirements that
industry must meet or guidelines for satisfying the regulations.
The process used to identify candidate barriers was similar to the
process used to identify candidate facilitators. Source materials,
generated as part of ITTATC, were reviewed to identify potential
barriers to accessible design. Barriers are defined as potential
roadblocks to a successful accessibility program. We read the needs
assessment literature review, a survey of ITTATC National Advisory
Committee participants, and a survey of accessibility visionaries
in order to create the initial list of barriers. The list was supplemented
by our experience consulting with industry and our preliminary findings
from the ITTATC case studies project.
Similar to the list of facilitators, the list of barriers is divided
into five categories: design, organizational, informational, financial,
and legal barriers. Design barriers are obstacles in the design
process that may result in difficulty in achieving an accessible
design. Organizational barriers include impediments to communications
and infrastructure that may limit the effectiveness of an accessibility
program in a company. Informational barriers have to do with the
lack of knowledge about accessible design and the continuation of
common misperceptions. Financial barriers include factors that make
accessibility appear to be fiscally unattractive. Finally, legal
barriers include factors that make accessibility difficult to implement
because of litigation concerns.
Some of the barriers are merely perceived barriers, resulting from
a lack of knowledge of or insufficient experience in accessibility.
Other barriers represent more significant challenges to the accessibility
community in general.
Design Barriers
• Marketing and technology trends sometimes run counter to
accessibility requirements. For example, the cell phone industry
has followed a trend in miniaturization that has resulted in the
creation of a smaller keypad that is difficult to use for individuals
with some types of upper mobility impairments. The font size used
for the labels on these keypads has been reduced as well.
• There is a general lack of peer-reviewed research in accessible
design. Many human factors professions complain of the lack of human
performance research to support design in general. Even fewer studies
focus on human performance issues for people with disabilities.
In addition, little information exists about standard practices
and methods of accessible design in the open literature. Designers
simply do not have access to information they need to create accessible
products.
• There is a lack of realistic standard guidelines and principles
of accessible design.
• Designers lack an understanding of accessible design and
what can be achieved if products are designed from the beginning
with accessibility in mind. Very few commercially available products
exist that represent successful exercises in accessible design.
• Designers do not have access to information about people
with disabilities in a format usable to them. Designers often require
human performance and ergonomic data in an easy-to-use format to
support design decisions. Unfortunately, human performance and ergonomic
data for special populations, including people with disabilities,
are not a part of the standard data sets. Designers must consult
outside sources and attempt to compile the necessary data from a
wide variety of technical reports and published articles. The compilation
of these data is extremely time-consuming and often unfeasible.
• A standard accessible design process has not been documented,
tested, or verified.
• Implementation of multiple methods of display and control
may make it difficult to create a streamlined user interface. Many
feel that the addition of accessibility features creates an unwieldy
user interface.
• There is no standardized method of measuring accessibility
or comparing the accessibility of two similar products. Designers
do not have a way of determining whether their designs have met
their accessibility goals.
• Many feel that there is no clear definition of how accessible
a product has to be in order to be considered an accessible design.
• Many designers equate accessible design with designing products
for the lowest common denominator.
• Individuals with disabilities are not integrated into the
design or evaluation process.
• There is a lack of tools and resources useful for efficiently
creating accessible products.
Organizational Barriers
• Often there is a lack of communication across departments
about accessibility requirements. A few pockets of accessibility
awareness seem to exist in many companies, but there is a lack of
structure integrating a comprehensive accessibility program.
• Many companies lack accessibility champions who are in a
position to influence company decisions. In many cases, personnel
responsible for a company’s accessibility efforts come from
human factors, usability, or disability support groups. In general,
these groups do not have a large amount of input in corporate decisions.
• Often personnel responsible for making accessibility decisions
have little knowledge about accessibility or accessible design.
• Middle management often perceives accessible design to be
in direct conflict with schedule and budget requirements.
• Accessibility is often a minor concern compared with other
corporate issues, especially in today’s economy.
• There is a lack of infrastructure to support accessible
design.
Informational Barriers
• Some view people with disabilities as not having the same
wants and needs as people without disabilities.
• Sometimes designers fail to consider the possibility that
someone with a disability would attempt to use the products they
design.
• Sometimes accessibility features are poorly communicated
to the consumers who require the features.
• Specific information about accessibility and disabilities,
in general, is not easy to obtain.
• Companies often do not know how to market to people with
disabilities.
• Consumers are not familiar with their rights under section
508 and section 255.
• Some designers do not have sufficient access to assistive
technology interface requirements.
• Engineers and designers are not sufficiently exposed to
accessible design at the university level.
• Accessibility is often interpreted narrowly to include only
physical access to the technology.
Financial Barriers
• The cost of developing new technologies associated with
accessibility is often seen as prohibitive.
• The target market for accessible design is not well understood
or defined.
• There is a general lack of sources of funding for research
in accessible design.
• Some people feel that the business case for accessibility
is weak.
• It is difficult for companies to market to consumers with
disabilities.
• The cost associated with retrofitting existing products
is significant.
• The cost associated with purchasing accessible products
is often not affordable by people with disabilities.
• The technology required to produce accessible products is
not available at a reasonable cost.
Legal Barriers
• Some companies feel that they are under pressure to self-certify
compliance with section 508 in order to compete.
• Some feel that federal regulation does not go far enough
in detailing the requirements that industry must meet. Others feel
that the regulations unnecessarily restrict creative design and
innovation.
• Exploration of the federal requirements through litigation
is both time-consuming and costly.
• Some companies believe their competition is incorrectly
representing its product’s accessibility.
• Procurement officials do not understand accessibility requirements
to a sufficient degree. Officials may not be able to recognize when
an accessibility claim is false.
• Section 508 is either not being adhered to or is being adhered
to inconsistently.
Industry Study Data Collection Methodology
Six companies or industry partners were selected for participation
in the study. Once the companies were identified and the points
of contact (POCs) established, each was given a list of topics related
to accessibility in the company. Georgia Tech requested initial
reactions during preliminary phone interviews and then conducted
onsite visits and in-person interviews with various individuals
involved in the accessibility program. Some industry partners chose
to provide detailed documentation and formal responses to our initial
inquiries before the interviews. The purpose of the in-person interview
was to obtain additional information and documentation to enhance
the initial responses provided on the topics of interest.
The data collected were based on a series of topics related to accessibility
in each company. The type and format of data requested in response
to each of the 10 topic areas is listed below:
1. Documentation of current design practices, with emphasis on user
interface design and other aspects of products related to accessibility
and UD.
2. Documentation of current product evaluation practices, with emphasis
on accessibility and UD.
3. Key personnel who make decisions about product design, product
selection, and/or marketing related to accessibility and UD.
4. Current products (fielded or in development) with specific accessibility
features or other direct relationship to accessibility.
5. Lessons learned in developing accessible products. Focus on organizational
barriers encountered, technical challenges, financial barriers,
informational barriers, and legal challenges.
6. Company forecasts of demand and requirements for products with
accessibility features.
7. Company training materials related to accessibility and UD.
8. Company-funded research into accessibility and UD.
9. Company contact with members of the disability community relevant
to product accessibility and usability by individuals with disabilities.
10. Company position on product accessibility and UD.
Georgia Tech scheduled an initial meeting with the company POC,
during which the industry study objectives and data requirements
were reviewed in detail. Any readily available information was collected,
and the company POC was charged with identifying sources for archival
data and arranging personal interviews with individuals qualified
to supply the required information. The information analyzed in
this summary is based on materials provided directly from the company,
notes from the in-person meeting, and publicly available materials.
Analysis of Industry Data: Factors Influencing Adoption of
UD Practices
As defined by Tobias and Vanderheiden (1998), the primary factors
that influence the adoption of UD principles are government regulation
(or the threat of regulation) and profitability. The purpose of
the industry study was to build upon previous work and understand
how the perception of profitability affects UD. Eleven business
concerns have been identified as having an influence on UD practices
in an organization. Each business concern has a different level
of influence, depending on the strength of the other factors. The
factors influencing the adoption of UD practices include 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. Detailed descriptions of the impact
of each business concern on UD are described below.
Business Case
The business case is the financial justification and plan for including
accessibility in product design. Central to consideration of the
adoption of UD principles for all six industry partners was the
identification of a compelling business case to justify committing
the required resources to the effort. Someone at a company wishing
to add accessibility features to an existing product or to add schedule
and budget to accommodate building accessibility into the design
of a new product is often required to justify the added expense
by producing either a formal or informal business case for accessibility.
There are several methods that might be used to construct a business
case. Each method relies on the interpretation of market forecasts
and sales data and is, therefore, somewhat subjective. For example,
a senior manager might look at federal sales data and determine
that the number of sales at risk because of the production of inaccessible
products is negligible and therefore produce a very weak business
case for accessibility. A second senior manager might look at the
same data and see great potential for increasing the market share
of federal sales by enhancing accessibility, therefore determining
that the business case for accessibility is strong.
The industry study identified the following primary justifications
for the business case for UD:
• Increase market share to include people with disabilities
• Increase federal sales market share
• Reduce risk of losing market share
• Increase overall usability of the product or service
• Reduce risk of costly legal action
• Increase status as a corporate citizen
While increasing market share in general is traditionally regarded
as a strong justification for a business case, the potential to
increase market share by extending the market focus to cover people
with disabilities is often seen as a relatively weak business case,
primarily for two reasons. First, the market for people with disabilities
is highly segmented. The cost associated with developing a product
for users with various disabilities and levels of functional capabilities
is not justified by the potential of direct sales to people with
disabilities. Second, the amount of disposable income available
to people with disabilities is not perceived to be great. The additional
cost associated with producing accessible products cannot be passed
along directly to consumers with disabilities.
Companies do not appear to fully appreciate the potential value
of extending their market share to nontraditional markets through
UD. Universal design is generally associated with design for inclusion
of people with disabilities. The market analysis documented elsewhere
in this report illustrates that this view of the market for UD products
is unnecessarily restrictive. Companies representing the six product
lines selected for analysis have failed to embrace the extended
market perspective for UD products.
The introduction of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, requiring
federal agencies to consider accessibility in the procurement of
most products and services, should have had a direct impact on the
calculation of the market size of UD products. Sales to the Federal
Government represent a significant portion of sales for many companies
producing E&IT products and related services. Based on the face
value of section 508, businesses wishing to increase federal sales
might do so by developing a more accessible product than the competition
and using accessibility as a key discriminator on competitive bids.
However, many of the industry partners failed to recognize the potential
increase in federal sales as a strong business case, perhaps because
of the perception that procurement officials are not consistent
in enforcing section 508.
Perhaps more compelling than the potential increase in federal sales
is the threat of loss of Federal Government market share to a competitor.
A company that enjoys a large share of the federal market could
lose market share if a competitor creates an accessible product
that federal procurement officials choose over the traditional supplier
in an effort to conform to the requirements of section 508. In reality,
none of the companies participating in the industry study were aware
of any lost sales that could be attributed directly to an attempt
of a procurement official to conform to the requirements of section
508.
Business cases are sometimes generated in response to less tangible
benefits and threats that are not directly related to a company’s
market position. For example, one of the companies in the industry
study referred to corporate citizenship as a justification for research
into accessibility and UD. Another company perceived accessibility
as clearly being related to usability, which had been identified
as a key market discriminator. Finally, one company mentioned a
concern about avoiding future legal actions as a motivator for accessibility.
Strategy/Policy
Strategy is the high-level plan for UD or the implementation of
accessible design features. A policy is a written a statement that
is a reflection of corporate strategy. Most industry partners had
an informal or formal policy statement approved by senior management;
however, they differed widely in their content and implementation.
External policy statements tended to be used primarily for marketing
and had little overall impact on processes and procedures. When
an internal policy statement was drafted and issued to employees,
it usually had the effect of temporarily increasing awareness of
accessibility; but a sustained, corporatewide commitment is rare
without the dedication of resources. Internal policy statements
that lack an associated commitment of resources are rarely enforced.
An effective policy must reach the level of a corporate instruction
or directive and address inclusion of people with disabilities in
design and evaluation of products, increased training, incorporation
of documented standards and guidelines, increased research and development,
increased marketing of accessibility features and efforts, and lowered
costs for products with accessibility features. The policy must
also be associated with an implementation plan and a commitment
of needed resources.
Corporate culture had a strong influence on accessibility. In two
of the six companies in the industry study, employees reported that
the corporate culture was such that accessibility was expected to
be considered when making design decisions. A strong corporate culture
was generally associated with a strong customer voice requiring
that accessibility be considered. Accessibility will be considered,
independent of policy, if the customer demand is great. Policy tended
to be more entrenched in corporate culture if someone from senior
management experienced a disability or a close relationship with
someone with a disability.
Resource Allocation/Funding
Resource allocation and funding was the single most frequently identified
reason for the failure of accessibility policy. Four of the six
companies had money earmarked for staffing accessibility program
offices; however, the program offices were often underfunded and
did not have sufficient resources to effect change in the corporation.
In some cases, the accessibility program office consisted of only
one or two individuals who served as the focal point for accessibility
concerns throughout the company. Only one company earmarked money
specifically for accessibility research. Outreach to employees was
also severely limited. The accessibility program offices often developed
plans for implementing universal or accessible design but lacked
funding to appropriately implement the plans.
At least one company that decided to commit to accessibility and
establish an accessibility program office was reevaluating the commitment
of resources because of an inability to demonstrate return on investment
(ROI). The company cited a lack of impact of accessibility features
on federal procurement decisions as the primary motivator for reconsidering
its commitment to accessibility. Companies spending less money on
accessibility were not perceived to suffer decreased sales as a
result of section 508 procurement regulations.
Organization/Staff
Several methods of staffing for accessibility issues were observed.
The most common staffing organization, used by four of the six companies,
involved the development of an accessibility program office responsible
for UD and accessibility issues throughout the corporation. The
size of the accessibility program offices varied from a single member
to a staff of five or six with a background in accessibility issues.
In other cases, responsibility for accessibility was integrated
into existing groups, such as marketing or human factors.
Two staffing trends were noted. First, the presence of a single
accessibility champion or a small number of accessibility champions
was very common among the industry partners. The success of the
accessibility program in a company that must rely on the work of
a very small number of accessibility champions was directly related
to the workload or attrition of the champions. Loss of an accessibility
champion could result in a major setback of accessibility objectives.
Second, the accessibility program office may become a place to assign
nonproductive personnel. While the majority of accessibility program
offices are staffed by competent individuals capable of advancing
UD principles if given adequate resources, some companies have assigned
accessibility to individuals who are either transitioning between
departments or are experiencing difficulty marketing themselves
within the company.
The mission of the accessibility program offices also varied widely.
In some cases, the program offices were mostly reactive, responding
to requests for information or to particular accessibility concerns.
In other cases, the accessibility program offices were very proactive
and focused on developing and testing new technologies that might
be integrated into future products. In reality, a balanced approach
is required. The group charged with accessibility should be able
to respond to the immediate needs of the corporation as well as
contribute to future planning and development of universally designed
products.
Unfortunately, the accessibility program office in the four companies
that had program offices demonstrated very little control over design
decisions that directly affected the accessibility of the final
product. The accessibility program office should be constructed
to include groups (or individuals) who have decision-making responsibilities
to influence product accessibility. This may include a human factors
group or an accessibility group, or even an oversight group that
can serve as a resource for other groups in the company. It also
helps for accessibility awareness to be widespread throughout the
company. One method of accomplishing this is to have staff in each
group or available to each group who have more extensive training
and who can advocate for inclusion of accessibility features.
Another staffing mechanism for enhancing accessibility practices
in the company is to hire people with various disabilities and ensure
that they are involved with the design and evaluation of products.
However, this mechanism can be used inappropriately. For example,
it would be inappropriate to send a new product to a single employee
with a disability and ask the employee to quickly review the product
rather than conducting more extensive product testing. This approach
is especially problematic if the employee has other responsibilities,
has little experience with product evaluations, and is not prepared
to comment on the accessibility of the product beyond his or her
personal experiences.
Training/Awareness
Some corporate accessibility training was offered to employees;
however, training relating to UD and accessibility is not widespread.
The most common type of training was aimed at increasing employee
awareness of section 508, accessibility policy, people with disabilities,
and the specific accessibility issues associated with the products
that the company produces. An important function of several accessibility
program offices was to provide targeted training to key decision
makers, as needed. The targeted training was largely informal and
usually conducted on a rather limited basis. The training offered
was generally focused on program managers and design teams. Very
little training was offered to sales or marketing teams.
Typically, accessibility awareness is made available on an as-needed
basis and is specific to a project. In some cases a brief introduction
is provided to all employees regarding the importance of UD, but
sometimes it is simply awareness through diversity training. Training
materials may include an overview of the range of disabilities (including
situational disabilities), assistive technologies, principles of
UD, minimal design requirements, business and consumer arguments
for addressing accessibility, consequences of not addressing accessibility,
a review of accessibility features, legal requirements, and barriers
and lessons learned.
Training of staff is one of the best mechanisms for getting accessibility
included in product design. Often accessibility is overlooked because
of a lack of awareness of the issues. People do not realize how
inaccessible products can be to individuals with disabilities and
they do not understand how much an individual’s life can be
improved with the availability of more accessible products. Training
can greatly affect accessibility practices through increasing awareness
of disability issues, increasing awareness of standards and guidelines,
and providing tools (processes and checklists, for example) to facilitate
accessibility implementation.
Companies should be aware of hidden messages in corporate training.
For example, if a company emphasizes section 508 conformance over
accessibility in general, employees may come to view UD and accessibility
as a federal sales issue. Designers may choose to ignore accessibility
requirements if they know that their product is not likely to be
marketed to the Federal Government.
To be effective, training should be tailored for the decision makers
who routinely affect accessibility in the corporation. Technical
staff might like to consider the needs of people with disabilities,
but they are junior staff members who do not have the power to implement
major design decisions. Technical staff training is effective if
concrete design examples and information about integrating UD guidelines
into the design process are offered. However, changes to the design
process are often resisted by middle managers, who argue that extra
development time would be required, that money must be expended,
or that these changes are not relevant to the target market. The
key decision makers are the key product team members and the personnel
who are responsible for defining the products’ functional
requirements.
One successful method of providing UD and accessibility awareness
training is to incorporate basic constructs into employee induction
training. Other successful training methods include alternative
delivery methods, such as a video, on the importance of UD and the
impact of inaccessibility on the lives of people with disabilities.
Computer-based training materials have also been used to increase
general awareness of accessibility issues.
Research
With one notable exception, the accessibility program offices of
the four companies participating in the industry study were not
directly linked with corporate research. One company was able to
successfully integrate personnel with research experience into the
accessibility program office. This integration allowed the program
office to offer design solutions to the accessibility problems that
it identified through testing. However, most accessibility program
offices were not in a position to influence research priorities
or review research before it was integrated into a product development
cycle.
Several companies successfully employed external consultants to
assist with UD or accessibility research. However, externally funded
research tended to be more exploratory in nature and less focused
on design-oriented solutions.
Research into accessibility issues is dependent on available funding.
Much design work is dependent on research of the best way to implement
accessibility features, compatibility with assistive technologies,
and development of emerging technologies. Advanced and ongoing research
can influence accessibility implementation through identification
of features that are useful for the disability community, cost-effective,
and appealing to a wide population.
Design
In many cases, accessibility processes are in place for both design
and quality assurance, including user-centered design, but are either
not documented or not followed consistently. Accessibility requirements
are not well integrated into existing design processes. For those
companies that do include accessibility requirements in the design
process, the requirements are typically tailored to the specific
product line or range of product lines produced by the company.
Design decisions are made by a range of personnel. Industrial designers
or design management teams typically handle display and control
layout. Product managers or core team members detail the design
and ensure manufacturability. Some design decisions are made at
the engineering level. Typically, decisions about trade-offs are
made at an upper-management level. Decisions about product requirements
are typically handled at the marketing level. Accessibility champions
can have some influence over the design, independent of the above-mentioned
roles.
All six companies participating in the industry study adopted some
variant of a product development or life cycle design process. However,
the companies varied in the extent to which they followed engineering
process manuals. Smaller projects and internal research and development
projects tended to operate outside the formally defined development
process. None of the companies reported immediate changes to the
development process in response to section 508. Rather, UD and accessibility
requirements have slowly been integrated into the development process,
mainly in response to efforts from members of the companies’
internal accessibility program offices. Three of the six companies
reported that accessibility was addressed in its formal engineering
product manuals. However, two of those three companies reported
that their formal engineering process simply required that accessibility
be considered at some point in the design process. In general, detailed
requirements or checklists relating to accessibility were not found
in formal design documents.
The product life cycle design process is intended to manage the
product from its inception through its retirement and eventual cessation
of support. Although different companies have different names for
their design processes, the processes all generally follow these
steps:
• Product planning
• Requirements definition
• Product specification
• Development
• Verification and testing
• Manufacturing
• End-of-life management
In order for UD principles to be incorporated into the final product,
the principles must be considered at the very beginning of design.
Accessibility must be considered during product planning. Companies
that relied solely on accessibility testing after product development
were unable to have a substantial impact on the overall accessibility
of the product. Product planners must decide very early whether
accessibility will be considered in the design of the product and
to what extent the product will meet or exceed accessibility technical
guidelines. Companies that failed to consider accessibility early
in product development often failed to have a significant impact
on the accessibility of the final design.
In the requirements-definition phase, it is important to define
objectively testable requirements for accessibility. It is not sufficient
to require that the product be accessible, because doing so provides
little information to designers and prevents accessibility verification
testing. Vague accessibility requirements are more likely to be
ignored in both the development and the verification and testing
phases of design. Proper accessibility requirements should be defined
in the form of the incorporation of relevant section 508 technical
requirements or specific functional performance requirements. For
example, the requirements document could incorporate specific paragraphs
from section 508 technical requirements that apply to the specific
product under development, or it could require that specific user
tasks must be able to be performed by a given population of users
with specified functional capabilities and limitations.
During the product-specification phase, the functionality and appearance
of the product is defined in accordance with the definition of product
requirements. Personnel with expertise in UD must be available to
assist in defining the specifications, reviewing the product specifications
that affect accessibility, and determining whether the accessibility-related
product requirements are met by the product specification. Major
changes to the product design are unlikely after the product specification
has been produced, so it is critical that accessibility be considered
before moving on to the design phase.
During development, the design is conceptualized, produced, and
prototyped. Typically, a project leader will arrange a multidisciplinary
team that might involve members of engineering, computer science,
industrial design, human factors, quality assurance, and marketing.
At least one member of the development team should have an understanding
of the accessibility issues related to the product under development.
Iterative testing and development are important during this phase.
Testing
Companies participating in the industry study routinely performed
usability testing, but they rarely included users with disabilities
in usability testing and rarely conducted user testing for accessibility.
Accessibility evaluations are different from standard usability
evaluations in at least three ways. First, accessibility evaluations
measure the degree to which a specific impairment restricts the
operation of a device. In addition to measuring how effective a
device is, usability evaluations also tend to measure customer satisfaction
and efficiency. While satisfaction and efficiency data may be collected
during an accessibility evaluation, this type of data is not the
primary focus. A device that has usability issues may still remain
accessible, as long as the usability problems do not disproportionably
affect the ability of a user with an impairment to accomplish a
given task. Second, accessibility evaluations are, in general, performance-based
rather than subjective. The focus of an accessibility evaluation
is generally on measuring functional performance. Finally, the primary
motivation for performing an accessibility evaluation is compliance
with government regulations. While technical standards and guidelines
for usability certainly exist, there are few legal requirements
that must be met in order for a device to be considered usable.
Federal procurement officers, in an attempt to comply with section
508, routinely request information about the accessibility of a
product before a purchase. All the companies that participated in
the industry study reported some level of UD or accessibility testing.
However, the depth and breadth of the testing varied widely. Most
testing was performed in order to fill out a voluntary product accessibility
template. One company’s engineering process required that
a VPAT be constructed before launching the product. Although it
is unlikely that an unfavorable evaluation would delay product launch,
requiring the VPAT prior to launch does force the design team to
consider accessibility. VPATs are often requested by federal procurement
officers as part of their required market research. Two of the six
companies performed quality assurance or requirements-verification
testing as part of the normal design process.
Testing was generally restricted to an inspection for conformance
with the technical requirements of section 508. Notably, the functional
performance requirements of section 508 were often overlooked. The
functional performance requirements are perceived as being difficult
to test. The most effective method of testing these requirements
involves user-in-the-loop testing with representative members of
the disability community. Use of a task-based approach is critical
to accurately measure accessibility and directly compare the accessibility
of more than one similar product. None of the industry partners
routinely performed user testing for the purpose of measuring conformance
with the functional performance requirements of section 508.
The industry partners were split regarding a preference for internal
or independent third-party testing. Three companies preferred to
keep testing in-house, and three companies preferred to contract
an independent lab to perform testing.
As with any kind of testing, accessibility evaluations are more
effective if they are conducted in conjunction with an iterative
design process. Testing can have the greatest impact on accessibility
if people with disabilities are included in the evaluation process
and have the opportunity to do early testing to facilitate design
changes.
Demand/Legislation
Demand is affected by consumer needs and interest as well as legislation
requiring accessibility. Demand can influence the presence of UD
features in three ways. First, consumers may voice their interest
in products with accessibility features. If customer demand is great
enough, companies are likely to address accessibility issues. Second,
some companies primarily market to other companies. For example,
cell phone manufacturers market their products to cellular network
providers. The purchaser—the cellular network provider in
this example—is in a strong position to pass along requirements
for UD to the manufacturer. Finally, if enforceable legislation
requires the government to purchase accessible products or requires
a minimal level of accessibility, industry will not be able to ignore
the need to incorporate accessibility features into its products.
However, legislation has not been extremely effective in increasing
demand for accessible products. Many problems stem from conflicting
requirements. Local and global requirements may differ. The business
customer’s requirements may differ from other requirements
that support accessibility for the end-user. In addition, the regulations
do not change as quickly as technology does, limiting the development
of enhanced capabilities. Not all consumers have the latest version
or model, rendering some applications inaccessible for those using
older technologies. To complicate the issues further, the federal
requirements are too general to be extremely useful and lend themselves
to various interpretations. Some companies even misrepresent accessibility
of their products; they claim to be 100 percent accessible but fail
to deliver an accessible product or deliver only a partially accessible
product.
Marketing/Sales
One method of increasing demand involves adequate marketing of products
with accessibility features. Often, companies develop products that
have accessibility features, but they are not marketed as features
that support the needs of a particular disability population. Unless
the consumer does extensive research, it may not be evident that
the features exist. Consumers do not always know what to ask for
or how to ask, so unless the products are marketed appropriately
or the sales staff are trained to identify features that may benefit
a particular user, awareness of those features will remain low.
Sales staff should be trained to discuss accessibility features
with consumers, to spot consumers who may benefit from particular
features, and to relay customer requests back to designers or another
appropriate department in the company that will get those requests
factored into design considerations.
Some companies do not have any forecasts for accessibility marketing.
There is considerable recognition that the aging population is increasing
and will need to be accommodated, though this is not addressed in
the current marketing strategy. There is also increased recognition
for accommodation of temporary disabilities resulting from a physical
or mental impairment or from an environmental or situational limitation.
Customers/People with Disabilities
The final influences on accessibility are the customer—whether
a business customer (for example, the carrier, in the case of cell
phones) or the end-user. When a business customer is the major driver
of product requirements, UD solutions are not likely to be integrated
into a product if they are not requested.
End-users, including people with disabilities, can influence the
design process by supporting companies in their efforts to generate
products that include accessibility features. Customers can also
influence the design process by making their problems and successes
known to the companies so the designers can build on that knowledge
and improve the process for future product development. However,
there were few examples of customer feedback resulting in a change
to the design of a product.
Many companies shy away from direct interaction with people with
disabilities or disability advocacy groups. Companies often perceive
that inclusion of people with disabilities is complicated, perhaps
even aversive in nature. As an alternative, they sometimes have
phone contact with accessibility organizations that assist them
in understanding the needs of users with various functional limitations.
The quantity and quality of the guidance received from the advocacy
group is perceived to be largely dependent on who happens to answer
the phone on a given day.
Companies are often hesitant about interaction with disability advocacy
groups unless the technology they are developing is perceived to
be accessible. Companies often seek an advocacy group’s “stamp
of approval” but rarely interact directly with the group to
improve the accessibility of an inaccessible product. Some companies
interact specifically with employees with disabilities but do not
involve outside individuals. Other interaction is through conferences,
workshops, and trade shows. Some companies perform user testing
internally or through outside consultants, and this occasionally
involves people with disabilities.
Analysis of the Industry Study Findings
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. Regardless, section
508 has clearly had an impact on the way accessibility and UD are
being addressed in industry. The most common approaches to addressing
accessibility issues were—
• Increasing the awareness of employees
• Integrating accessibility requirements into the design process
• Performing accessibility verification testing
• Establishing an accessibility program office
All six companies in the industry study provided training, formally
or informally, to a subset of their employees. Three of the companies
have integrated accessibility guidance, particularly the technical
requirements of section 508, into their design process. Four of
the six companies performed accessibility verification testing for
the purpose of generating a VPAT for federal procurement officials.
Finally, three of the industry study partners established accessibility
program offices to coordinate accessibility activities in the company.
The industry study has identified a number of situations in which
UD principles have been successfully integrated into corporate culture;
however, there are still numerous opportunities for improvement.
First, government legislation has had an impact on the accessibility
of E&IT but has fallen far short of its potential to inspire
universally designed products. Second, the industry study identified
a number of barriers to accessibility experienced by the study participants.
Some issues were associated with specific industries; however, the
vast majority of barriers are common to all industries represented
by the six product lines selected for study. The potential to develop
interventions that are likely to have a profound effect on a large
number of companies producing E&IT products and services is
significant.
A research project studying the barriers to UD was conducted from
1996 to 1998 by Dr. Pieter Ballon, Dr. Gerd Paul, Dr. Leslie Haddon,
and Dr. Monique van Dusseldorp under the European Union’s
Telematics Applications for the Integration of Disabled People and
the Elderly (TIDE) program. The team interviewed 68 managers from
telecommunications, computer hardware, software, electronic commerce,
public information services, Internet, broadcast, and interactive
services firms. The interviewees were middle- and high-ranking managers
from marketing, product management, design, and usability departments,
primarily in the Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Ballon’s
team found that there was a low awareness of UD among these upper-
and mid-level managers. Few of them believed that UD would improve
industry’s development practices.
The researchers did find a number of positive factors. Many of the
managers understood and appreciated the concept of UD, because it
fit with their existing criteria for good design. At the same time,
UD is compatible with trends in the IT industry to offer solutions
that adapt to users’ preferences, experience levels, and task
requirements. Finally, the researchers found interest in the possibility
of expanding markets to include older people and people with disabilities.
The researchers felt that the quality of marketing information concerning
the needs of real and potential users was comparatively low in the
E&IT industry compared with other, more mature consumer goods
industries. In most E&IT industry sectors, information and guidelines
on inclusive design are lacking. They found that larger companies
have more means and procedures with which to consider the user and
his or her needs in the design process than small enterprises, especially
start-up firms in software and Web design.
The research identified nine types of barriers to the implementation
of UD principles. At the most general level are barriers relating
to a failure to sufficiently consider or involve any end-users in
the design process. More important, companies fail to consider or
involve older people and end-users with disabilities in the design
process. Some general developments in the E&IT industry also
have a negative impact on implementation: the speed of product development,
market trends, and industry organization.
For this industry study, a list of potential barriers to UD was
reviewed with each of the industry partners. The industry partners
were asked to comment on their experiences and to report methods,
if any, that were used to overcome the barriers. The purpose of
the study was to build upon the findings of the TIDE program by
reviewing an extensive list of accessibility barriers with E&IT
companies competing in the U.S. market. The following barriers were
common to most of the companies participating in the industry study:
• Section 508 is either not being adhered to or is being adhered
to inconsistently.
• Some people feel that the business case for UD and accessibility
is weak.
• A standard accessible design process has not been documented,
tested, or verified.
• There is a lack of realistic standards, guidelines, and
principles for accessible design.
• There is no standardized method of measuring accessibility
or comparing the accessibility of two similar products.
• Many feel that there is no clear definition of how accessible
a product has to be to be considered an accessible design.
• Often there is a lack of communication across departments
regarding accessibility requirements.
• Many companies lack accessibility champions who are in a
position to influence company decisions.
• Middle management often perceives accessible design to be
in direct conflict with schedule and budget requirements.
• Individuals with disabilities are not integrated into the
design or evaluation processes.
Common barriers identified during the industry study are discussed
in detail in the following paragraphs:
Section 508 is either not being
adhered to or is being adhered to inconsistently. Inconsistent
application of section 508 by federal procurement officials was
the most commonly heard complaint among the industry partners. As
might be expected, the industry partners that did not market to
the Federal Government were less concerned about section 508 issues.
Two of the industry partners did not market to the Federal Government,
and four of the partners produced products that were directly marketed
to the Federal Government. The industry partner representing a distance
learning software company markets its products mainly to universities.
The company perceived that it must conform with the technical requirements
of section 508 because its customers were demanding conformance;
however, the company was technically not obligated to develop products
in conformance with section 508. The company made a decision to
design to section 508 because its customers incorrectly assumed
that section 508 applied to them because they received federal funding
as public universities. The company representing cell phone manufacturing
had little experience with section 508, mainly because it marketed
its products almost exclusively to the cellular network carriers
and did not feel much pressure to conform to section 508 requirements.
The four remaining companies that did market to the Federal Government
expressed discontent with the way federal procurement officials
have procured products and services under section 508. In general,
companies responded to section 508 in one of two ways. Some adopted
a “wait and see” attitude while minimally responding
to the requirements of section 508. Such companies might produce
VPATs, but they were unlikely to invest resources in developing
products to conform to section 508 until the cost could be justified.
Companies in this category have yet to experience either lost or
increased sales to Federal Government customers because of section
508. There is a perception by some in industry that section 508
conformance is being “rubber stamped” by procurement
officials and that the content of the VPAT is not important as long
as a VPAT is offered.
Other companies have been very proactive in their response to section
508. Two of the companies in the industry study have incorporated
section 508 requirements into their design process. However, at
least one company is currently reconsidering its accessibility program
investment in response to section 508 because it has not realized
increased federal sales from its increase in overall accessibility.
Furthermore, the company did not observe a reduction in federal
sales for competitors that were perceived as producing less accessible
products. In short, accessibility seems to have failed to become
a key discriminator, as promised under section 508.
Some people feel that the business
case for UD and accessibility is weak. All six companies
reported that they struggled with the business case for universally
designed products and services. Most companies could not report
specific instances in which accessibility was a key discriminator
in a federal procurement. In the absence of data suggesting that
federal sales could be increased with UD or data suggesting that
federal sales were at risk because of nonconforming products, companies
were reluctant to use federal sales figures in developing a business
case for UD.
A standard accessible design process
has not been documented, tested, or verified. Several companies
have attempted to integrate UD into their standard product development
process. Process interventions typically include prompts to consider
accessibility during design, the addition of accessibility requirements
to requirements-definition documents, and limited testing with users
with disabilities. However, no one has been able to determine if
the interventions are sufficient or if additional interventions
are required to produce accessible products and services. The impact
of the integration of candidate accessibility interventions into
the design process has not been studied extensively.
There is a lack of realistic standards,
guidelines, and principles of accessible design. Accessibility
design guidelines that are currently available are not sufficiently
detailed to have a profound effect on the overall accessibility
of all E&IT products. Some guidance does exist, such as the
technical requirements associated with sections 508 and 255; however,
the guidance is sometimes ambiguous or subject to alternative interpretations.
There is no standardized method
of measuring accessibility or comparing the accessibility of two
similar products. The industry partners struggled with the
issue of measuring accessibility of products or comparing the accessibility
of two similar products. An industry agreed-upon accessibility metric
does not exist. In addition, industry has not identified a standard
method of measuring accessibility. Currently, accessibility is measured
only in terms of section 508 conformance. The VPAT is currently
the agreed-upon vehicle for reporting accessibility. It does not,
however, necessarily reflect the actual accessibility of the product
it was created for, nor does the VPAT allow procurement officials
to directly compare the accessibility of two similar products.
Many feel that there is no clear
definition of how accessible a product has to be to be considered
an accessible design. Many people see UD as a goal. The goal
is to create a product that is usable by as many people in as many
situations as possible. Given that complete accessibility is either
impossible or cost-prohibitive, companies are struggling to determine
just how accessible their products need to be to be considered accessible.
The problem is compounded by the fact that companies do not have
useful methodologies for measuring accessibility.
Often there is a lack of communication
across departments regarding accessibility requirements.
Communication between the accessibility program offices and other
departments was limited by the resources of the program office.
While some proactive outreach activities were observed, the accessibility
program offices were generally reactionary in nature. Most of the
decisions that affect accessibility take place within product design
teams working on specific projects and outside the influence of
the program office. Also, sales departments in two of the industry
partners were not well connected with the personnel making decisions
about new product development. In two companies, the demand for
accessible products was great, but that demand was not communicated
to the group defining the requirements for the next-generation products.
Many companies lack accessibility
champions who are in a position to influence company decisions.
Accessibility champions working within the companies participating
in this study had diverse backgrounds and job responsibilities.
The accessibility champion, to be truly effective, must be able
to influence corporate decisions for the purpose of setting priorities
and securing resources to further UD efforts.
Middle management often perceives
accessible design to be in direct conflict with schedule and budget
requirements. Project managers are responsible for making
sure that a development project comes in on time and on budget.
Because accessibility generally does not have a specific budget,
the project manager perceives the research required to identify
accessibility requirements and integrate them into the design as
a threat to his or her objectives. If accessibility features can
be developed without adversely affecting budget or schedule, they
have a chance of being integrated into the product; however, accessibility
activities are often the first to be cut if budget or schedule is
threatened.
Individuals with disabilities are
not integrated into the design or evaluation processes. Many
of the industry partners did not include people with disabilities
in either the design phase or the testing and evaluation phase of
product development. Tight schedules or limited resources were the
most common reasons cited for lack of integration of people with
disabilities into the design process. Other problems exist because
of the accessibility barriers themselves. For example, it would
be difficult to find a user who is blind who has extensive experience
with computer-based training software if computer-based training
software is generally inaccessible to users who are blind. Also,
very few users with disabilities are experienced in participating
in design focus groups or accessibility evaluations. Industry partners
that perform user testing with people with disabilities typically
perform only very limited or sporadic testing.
ATM Industry UD Barriers.
The most important barriers to UD expressed by the industry partner
representing the ATM industry were—
• A standard accessible design process has not been documented,
tested, or verified.
• Sometimes accessibility features are poorly communicated
to the consumers who require the features.
• The cost of developing and fielding new technologies associated
with accessibility is often seen as prohibitive.
• Personnel responsible for making accessibility decisions
often have little knowledge about accessibility or accessible design.
• Accessibility is often interpreted narrowly to include only
physical access to the technology.
Barriers specific to the ATM industry identified during the industry
study are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
A standard accessible design process
has not been documented, tested, or verified. Factors beyond
the immediate control of manufacturers of ATMs often affect the
accessibility of ATMs. For example, while the manufacturer supplies
guidelines for placement of the ATM, the purchaser of the ATM
may choose to install the ATM in an inaccessible location. Furthermore,
the purchaser often insists on loading custom software onto the
ATM that may or may not take advantage of the built-in accessibility
features of the device.
Sometimes accessibility features
are poorly communicated to the consumers who require the features.
Some users may not be fully aware of the accessibility features
available on ATMs. UD features may not be used if users are unable
to identify ATMs that possess the features or understand how to
use them. While manufacturers often create end-user instruction
materials and product brochures, the applicability of the materials
is limited by the extent of software customization performed by
the purchaser.
The cost of developing and fielding
new technologies associated with accessibility is often seen as
prohibitive. ATMs represent a substantial investment for
the purchaser. Replacement of ATMs is often cost-prohibitive or
extremely difficult. Furthermore, the life expectancy of ATMs
is such that they rarely need a full replacement. Product components
are simply replaced as needed or as substantially upgraded functionality
is made available. Accessibility enhancements are unlikely to
justify replacement of an existing ATM or even provide justification
for replacing key ATM components. However, if the accessibility
enhancements are bundled with security or performance enhancements,
purchasers may find the upgrade more attractive.
Personnel responsible for making
accessibility decisions often have little knowledge about accessibility
or accessible design. Banks may place the ATM in an inaccessible
location, may design inaccessible screens, or may design the pathway
to the ATM in such a way as to make it inaccessible.
Accessibility is often interpreted
narrowly to include only physical access to the technology.
During a normal design process, the total user experience is often
considered; however, it may be overlooked when the design is focused
on accessibility. For example, when addressing access issues for
individuals in a seated position, the inability of the user to
privately enter the user PIN is overlooked. A seated person cannot
conceal the keypresses in the same manner as someone standing.
Accessibility evaluations should address the total user experience
and not just the physical access issues.
Cell Phone Industry UD Barriers.
The most important barriers to UD expressed by the industry partner
representing the cell phone industry were—
• Marketing and technology trends sometimes run counter to
accessibility requirements.
• Sometimes accessibility features are poorly communicated
to the consumers who require the features.
• Companies often do not know how to market to people with
disabilities.
• The cost associated with purchasing accessible products
is not affordable by people with disabilities.
Barriers specific to the cell phone industry identified during the
industry study are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
Marketing and technology trends
sometimes run counter to accessibility requirements. Several
marketing trends run counter to UD in cell phones. Miniaturization
is currently driving the development of most cell phones. As the
form factor of cell phones is reduced, the space available for
both the display and the keypad is reduced. Users who have difficulty
reading information on small displays or users who have difficulty
selecting small keys have difficulty using small cell phones.
In addition, there is a current trend to expand the capabilities
of phones to include PDA functionality. The “smart phones”
are controlled by complex menu structures that may be difficult
for some users to navigate.
Sometimes accessibility features
are poorly communicated to the consumers who require the features.
Cell phone manufacturers build phones to the requirements specified
by the carriers and often have little interaction with end-users.
In general, the cellular network providers are the exclusive customers
of the cell phone manufacturers. The cell phone manufacturers
have little control over how their products are marketed to end-users.
Therefore, accessibility features built into cell phones are often
not communicated to the end-user.
Companies often do not know how
to market to people with disabilities. In the cell phone
industry, this issue applies to the cellular network providers
rather than the manufacturers. The sales staff members of the
cellular network providers are often not familiar with the accessibility
features of the phones operating on their networks and are incapable
of advising people with disabilities about their purchase decision.
The cost associated with purchasing
accessible products is not affordable by people with disabilities.
Accessibility features tend to be added to the high-end products,
which are typically not subsidized by the carrier. Higher processing
speeds and greater memory are often required to operate accessibility
features such as voiced menu options. Phones containing adequate
processing and storage resources tend to be relatively expensive.
Customized third-party software designed to increase the accessibility
of programmable phones is also expensive and therefore out of
reach of most users with disabilities.
Distance Learning Software Industry
UD Barriers. The most important barriers to UD expressed
by the industry partner representing the distance learning software
industry were—
• Designers lack an understanding of accessible design and
what can be achieved if products are designed with accessibility
in mind from the beginning.
• There is a lack of tools and resources useful for efficiently
creating accessible products.
• The amount of time required to produce accessible products
is prohibitive.
Barriers specific to the distance learning software industry identified
during the industry study are discussed in detail in the following
paragraphs.
Designers lack an understanding
of accessible design and what can be achieved if products are
designed with accessibility in mind from the beginning.
Although developers of the core distance learning software seem
to understand and design for accessibility, the developers of
course content may not have the same appreciation for UD. Professors,
teachers, instructors, and teaching assistants are responsible
for the development of the vast majority of distance learning
course content. The content may consist of videotaped lectures,
audiotapes, transcripts of lectures, PowerPoint presentations,
PDF documents, multimedia presentations, streamed video, and electronic
texts. Each content type is associated with very specific accessibility
issues. For example, streamed video should be closed-captioned
and, in some cases, audio described in order to be considered
accessible. Unfortunately, few content providers are able to commit
the necessary resources required to develop fully accessible content.
There is a lack of tools and resources
useful for efficiently creating accessible products. The
tools available to content providers offer little assistance in
creating accessible content. Often content must be recoded manually
in order to be accessible. For example, the effort required to
design and develop an accessible slide presentation is often many
times greater than the effort required to create the presentation
without the accessibility features. Presentation software such
as Microsoft’s PowerPoint does not natively generate accessible
content. Therefore, the content provider must work outside the
presentation software to develop an accessible HTML representation
of the original presentation.
The amount of time required to
produce accessible products is prohibitive. It can take
an experienced professional as much as 14 hours to caption 1 hour
of video. Content providers simply do not have the time, resources,
or tools to create fully accessible distance learning content.
PDA Industry UD Barriers. The
most important barriers to UD expressed by the industry partner
representing the PDA industry were—
• Marketing and technology trends sometimes run counter to
accessibility requirements.
• Companies often do not know how to market to people with
disabilities.
• The cost associated with purchasing accessible products
is not affordable by people with disabilities.
• Designers lack an understanding of accessible design and
what can be achieved if products are designed with accessibility
in mind from the beginning.
Barriers specific to the PDA industry identified during the industry
study are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
Marketing and technology trends
sometimes run counter to accessibility requirements. The
primary interface for most PDA devices, such as Palm OS or Pocket
PC–based products, is a touch-sensitive stylus interface.
The touch-sensitive interface, like the touchscreen interface,
is not accessible to people who are blind. Low-vision users may
find it difficult to use assistive technologies, such as a magnifying
lens, while holding the device and using the stylus. Users with
fine motor control limitations will find it extremely difficult
to select items from the on-screen menus because of the precise
motor control movements required to use a touch-sensitive stylus
interface. Although the potential for use of a PDA by people with
disabilities is great, the technology is currently inaccessible
to many users.
Many of the elements needed for
the development of an accessible PDA are already embedded in existing
products. Technologies for voice recognition interfaces—such
as microphones, speakers, storage, and a sufficiently fast processor
to process the voice recognition algorithms—are generally
built into many PDAs. However, the software required to fully
implement the technology in an accessible manner has not yet been
developed. As an alternative to using the stylus interface, some
programs support navigation using the hardware keys found on many
PDAs. Keypress navigation is available for some applications,
but adoption of the alternative navigation scheme is not widespread
among software developers.
Companies often do not know how
to market to people with disabilities. Perhaps because
of the inaccessibility inherent to the touch-sensitive stylus
interface, the accessibility of mainstream PDAs seems to have
been overlooked. Therefore, PDAs are generally not marketed to
people with disabilities, nor is the potential for PDAs to improve
the lives of people with disabilities recognized.
The cost associated with purchasing
accessible products is not affordable by people with disabilities.
While the cost of PDAs has been reduced, they still represent
a substantial investment for consumers. People with disabilities
are reluctant, and rightly so, to invest in technologies with
unproven track records on accessibility. Accessible devices with
PDA functionality, such as Freedom Scientific’s PACMate,
can cost up to 10 times the price of a standard PDA. Therefore,
few people with disabilities are able to afford the devices without
assistance.
Designers lack an understanding
of accessible design and what can be achieved if products are
designed with accessibility in mind from the beginning.
Because of the touch-sensitive stylus interface, many see the
PDA as inherently inaccessible, just as a digital camera is inherently
inaccessible to a person who is blind. PDAs, particularly as storage
capacities and processing power increase, are gradually becoming
true handheld personal computers. It is reasonable to assume that
a capable PDA could employ some of the same mechanisms for accessibility
as personal computers. For example, voice displays used in conjunction
with keypad navigation could be used in a similar manner to the
way screen readers are used with personal computers. Voice recognition
technologies could provide access to users who are unable to interact
with the screen or keys. Screen magnifiers could be employed to
assist users with low vision. Cooperation among hardware manufacturers,
operating system developers, software application developers,
and AT software developers will be needed to produce a fully accessible
PDA. Currently, hardware manufacturers are reluctant to change
their products unless the necessary accessibility features are
built into the operating system and there is demand from software
application developers.
Television Manufacturing Industry
UD Barriers. The most important barriers to UD expressed
by the industry partner representing the television manufacturing
industry were—
• Personnel responsible for making accessibility decisions
often have little knowledge about accessibility or accessible design.
• There is a lack of realistic standards, guidelines, and
principles of accessible design.
Barriers specific to the television industry identified during the
industry study are discussed in detail in the following paragraphs.
Personnel responsible for making
accessibility decisions often have little knowledge about accessibility
or accessible design. Accessibility of television sets
depends on the cooperation of television manufacturers, content
distributors, and content developers. Television manufacturers
are responsible for developing hardware designs to take advantage
of accessibility features, such as closed-captioning and descriptive
audio, added by content developers. Content distributors must
be aware of the accessibility features and deliver the content
so it does not interfere with these features. Design decisions
made by television manufacturers, content distributors, and content
developers often are made for technological, financial, or creative
reasons without consideration for accessibility.
There is a lack of realistic standards,
guidelines, and principles of accessible design. While
standards and guidelines exist for some aspects of television
accessibility, such as closed-captioning, very little guidance
is available for the accessibility of most television components.
For example, little if any guidance is available for the accessibility
of remote controls or on-screen menus.
Voice Recognition Software UD Barriers.
The most important barriers to UD expressed by the industry partner
representing the voice recognition software industry were—
• The technology required to produce accessible products is
not available at a reasonable cost.
• The cost of developing and fielding new technologies associated
with accessibility is often seen as prohibitive.
Barriers specific to the voice recognition software industry identified
during the industry study are discussed in detail in the following
paragraphs.
The technology required to produce accessible
products is not available at a reasonable cost. Great advances
in technology have improved both response time and accuracy of voice
recognition software. However, frequent errors and recognition delays
greatly affect the overall usability of voice recognition software.
There are two basic types of voice recognition software. Natural
language recognition software, such as Dragon Naturally Speaking
or IBM ViaVoice, attempts to process and recognize a vast vocabulary
of words. Such software can be used to navigate computer programs
as well as produce text. In general, the user is required to tune
the voice recognition software to the nuances of his or her voice
in order to obtain acceptable levels of voice recognition accuracy.
In contrast, limited vocabulary voice recognition software, such
as an automated phone attendant, improves accuracy by constraining
the number of words that the system can recognize. Limited vocabulary
systems are speaker-independent and do not require tuning to the
user’s voice.
Natural language voice recognition software is still perceived as
being too inaccurate and slow for use as an alternative to keyboard
and mouse input. Users with disabilities who have used the technology
in the past are reluctant to purchase additional software because
of past disappointments. However, user perception of limited vocabulary
voice recognition software is changing. Specialized voice recognition
software can be embedded in common products such as digital copiers
and public kiosks to provide access to a device that would otherwise
be inaccessible.
The cost of developing and fielding
new technologies associated with accessibility is often seen as
prohibitive. Although the pathway to embedding voice recognition
technology in common E&IT products is understood, implementation
of the integration can be challenging. The embedded voice recognition
system typically consists of a voice recognition algorithm, audio
input and output circuitry, a processor to execute the voice recognition
algorithms, and a software vocabulary. The audio circuitry and processor
represent a nontrivial production cost. The cost to develop the
voice recognition algorithms (or to license existing ones) and capture
needed samples of the vocabulary can also be high.
Section J: Discussion
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. On the basis of the
data collected during the market analysis, product assessment, industry
study, and user study, certain conclusions can be drawn about the
state of UD and the likely trends that will facilitate or inhibit
the development of UD products and services.
First, a sizeable market for UD products and services exists. However,
few companies appreciate the size of the market or know how to tap
its potential.
Second, UD objectives can be achieved by making relatively minor
modifications to the product design process currently used by manufacturers.
The fact that companies can achieve UD objectives without changing
their core design process is significant, because UD principles
can be incorporated with minimal disruption. Furthermore, design
process interventions, such as the adoption of accessibility requirements
or the performance of user testing with people with disabilities,
can be incorporated gradually as part of an organized, deliberate
rollout of a UD program.
Third, our review of the state of UD indicates that products that
are designed to be accessible sometimes do not meet the actual needs
of the target population. Developers may not fully understand the
needs of users with disabilities, because people with disabilities
are not usually integrated into the design process, and information
about the functional capabilities and limitations of people with
disabilities is not available in a conveniently accessible format.
Also, technical solutions to accessibility issues may be formulated
in the absence of the total design or with little understanding
of how the feature will be used.
Finally, the discussion section ends with an analysis of the barriers
to the implementation of UD faced by industry and a discussion of
possible facilitators for the adoption of UD principles. The following
paragraphs discuss the major findings of the UD research project
in further detail.
A Sizable Market Exists for Universally Designed Products
and Services
The market analysis and focus group study results demonstrate that
a market does indeed exist for UD products and services. E&IT
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. No two people have the
same set of characteristics, learning styles, preferences, abilities,
experiences, and educational backgrounds. The classes of people
making up the market for UD products and services include—
• Users with disabilities
• Users with temporary disabilities
• Users with functional limitations due to situational factors
• Users with low literacy skills
• Users in low bandwidth areas
• Users desiring increased functionality and usability
• Users who do not speak English as their primary language
• Users in high-population-density areas
• Users who are elderly
Approximately 21.19 percent of the total U.S. population has a formally
classified permanent disability (i.e., low vision, blind, hard of
hearing, deaf, upper-mobility impaired, lower-mobility impaired,
or cognitively disabled). When considered at a more global level,
almost 500 million people in just the United States and the top
five emerging markets have permanent disabilities. Add to that number
those people with permanent disabilities in all other parts of the
world, as well as individuals who experience temporary or situational
disabilities or an impairment resulting from one of the classifications
listed above, and it is clear that accessible designs are critical
to everyday functions.
In addition to the sheer numbers of people who can benefit from
UD products and services, there are legal mandates to address the
needs of people with disabilities. Legislation provides further
justification for developing products and services that can be used
by larger segments of the population. Technological advances are
ever-increasing, which enhances our ability to provide products
that are usable by more people. These products can also be provided
more cheaply. Cost is a barrier that has been difficult to overcome
in the past.
As previously specified, users with disabilities include those who
have low vision; are blind, hard of hearing, or deaf; or have an
upper- or lower-mobility or cognitive disability. Temporary and
situational disabilities result in functional limitations that mimic
those of permanent disabilities. People in darkness or an eyes-busy
situation (e.g., driving a car) can benefit from the same tactile
cues that people who are blind use. Low vision is created when someone
has dilated pupils, is without his or her reading glasses, is in
a smoky or low-light environment, or is presented with a small display
using small fonts. Noisy environments create similar issues as for
people who are hard of hearing. Very loud environments (e.g., a
construction site) or forced-silence environments (e.g., a library
or meeting) create a need for alternative means of communication,
as for people who are deaf. Limited manual dexterity results if
someone has a broken arm, arthritis, or hand tremors; is in a bouncing
vehicle; or is wearing gloves. Finally, temporary limited cognition
can result when individuals are distracted or panicked, under the
influence of alcohol, or in an environment where their native language
is not spoken.
Users with low literacy skills or who are in an environment where
the native language is not their primary language (including tourists)
can benefit from some of the same products and product features
that help cognitively disabled individuals, including use of simple
language, good graphical metaphors, and redundant text and pictures.
Users in low-bandwidth areas can benefit from some of the same products
and product features that help people with low vision and users
who are blind, including text alternatives for graphics and low-density
displays.
The elderly population is ever-increasing, and many difficulties
faced by people with various types of disabilities will become issues
for the aging population as well. Products that can be developed
for use by a variety of individuals will benefit people as they
age. The elderly experience limitations to their sight, hearing,
manual dexterity, and cognition. Many of these individuals are accustomed
to having access to various technologies and have come to rely on
them; they will expect to be able to continue to use these technologies,
despite any age-associated limitations they may develop. They will
not want to purchase new products to accommodate their developing
limitations. This includes products that are easy to understand
and use, that have adequately spaced and sized buttons, and that
have sufficiently sized labels and display elements, to name a few
features.
The final group is users who desire increased functionality and
usability. For example, the cell phone used to be simply a voice
communications device. Now many cell phones have text messaging
as well. Text messaging is one feature that is particularly beneficial
to people who are deaf or hard of hearing, but a large percentage
of the population has adopted the technology for situations in which
voice communication is inappropriate. Many product features, if
designed with different user groups in mind, can benefit a large
part of the population, satisfying the needs of many rather than
just a few.
Universal Design Principles Can Be Easily Incorporated into
Current Design Practices
The industry study included a review of the design practices of
the industry partners. While different companies have different
names for the individual design processes, the processes generally
follow these steps:
• Product planning
• Requirements definition
• Product specification
• Development
• Verification and testing
• Manufacturing
• End-of-life management
The application of UD principles does not require a major modification
to the way companies currently develop products. Minor changes in
the way products are developed will lead to significant increases
in accessibility. The most important modification to the design
process occurs in the very first stage of design: product planning
or product conceptualization. During this stage, the objectives
of the design product are outlined and the high-level conceptualization
of the product is developed. Accessibility must be considered during
this stage. Companies that failed to consider accessibility in product
planning often failed to have a significant impact on the accessibility
of the final design.
The incorporation of UD principles at the product-planning stage
involves expanding the user requirements to include people with
disabilities and adapting to principles of UD in the conceptualization
of the specific product being designed. For example, if a new copier
is under development, product planners might consider early on that
users who are blind should be able to complete all the primary tasks
supported by the device. This consideration might lead product planners
to conceptualize a copier with a user interface that is supplemented
with a secondary, but integrated, user interface that is accessible
to those who are blind. Users with disabilities should be consulted
during the product-planning phase.
Slight modifications to the requirements-definition phase can also
lead to significant improvements in accessibility. In the requirements-definition
phase, it is important to define objectively testable requirements
for accessibility. It is not sufficient to require that the product
be accessible, because doing so provides little information to designers
and prevents accessibility verification testing. Vague accessibility
requirements are more likely to be ignored in both the development
and the verification and testing phases of design. Testable requirements
that are tailored to the product being developed should be incorporated
into the requirements definition of the product. Again, the addition
of accessibility requirements does not change the way the product
is designed. Rather, these requirements are simply added to the
existing requirements-definition methodology. The same methods used
for monitoring, tracking, and measuring standard product requirements
can and should be applied to accessibility requirements.
During the product-specification phase, the functionality and appearance
of the product is defined in accordance with the definition of product
requirements. Personnel with expertise in UD must be available to
assist in defining the specifications, reviewing the product specifications
that affect accessibility, and determining if the accessibility-related
product requirements are met by the product specifications. Given
that most companies use some sort of integrated team development
process during the product-specification and product-development
phases, the addition of a team member with UD expertise is not likely
to be disruptive. In fact, an existing team member can assume the
role of the UD expert on the development team by becoming familiar
with UD principles and understanding the functional limitations
and capabilities of people with disabilities.
The product-development phase typically involves iterative design
and testing of prototypes. The product-development test plan should
be broadened to include users with disabilities and testing with
common assistive technologies. Testing should be task-based. The
outcome of testing should be determined by human performance rather
than the subjective impressions of the users.
Products Designed To Be Accessible Sometimes Do
Not Meet the Needs of Users
Manufacturers, sometimes with good intentions, often develop products
that, while innovative, fail to meet the needs of the intended population.
Occasionally, products are developed with accessibility features
that only partially meet the needs of users. For example, some cellular
phones have been developed with auditory indicators for battery
and signal strength; however, the user is required to operate a
user interface that requires vision to properly activate and configure
the additional features. In this case, the designers of the system
were successful in developing a needed indicator for users who are
blind, but they fell short of the solution the implementation of
the feature set was developed to address. Occasionally, developers
working on accessibility issues are segmented from the general design
and must develop accessibility solutions independent of the main
design path. This practice can lead to a failure to integrate accessibility
into all aspects of the design process.
Occasionally, designers fail to fully appreciate the needs of users
with disabilities. For example, an ATM developer may incorrectly
assume that Braille labels on numeric keypads increase accessibility
for people who are blind. In reality, most users who are blind are
comfortable using a standard keypad. What users request most often
is a standard keypad with raised buttons and a nib on the “5”
key. The nib serves to quickly orient the user to the arrangement
of the keypad and is much more useful than Braille labels on the
keys. In fact, the Braille labels may interfere with the user’s
ability to quickly identify the “5” and therefore increase
transaction times for users who are blind.
Failure to address the needs of users with disabilities typically
results from a separation of the user from the design process or
the separation of the designer of accessibility features from the
mainstream design activities. Companies interested in developing
universally designed products and services should consider consulting
with people with disabilities or accessibility subject-matter experts
when contemplating an addition of a design feature that is intended
to increase the accessibility of the product. Furthermore, companies
should consider mainstreaming accessibility-feature development
as soon as practical so that the feature will be well integrated
into the product and all aspects of the feature, such as configuration
and activation, will be considered.
Legislation Is Currently Both a Facilitator and a Barrier
to Universal Design
The Federal Government has a critical role to play in the promotion
of UD. Accessibility-related legislation can affect businesses in
several ways, some positive and some negative. Straightforward ways
in which businesses can experience a direct positive impact from
legislation include the following:
• Legislation can remove barriers that inhibit provision of
accessible products and services. The primary method by which legislation
can remove these barriers is to set standards for interoperability
in a complex network of systems. The impact of such legislation
can be to remove barriers that prohibit content providers from marketing
accessible products because of infrastructure constraints. Such
legislation can also allow infrastructure developers to invest in
feasible technologies with the assurance that content providers
will produce compatible products.
• Legislation can create new markets for accessible products
and services. Legislation that creates new markets for accessible
products or services also creates new ancillary opportunities for
testing and marketing those products or services. These new markets
can be pursued by all types of businesses.
• Legislation can alter the market dynamics for a given class
of products, creating a new product attribute that can be used to
gain market share. Legislation that alters the market dynamics in
this way inherently creates a way for an incumbent business to lose
market share to a competitor—thereby creating an incentive
for the incumbent to improve the accessibility of products to guard
against the loss of market share.
Straightforward ways in which businesses can experience a negative
impact from legislation include the following:
• Legislation can add to the base cost of producing a product
or providing a service, without creating a commensurate offset in
(increased) price. This type of impact is particularly negative
when different suppliers experience different impacts in costs—for
example, when some competitors are exempted from full compliance
and thus do not experience the same cost increases as other competitors.
• Legislation can eliminate markets for certain existing or
planned products. Products can be eliminated because they are noncompliant
with requirements of the legislation and thus cannot be sold or
because they are not compatible with a prescribed architecture for
interoperability and thus cannot function properly in a network
of systems.
The effects described above are direct impacts on the markets for
products and services offered by businesses. Legislation can also
have indirect effects on businesses that are positive or negative.
These effects are called “indirect” because they are
manifested in long-term trends in product development rather than
in immediate effects on markets. Indirect effects on businesses
that are positive include the following:
• Legislation can encourage businesses to invest in solving
accessibility-related problems.
• Legislation can create an incentive for innovation in developing
accessible products and services.
• By creating larger markets for accessible products, legislation
can facilitate corporate strategies with respect to societal issues
and corporate stewardship. For some businesses, the opportunities
to contribute to the overall betterment of society (and to receive
appropriate recognition for doing so) through improved accessibility
of their products may fit well with their plans in such diverse
areas as energy efficiency, environmental impact, and community
investment.
Legislation can also have indirect impacts that are negative for
businesses. Examples include the following:
• Legislation can set a minimum standard for acceptability
that becomes the de facto maximum standard. Businesses may be unable
or unwilling to justify developing improvements in accessibility
because compliance is a simple binary judgment; improvements are
not seen as economically justifiable.
• Legislation can create a regulatory environment in which
the focus is on compliance with the regulations rather than on achieving
the outcome sought by the regulations. Businesses may produce products
that comply with the regulations but are not truly accessible. Businesses
may choose to advocate interpretations of regulations that circumvent
the intended outcome.
• Legislation can be used to advance or oppose political agendas
with little regard for the actual outcomes that are influenced by
the legislation. Businesses can be negatively affected by these
political agendas. For example, a business might decide to oppose
“government regulation” related to accessibility on
ideological grounds, even though it may be in the best interest
of that business (not to mention society at large) for the legislation
to pass.
Government, Industry, and Consumers Have Important Roles To
Play in Promoting Universal Design
Government, industry, and consumers can all have a hand in promoting
the development of UD products. Users who participated in the study
focus groups were asked to comment on what the Federal Government,
manufacturers of products, and consumers could do to promote universal
design.
Government Involvement. Focus
group participants indicated the following:
• Government can fund research, similar to this project, in
which consumers with disabilities are involved early in the process.
• Government can provide funding or tax breaks to encourage
companies to develop some accessible products so that companies
can see the value they can provide.
• Government can get consumer input and make the general public
more aware of accessibility and disability issues, and can provide
funding to make accessible products more affordable. Getting consumer
input should include putting the question out to the disability
community on how to improve the technologies, rather than making
decisions for the disabled about their needs and desires.
• Government needs to continue to develop and enforce legislation
and standards, without which industry is unlikely to act on the
needs of special populations.
• Focus groups should be used in standards development and
should include participation from a variety of consumers as well
as individuals with technical knowledge; standards should be developed
in conjunction with solutions to make them more realizable.
• Government should put a mechanism in place to force its
entities to consider their technology purchases and the impact on
different disability populations (e.g., the U.S. Postal Service
purchase of touchscreen displays).
• Government is in a position to influence by example. If
it is addressing UD-related issues and can demonstrate positive
outcomes to industry and consumers, awareness will increase and
others are likely to follow suit.
Industry Involvement. Industry
can do similar things, as indicated by focus group participants:
• Industry can get consumers with disabilities involved early
in the design process and conduct more focus groups.
• Industry should always consult the people they’re
designing for, whether through direct involvement or market research.
• Industry should hire people with disabilities, at least
as consultants, to provide input throughout the design and development
process. This would also assist in increasing awareness of the needs
of people with disabilities.
• Industry spends millions in advertising dollars. It should
put a portion of those funds toward designing for people with disabilities
and funding research to assist those with disabilities.
• Industry need to make products more affordable and do extensive
marketing so that people are aware that these products are available.
• Industry needs to consider the wider market that can benefit
from products with accessibility features, as well as understand
that there are people with disabilities that would like to use their
products.
• Industry needs to recognize the advantage that can be had
by building in UD from the beginning.
• Industry should provide a mechanism (e.g., an accessibility
program office) for consumers to voice their concerns, and it should
act more on the concerns that it hears about.
Consumer Involvement. Focus
group participants indicated the following:
• Consumers can influence the development of UD products by
participating in research studies, surveys, and product evaluations.
• Consumers can spend time talking to and educating product
sales people about features that can benefit someone with a certain
disability and about the lack of usefulness of some features for
people with particular disabilities. This education can extend to
other members of the community as well, to make people aware of
the issues that affect people with various disabilities.
• They can speak up and contact companies directly to advocate
for their disability community and provide suggestions for design
improvements. Consumers need to be very specific when contacting
manufacturers to complain about products that are not accessible.
They should provide both positive and negative feedback. If companies
know what they are doing right, their awareness will increase, and
they will be likely to continue to implement designs they know are
useful.
• In addition to contacting manufacturers, people with disabilities
should contact government to voice their concerns and increase awareness
of how many people with disabilities there are in the population.
• Consumers can donate their old accessibility aids to others
who may benefit from them because they cannot afford the technologies
themselves.
• Consumers should contact state agencies, which can communicate
to the larger disability populations to inform them of accessible
opportunities and products they may not know about. State agencies
can serve as an information outlet to the disability community and
as a means to help government and industry gather data they need
to take steps to improve accessibility in all matters of life.
• Consumers can purchase the products they find most accessible.
They should not purchase products from companies that fail to demonstrate
an effort to address UD, and they should encourage others to do
the same.
Industry and Consumers Would Benefit from Better Industry
Coordination with AT Vendors
Assistive technology manufacturers possess the technical knowledge,
experience, and talents that can help E&IT manufacturers succeed
in selling E&IT into emerging markets. It is difficult for AT
manufacturers to support the needs of E&IT manufacturers for
many reasons. Most of the difficulty may be attributed to the differences
in size and available resources between AT and E&IT manufacturers.
Randy Marsden, director of ATIA and president and CEO of Madentec
(USA) Inc., uses the following analogy to paint a picture of what
compatibility of AT and E&IT is all about:
Owners of public buildings are obliged to make them accessible to
everyone, including people with physical disabilities. They do this
by focusing on providing wheelchair ramps, automatic door openers,
etc., which are of limited value in and of themselves, unless there
is also a wheelchair in the picture. But few building owners provide
wheelchairs as part of the “accessibility package” of
their building. Wheelchairs are usually a very personal item (size,
weight, style, etc.). Instead, building owners make sure their ramps
and doors are compatible with the wheelchairs on the market that
are provided by specialized vendors.
Continuing with the analogy, the building owner can do smaller things
to help make their building more accessible themselves. For example,
they could put larger door knobs and door pulls on their doors that
make them more accessible to everyone. You wouldn’t expect
someone to bring their own door knob. But when it comes to major
items, building owners focus on simply being compatible with the
more specialized equipment that is provided by people who better
understand the disability marketplace.
E&IT vendors are like the building owners. They have the ability
to make their products compatible with AT products used by people
with disabilities to the extent that is technically possible and
economically feasible. While AT is not the primary approach to universal
design, AT manufacturers do have a role to play in ensuring that
E&IT is accessible.
At the lowest level, universal design of E&IT should mean that
products and services should be developed so that they do not actively
interfere with the operation of assistive technologies if the user
chooses to use AT. For example, some software applications, when
installed on a user’s personal computer, may disable screen
readers. While the software may not rely on AT for accessibility,
it should at least ensure that use of the software does not interfere
with AT that may be installed on the user’s system. This implies
that E&IT vendors should, at a minimum, have some understanding
of AT and how it is used.
AT may also be used to enhance the user experience. While independent
accessibility is an important UD goal, in some instances AT interoperability
may be built into products for the mutual benefit of the developer
of the technology and the user. For example, a software developer
should not be required to reinvent screen reader technologies for
every application. The developer should instead concentrate on ensuring
that the software is interoperable with existing AT. Consumers benefit
from the arrangement because they may rely on the user interface
of a screen reader that is familiar and customized to meet their
needs. Industry benefits because developers can focus on the development
of the application user interface rather than the reinvention of
solutions that have already been fielded.
Opportunities for enhancing the interoperability between AT and
E&IT products include identifying reasonable, achievable, functional
performance criteria and developing AT/E&IT interoperability
specifications and interoperability testing procedures. Both AT
and E&IT vendors would benefit from a clear understanding of
requirements. Also, there is a need for AT manufacturers to be active
participants in the creation of interoperability specifications.
Notice that the word “specifications” is used in a plural
form, because there is not a single solution to interoperability.
Instead, there is a need for ongoing cooperation between E&IT
and AT manufacturers to continually define interoperability specifications
on a product-by-product basis, acknowledging the fact that some
products can be grouped into similar categories and a common interoperability
solution can be applied.
E&IT manufacturers can actively support the AT industry by—
• Actively participating in creating interoperability specifications
• Adhering to interoperability specifications
• Assigning “point people” within each E&IT
manufacturer to support AT manufacturers’ efforts to achieve
the highest levels of compatibility and interoperability and to
answer highly technical questions about specific E&IT products
• Providing, at no cost, E&IT loaner products and possibly
human resources for testing AT/E&IT interoperability
The Federal Government can support the AT industry by weaving the
tracking of AT products into the fabric of the Department of Commerce’s
mainstream E&IT product research and continuing efforts in support
of facilitating dialog between AT and E&IT vendors.
Section K: Conclusions
Given the ultimate goal of promoting universal design
in consumer products, policymakers are confronted with choices of
strategies that will help further progress toward that goal. Two
broad categories of strategies emerge: market-based strategies and
rule-based strategies. Market-based strategies attempt to use market
forces, which translate into supply and demand forces, to promote
UD. A simple example of a market-based strategy is use of advertising
to encourage consumers to purchase accessible products. If the advertisements
are effective, demand for accessible products will increase, and
the supply will increase to match the demand. Rule-based strategies
attempt to use standards or regulations to encourage suppliers to
develop and offer accessible products; latent demand for such products
is expected to subsequently become manifest. Rule-based strategies
can be based in industry-adopted standards, in government regulations
and policies, or both. A simple example of a rule-based strategy
is a regulation that all telephones sold in Australia must have
a nib on the “5” key.
A hybrid strategy combines rule-based features and
market-based features. A leading example is section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act, which seeks to create a bigger market for accessible products
by regulating the purchases made by the Federal Government. For
products purchased in significant quantities by the Federal Government,
companies have an incentive to increase the accessibility of the
products and thereby increase their sales. The rules regarding product
features and capabilities only apply to federal purchases.
Rule-based strategies “push” UD forward;
market-based strategies “pull” it forward. Some aspects
of UD are better served by a push strategy, and other aspects are
better served by a pull strategy. Delineating the mixture of push
versus pull and the overall philosophy of when to use which strategy
requires consideration of how purchase decisions are made and how
production decisions are made.
Analysis of Purchase Decisions for Accessible
Products
The decision to purchase an accessible product is
first and foremost a decision to make a purchase. Whether the item
is, in fact, accessible might not be known when the decision is
made. Factors that influence the decision to purchase an accessible
product are simply factors that influence a purchase decision—the
accessibility of the product cannot influence this behavior. The
three factors that primarily interact in a purchase decision are—
• The availability of resources to apply to
the purchase.
• The perceived inherent value of the item.
• The properties of alternative purchases; in
particular, the perceived values of these alternatives. Note that
the alternatives could be products in the same class as the putative
accessible product or could simply be something altogether different.
A full exposition of the complex topic of consumer
choice is well beyond the scope of this exercise. Central to this
exercise, however, is consideration of the primary contributors
to a purchase decision.
The accessibility of a given product can only affect
the purchase decision if it affects the inherent perceived value
of that item. There are two broad categories of factors that can
affect the perceived inherent value of an item:
• Actual experience with the item or highly
similar items
• Presence of discriminators that predict eventual
experience with that item
The purchaser’s “actual experience”
with an item is quite different when the item is for personal use
than when it will not be used personally. The actual experience
with an item for personal use primarily consists of the utility
of the item. When items are purchased for others to use, actual
experience may consist of direct knowledge of the outcomes experienced
by those users (as would be the case with a purchase made for a
family member or employee); but the purchaser may have no knowledge
of outcomes if the purchase is made on behalf of an agency or large
company.
To illustrate, consider safety as a factor in making
a purchase decision. Safety affects the decision only if a product’s
being “safe” or “safer” affects its inherent
perceived value. It is a relevant factor for virtually all products.
Even users of illegal drugs expect the drugs they buy to be “safe”
with respect to the intended use (e.g., not cut with a poison that
would cause immediate death). But the perception of whether an item
is safe does not affect the perceived inherent value of an item
if the purchasing agent does not, and will not, experience the outcome
of the purchase with respect to safety. For example, an individual
buying some product (e.g., an electrical extension cord) for personal
use would not purchase the product if he or she perceived that it
was unsafe—that using it might result in harm to self or damage
to property. But if the purchase is to stock the shelves of a national
discount retailer, the issue of safety is not a personal one. Safety
is a relevant consideration only to the extent that job performance
assessment or personal liability are affected by the eventual experiences
of consumers who make retail purchase decisions.
If bulk purchasers are in a situation in which the
accessibility of the products they select does affect their personal
outcome—in the form of job performance ratings or other means
of personal accountability—these purchasers will need access
to information that will help them predict the accessibility outcomes
that will be experienced by the eventual end-users of the products
they purchase. Thus, two requirements must be met: personal outcome
experienced by the bulk purchaser that is contingent on whether
the product is accessible, and availability of reliable information
on which to make the purchase decision.
The presence of discriminators that predict actual
experience also affects decisions in the same way. If the item is
for personal use, a discriminator that reliably signals the eventual
experience will have virtually the same effect as the experience
itself. Three types of discriminators are commonly found in the
marketplace: brands (self-identifying words or symbols that are
associated with a common source of products); unregulated claims
(assertions and suggestions made in advertising, packaging, and
other methods about outcomes that will be experienced); and regulated
labels (words and other data whose meanings are regulated so as
to provide a more trustworthy basis for predicting the eventual
experience with an item.)
Note that a purchaser’s direct experience with
the outcome of purchasing a product cannot affect the purchase of
that product, because the actual experience of outcome occurs after
the purchase is made. The experience of the outcome can only affect
future purchase decisions, not past decisions. Further, the effect
on future purchase decisions affects demand in the market only if
the purchases are made often enough to have an impact on production
decisions. To illustrate, if purchasers purchased a given product
only once in their lifetimes, their actual experience with the outcome
of that purchase would never affect the market, because they would
never have the opportunity to use their experience to shape their
next purchase. Similarly, if purchases of a given product are made
quite infrequently—every few years, for example—their
actual experience of the outcome with respect to accessibility would
have relatively little impact on demand forces in the market.
If products are purchased infrequently, then, the
actual accessibility of a product can affect the purchase decision
only to the extent that information (such as labels, brands, or
claims) is available to consumers that will allow them to predict
(consciously or unconsciously) their experience of outcome. Otherwise,
the lag times for effects of consumer demand in the market will
be far too long to have a significant impact on production decisions.
On the other hand, if purchases are made frequently,
the consumer’s actual experience of outcome can more readily
and directly affect demand forces in the market. To illustrate,
if one brand of pay telephone is accessible (e.g., compatible with
hearing aids) and another brand is not, consumers who have hearing
aids and who regularly use pay phones will quickly learn which brand
to select. If users in this category constitute a significant segment
of the market, usage rates for the accessible product will increase
and pull the market toward the accessible product. This is especially
true when there are no other discriminators among competing products.
Conversely, if users in this category do not constitute a significant
segment of the market, the pull factor will be slight and could
well have no impact.
Thus, if the purchase decision is made frequently
relative to the production decisions in the market, the consumer’s
actual experience can shape market demand if the segment of affected
users is sufficiently large. The presence of good predictor information
(labels, brands, claims) may further amplify this effect.
Reliable predictors in the form of labels, brands,
or claims can also affect the market in an aggregate sense when
they generally apply to multiple classes of products. For example,
if brand A of one type of product is reliably accessible to users
with a specific impairment, that same brand name on a different
product could be used as a predictor of the experience of outcome
and, therefore, affect demand for that product, even if the product
is purchased infrequently.
If a consumer makes a decision to purchase, that decision
usually involves selection of a specific choice from a field of
available, competing products that meet some qualification criteria.
The qualification criteria may simply be provision of the basic
functionality of the device, but they may also include some other
factors of personal significance to the purchaser. (Examples of
other factors of personal significance are country of origin or
trusted retailer.) A useful class of models of consumer choice from
economic theory segments consumer choices among available products
into the following three categories:
• Best price—the consumer selects the
product with the lowest price from among all available, qualifying
products.
• Best product—the consumer selects the
best product from among all available, qualifying products, irrespective
of price.
• Best value—the consumer selects a product
on the basis of both price and performance, through some conscious
or unconscious weighting of features and price. Of particular interest
in the present context is the notion that best value decisions may
actually focus on one dimension of performance rather than impartially
weighting all performance factors.
The accessibility of the product can affect “best
price” or “best product” choices only if it forms
part of the qualification criteria. This path could be used to influence
the market for accessible products by advocating that consumers,
businesses, and governments consider only products that meet some
accessibility criteria (similar to purchasing paper with at least
a certain amount of recycled content). Products then compete on
price or on overall capabilities, but only if they meet minimum
accessibility criteria.
The accessibility of the product can affect best value
choices either through inclusion in the qualification criteria or
by being one (and perhaps the only) dimension of performance that
is considered in determining value. This can be promoted by providing
information about product accessibility to consumers so they can
consider it. Providing such information can lead to some best value
decisions being based primarily on the level of accessibility in
the product—that is, some consumers will select the most accessible
product when they make a best value choice.
Demand forces in the market can therefore promote
UD and accessibility of products through the following mechanisms:
• For products that are purchased often by individuals
for their own use, consumer demand will help drive the market to
supply accessible products.
• For products that are purchased relatively
infrequently, consumers must be given information that helps them
predict their experience of outcome in order for consumer demand
to affect supply.
• For products that are purchased for use by
others (e.g., bulk purchases made by large companies or government
agencies), the outcome experienced by the purchaser is not the accessibility
of the product itself. The outcome experienced by the purchaser,
in terms of job performance ratings or personal accountability,
must be made contingent on the accessibility outcomes experienced
by the eventual users of the product in order for this type of purchase
to contribute to market demand. For this to happen, these purchasers
need access to information that will help them predict the outcome
that will be experienced by the eventual users.
Pull legislation can create and affect demand forces
in three primary ways: imposing requirements to provide information
(such as standard labeling) that can educate individuals and bulk
purchasers; creating job-related outcomes for bulk purchasers (particularly
in government); and creating opportunities for private tort lawsuits
to pursue warranty issues related to accessibility.
Comparison of Strategies To Promote Universal
Design and Strategies To Promote Safety
As policymakers consider the ultimate goal of promoting
UD in consumer products, it becomes clear that no single strategy
will be appropriate for all types of products. It is useful to consider
the mixture of strategies that are necessary to promote safety in
consumer products. The following points summarize (at the risk of
oversimplification) the strategies that are used to promote safety
of consumer products:
• For nonessential product features that are
inherently dangerous, but the danger is not open and obvious, regulations
either prohibit the feature altogether or prescribe safeguards that
must be provided. Examples include levels of radiated energy generated
by the product and presence of toxic chemicals in the product. Producers
may not include these nonessential features in their product, irrespective
of cost or inconvenience incurred.
• For design features that are inherently dangerous
when used inappropriately, but that must be present to achieve the
functionality of the product, a combination of government and industry
rules dictates design safeguard features that must be added to prevent
inappropriate use of the product and/or warnings and instructions
that must accompany the product.
• For design features that pose an intermediate
level of risk but that also contribute to functionality and/or reduce
cost, a combination of industry practices, customer demand, and
private tort lawsuits jointly shape the provision of design safeguard
features, warnings and instructions, and other efforts related to
promoting product safety. In this context, an intermediate level
of risk means that the probability of an adverse event is not sufficiently
high to warrant government or industry rules, but it is not trivially
low either.
• For safety factors that are associated with
interoperability of products (e.g., voltage compatibility, physical
couplings and connectors with infrastructure), government and/or
industry standards are used to define allowed configurations.
If these strategies were translated directly to the
goal of promoting UD and accessibility, the following strategies
would be suggested:
• Nonessential design features that inherently
produce inaccessible products for a given recognized impairment
should be prohibited altogether or should be allowed only if specified
alternatives are also provided. For example, touchscreen interfaces
for devices that do not inherently require a touchscreen could be
prohibited unless accompanied by an equivalent voice display.
• Design features that reduce cost or contribute
to functionality but that also cause accessibility problems should
either be accompanied by alternative features that remediate the
accessibility problem for the affected group of users or should
have clear labeling that allows affected users to know about the
accessibility problem.
• Design features that pose a risk of inaccessibility
(i.e., the accessibility problem is not prohibitive, but there is
a nontrivial probability that affected users will have trouble performing
some tasks with the device or otherwise have restricted use of the
device) should be accompanied by labeling (and other supporting
information, as appropriate) that allows the affected users to know
about the problem. Absence of such labeling could form the basis
of private lawsuits through implied warranty. Alternately, labeling
and warranty could be provided to assert the accessibility of the
device and to specify the limitations thereof, and failure to perform
as specified could form the basis of an express warranty claim.
• When accessibility is dependent on interoperability
of products or within an infrastructure (such as the telecommunications
infrastructure), government and industry standards should be adopted
to define allowable configurations, and all allowed configurations
should result in accessibility.
The following table summarizes the comparison between
promotion of consumer product safety and consumer product accessibility.
Table 3. Comparison Between Promotion of Consumer
Product Safety and Accessibility
Issue Strategy used for product safety Equivalent
strategy to promote accessibility
Nonessential feature poses significant problem Government
or industry standard prohibits the feature or requires safeguard.
Government or industry standard prohibits the feature or requires
alternative interface.
Essential feature poses problem if used inappropriately
Safeguards must be provided to discourage inappropriate use; warnings
and instructions must be provided. Alternative interface must be
provided, if possible; clear labeling is required to inform consumers
of remaining accessibility issues.
Design feature creates risk with nontrivial probability,
but not high enough to be prohibitive Industry practices and consumer
demand influence whether the feature is offered; warnings about
the risk must be provided; private lawsuit is available to those
who experience the problem. Industry practices and consumer demand
will determine whether the feature is offered; labeling must be
provided to indicate level of accessibility (or to alert consumer
to accessibility limitations); warranty claims are available to
those affected by the problem.
Interoperability issues within some infrastructure
can create problem Government or industry standards adopted to define
allowable configurations. Government or industry standards adopted
to ensure product accessibility when used in the infrastructure.
The recommendations derived from the above are as
follows:
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) lawsuits
as well as through general demand as reflected in consumer purchases.
Analysis of the Market for Universally Designed
Products and Services
Businesses, in general, are not aware of the market
potential for universally designed products and services. Data gathered
from the industry study indicated that the industry study partners
generally took a rather narrow view of the market potential for
UD products. By far the most important consumer of UD products and
services is perceived by industry to be the Federal Government.
Many of the industry partners recognized the need for developing
accessible technologies for people with disabilities but failed
to recognize the population as a significant market. Participating
companies continue to struggle with the development of a supportable
business case for UD products.
Recommendation #4. Develop
training materials and educational articles documenting the market
potential for UD products and services.
To address the needs of industry, the Federal Government
should support the development of training materials and the publication
of articles in major business journals that document the market
potential for universally designed products. The publications should
outline potential sources of untapped revenue and present a meaningful
financial argument for developing accessible technologies. The research
should be conducted by reputable financial analysts with experience
in the development of business cases and the evaluation of market
trends. The project should include in-depth case studies of specific
products that not only have had an impact on the lives of people
with disabilities but are also mainstream commercial successes.
Analysis of the Impact of Section 508
Section 508 was developed to govern the purchase of
electronic and information technology purchased by the Federal Government.
Federal agencies 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 those 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). While agencies
must procure products that best meet the standards, section 508
does not require that manufacturers make their products more accessible.
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.
Despite having been in place for nearly three years,
section 508 has failed to reach its potential. Section 508 has failed
to have a real impact on the purchase of products. The industry
study results demonstrate that the perception in industry is that
companies are not losing sales by not having accessible products.
If federal agencies need to make a purchase, they will purchase
what is available; they cannot wait for accessible products to become
available. Some companies have put efforts into awareness and some
development of the accessibility of their products, but their efforts
are focused on the specific products that are most likely to be
purchased by the Federal Government. Other products in the same
company continue to be developed without consideration for accessibility.
The products that are most likely to be purchased by the Federal
Government are least likely to be purchased by small businesses
or the individual consumer, greatly limiting the number of people
that will benefit from even moderate accessible design.
Recommendation #6. Consider
requesting supporting evidence for claims made on 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 with market research
by providing them with a list of items that they can inspect themselves
when procuring products. The checklists would be tailored to specific
product lines and would not require detailed expertise to evaluate.
When considering products for purchase, procurement
officials consult VPATs for the purchasing decisions. However, there
is wide interpretation of the section 508 requirements by those
filling out VPATs; even within a company, two very different VPATs
could be generated by different individuals for the same product.
In some cases, those filling out the VPATs are not as familiar with
the product as the designers and are likely not aware of the issues
that people with disabilities may face when trying to use the products.
In addition, there are rarely data from user testing (of people
with disabilities) to support the statements made on the VPAT. Companies
are also uncertain about which products are relevant under section
508 and which aspects of the covered products are governed by the
regulations.
Recommendation #8. Develop
guidance for reporting conformance with functional performance
criteria guidelines.
One of the greatest shortfalls of section 508 is the
lack of understanding of and attention to the functional performance
requirements. These requirements, in particular, are too ambiguous
to support the needs of industry. Since the implementation of section
508, an increasing amount of information has been made available
on how to interpret some of the language of the requirements (e.g.,
as seen at http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/index.htm),
but nothing has yet been made available on the functional performance
requirements, which are the most difficult to interpret. Other UD
standards and guidance are also ambiguous and insufficient to support
the needs of industry in developing more accessible products. Lack
of understanding of the issues is a disincentive to the company;
in many cases, industry could benefit from product-line-specific
guidance. Industries can also benefit from a methodology for measuring
accessibility of their products.
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.
Despite these shortfalls of section 508, state and
local governments will likely adopt accessibility legislation similar
to section 508. There is concern at the state and local level for
providing equal access for all citizens, and the adoption of similar
legislation at these levels may spur more industries to be more
attentive to the issues and increase their development of accessible
products. In addition, state and local legislation may provide additional
understanding of how to interpret the standards. It is hoped that
this legislation will not contradict or conflict with federal legislation
or laws enacted in other states or municipalities. Industry will
suffer if the technical requirements for accessibility diverge.
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.
Another way in which section 508 falls short is that
it is limited to technological access. Accessibility solutions,
when they exist, often address only technological access. They fail
to address the social, psychological, and situational needs of users
relating to accessibility. For example, as revealed in the user
study, if an ATM machine were completely accessible, some individuals
who are blind or have low vision would still not use it or would
continue to use it only in the company of a friend or family member
because of a concern for their safety. As another example, while
technological access may be available for a product, it may still
be inaccessible to a subset of individuals because they cannot afford
to purchase the product. This situation is often interpreted by
industry as low demand, when in fact the demand can simply not be
demonstrated because of the low incomes of many people with disabilities.
These situations that reduce overall accessibility should not diminish
the efforts of industry to increase accessibility of their products
for various individuals, however, as it does provide the option
for individuals to use these products if the necessity arises or
if their situations change.
Analysis of Industry Practices
Despite consumer demand and government oversight (and
limited guidance) regarding accessible products, companies lack
tools and information resources needed to create UD products. To
begin with, corporate policy can affect the adoption of UD in a
company. Without the support of upper management, UD often cannot
become a reality unless there is a strong advocate within the company.
If corporate policy emphasizes accessible design solutions and perhaps
user testing with people with disabilities, those issues become
more difficult for designers and managers to ignore, and they are
likely to find ways to at least begin to address them despite a
lack of tools or knowledge.
Recommendation #11. Develop,
test, and disseminate methodologies for integrating UD into existing
design practices.
Companies are not aware of the design process modifications
needed to incorporate UD principles. The Federal Government should
support the refinement of specific design process interventions
that can easily be incorporated. Guidelines for incorporating UD
principles into the design process should be developed and illustrated
with real-world examples, if possible. Training materials should
be distributed to companies interested in incorporating UD principles
into their design process as a series of UD best practices.
Recommendation #12. Support
the development of university-level training materials that could
be incorporated into the curricula 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
target populations in Department of Defense acquisitions, is a
set of descriptions of prototypical users that expresses 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.
Designers and engineers lack information about the
functional capabilities and limitations of people with disabilities.
Few companies hire people with disabilities to provide design input
for their products, and most university-level design courses do
not adequately address UD. General information about functional
capabilities is hard to come by and is not generally available in
an easy-to-use format. Also, there is significant variability of
functional capabilities, even within a disability group (particularly
for individuals with upper-mobility impairments). All of these issues
create a barrier for developing UD products. Despite the variability,
some general guidance can be developed (similar to section 508)
to address the majority of issues that will arise.
Recommendation #14. Develop
a standard methodology for testing accessibility and comparing the
accessibility of two similar products.
Even given an understanding of functional limitations,
companies lack a methodology to truly measure accessibility, which
would also provide a means to compare accessibility among similar
products. They do not understand the importance of including people
with a variety of disabilities in product evaluations. And, even
if they do develop products that satisfy the standards of section
508 and other UD guidelines, that does not guarantee accessibility.
Despite the lack of tools, some products exist that
are considered “accidentally accessible.” Many of these
designs were not created with a disability in mind (e.g., the Sidekick),
but they happened to provide a great benefit for a particular disability
population. In many cases, manufacturers may not even be aware that
their designs have benefited special populations. The problem with
these accidental solutions is that they may not carry through into
future designs because their potential is not understood by the
designers. If these features can be identified, however, and understood
by the designers as benefiting more than the general public, designers
may be able to overcome the fact that they lack formal tools or
training to facilitate accessible design.
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.
If the concepts of UD are integrated into the tools
that designers use to develop products, more accessible products
will be designed with little extra effort or cost on the part of
industry. Industry needs to recognize that a small amount of effort
to modify existing practices will have great benefits in the long
run.
Analysis of Consumers of Universally Designed
Products and Services
Consumers with disabilities find many E&IT products
to be inaccessible. They are quick to adopt accessible technologies
when they become available and are loyal to companies that produce
accessible technologies. Cost can be a significant barrier to adoption
of these technologies, however. Many consumers with disabilities
must pay for features they cannot use. For example, users who are
blind typically cannot use many of the advanced features of cell
phones, but companies today rarely provide a basic voice communication
device. Also, many accessibility features tend to be bundled with
higher-end products, increasing the cost for those who can benefit
most but who are typically in a low-income situation. The focus
group data indicated that people with disabilities are hesitant
to pay for new technologies that are not proven to be effective
for their needs. Perhaps one way to increase market share for these
products is to distribute a small number of free devices for review
by various disability groups, which can then spread the word of
the value to be had for the cost. People with disabilities often
do not have extra money to spend, but they are willing to spend
a little bit extra for something they feel will benefit them in
their daily lives. Increased demand and profitability will result
as convenient, easy-to-use products become more prevalent at a lower
cost.
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 might obtain more information about universally designed
products.
Consumers tend to be misinformed or underinformed
regarding product features they can benefit from. Companies fail
to adequately market to people with disabilities, and it is not
uncommon for marketing materials to be inaccessible to some individuals.
In addition, general-population marketing of accessibility features
can increase sales as awareness of product features increases for
those who have a temporary disability, are not involved with a disability-specific
advocacy group, or live in remote areas with less access to health
care and specialized services. If products can benefit multiple
populations, there should be an increase in sales. Someone might
purchase a talking clock, for example, for an occasional specific
need, but they first need to be aware that this product exists;
therefore, companies should not limit marketing to the population
they expect to benefit from the product.
Recommendation #17. Develop
marketing strategies and approaches that will facilitate a connection
with people with disabilities.
An awareness from those in marketing departments of
different populations believed to benefit from specific products
and product features can help shape the marketing strategy, resulting
in increased sales and more satisfied consumers. An example is the
Sidekick. The Sidekick is a device about twice the size of the average
cell phone that has extensive text messaging capabilities; it is
also a cell phone. The Sidekick was not designed for the community
of people who are deaf, nor has it been extensively marketed to
users who are deaf, but its features greatly increase the communications
capabilities of users who are deaf. Through word of mouth it has
become a very popular device. General marketing of its text messaging
capabilities has likely attracted the attention of users who are
deaf, although they were not intended as the targeted population.
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.
Recommendation #18. Train
people with disabilities to become subject-matter experts for
the purpose of participating in design focus groups and accessibility
evaluations.
The Federal Government should consider the development
of training programs to help consumers with disabilities communicate
their needs to companies interested in UD. The training programs
should educate users about the industrial design process and suggest
strategies for effectively formulating and communicating user needs.
The program should prepare users for participation in focus group
research as well as research designed to measure the accessibility
of a product.
Recommendation #19. Create
job-related outcomes for bulk purchasers related to the successful
procurement of products and services with UD features.
Currently there are no incentives for successfully
procuring accessible technologies and services. Indeed, the current
system may actively dissuade some purchasers from considering accessibility,
if the market research process is perceived as delaying the procurement
of needed products. In addition, the outcome of purchasing inaccessible
technologies is usually not known immediately and may never directly
affect the purchaser. The Federal Government should institute programs
designed to actively encourage section 508 compliance at the level
of the individual purchaser through incentives or job-related performance
criteria and provide direct feedback with regard to the accessibility
of the products purchased.
For additional information, see the online version
of this report at www.ncd.gov.
List
of Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAATE | Association for the Advancement of Assistive Technology in Europe |
ABA | Architectural Barriers Act |
ADA | Americans with Disabilities Act |
ADAAG | Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines |
ANSI | American National Standards Institute |
ASX | active streaming XML |
AT | assistive technology |
ATIS | Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions |
ATM | automated teller machine |
B | blind |
CAGR | compound annual growth rate |
CC | closed captioning |
CITA | Center for Information Technology Accommodations |
CDMA | Code Division Multiple Access |
D | deaf |
DTV | digital television |
DVD | digital video disc |
DVS | descriptive video service |
E&IT | electronic and information technology |
EIA | Electronic Industries Alliance |
ENCT | Electronic Newsroom Captioning Technique |
EPG | electronic program guide |
ESL | English as a Second Language |
EU | European Union |
FCC | Federal Communications Commission |
GAO | Government Accountability Office |
GPS | global positioning system |
GSM | global system for mobile communications |
GTRI | Georgia Tech Research Institute |
HAC | Hearing Aid Compatibility Act |
HDTV | high definition television |
HH | hard of hearing |
HREOC | Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission |
HTML | hypertext markup language |
Hz | Hertz |
IDEA | Individuals with Disabilities Education Act |
IDEN | Integrated Digital Enhanced Network |
IEEE | Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers |
IEP | individualized education program |
IFA | International Federation of Ageing |
IMAA | Instructional Material Accessibility Act |
ISO | International Organization for Standardization |
IT | information technology |
IT&T | information technology and telecommunications |
ITTATC | Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center |
iTV | interactive television |
IVR | interactive voice response |
L | low |
LED | light emitting diode |
LM | lower mobility |
LONGDESC | long description |
LV | low vision |
M | medium |
mm | millimeter |
NCAM | National Center for Accessible Media |
NCD | National Council on Disability |
NCI | National Captioning Institute |
NCRA | National Court Reporters Association |
NOIE | National Office for the Information Economy |
PBS | Public Broadcasting System |
PDA | personal digital assistant |
PIN | personal identification number |
PIP | picture-in-picture |
POC | point of contact |
PSAP | public service answering point |
RAM | real audio movie |
RF | radio frequency |
RNIB | Royal National Institute of the Blind |
ROI | return on investment |
SAMI | Synchronized Accessible Media Interchange |
SAP | secondary audio program |
SMIL | synchronized multimedia integration language |
SRT | speech recognition technology |
STB | set-top box |
TIDE | Telematics Applications for the Integration of Disabled People and the Elderly |
TTY | teletype |
UD | universal design |
UM | upper mobility |
USDLA | U.S. Distance Learning Association |
VDRA | Video Description Restoration Act |
VPAT | voluntary product accessibility template |
VRT | voice recognition technology |
W3C | World Wide Web Consortium |
XML | extensible markup language |
Bibliography
1193. (1998). Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines. Part 1193. Retrieved September 2003 from http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/html/telfinl2.htm.
1194-77. (1998) Telecommunications Act Accessibility
Guidelines. Preamble to 36 CFR Part 1194 (particularly para. 77).
Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/html/telfinal.htm#Background.
12101. (1990). Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare.
42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101. Retrieved September 2003 from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12101.html.
12111. (1990). Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare.
42 U.S.C. Sec. 12111 (9 and 10). Retrieved September 2003 from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12111.html.
12113. (1990). Title 42. The Public Health and Welfare.
42 U.S.C. Sec. 12113. Retrieved September 2003 from http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/12111.html.
35.104. (1990). Title 28. Nondiscrimination on the
Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services. 28 CFR
Sec. 35.104. Retrieved September 2003 from http://www.Dol.Gov/Oasam/Regs/Cfr/28cfr/Part35/35104.htm.
35.160 (1990). Title 28. Nondiscrimination on the
Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services. 28 CFR
Sec. 35.160. Retrieved September 2003 from http://www.Dol.Gov/Oasam/Regs/Cfr/28cfr/Part35/35160.htm.
36 CFR. (1998). Part 1193. Telecommunications Act
Accessibility Guidelines. Retrieved September 2003 from http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/html/telfinal.htm.
36.303. (1990). Part 36. Nondiscrimination on the
Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities.
Subpart A. Sec.36.303, Auxiliary Aids and Services. Retrieved September
2003 from http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/reg3a.html#anchor-97857.
P.L. 104-104, Sec. 255, codified at 47 U.S.C. Sec.
255. Also the guidelines developed by the Access Board and adopted
by the Federal Communications Commission to implement the statute,
36 CFR Part 1193.
Access Board. (n.d.). 4.34, “Automated Teller
Machines.” Retrieved October 5, 2003 from http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm#4.34.
ADA Accessibility Guidelines. (2002). For Buildings
and Facilities, as amended through September 2002. Retrieved September
2003 from
http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm#4.34.
Adaptive Environments (n.d.). Retrieved August 22,
2003, from http://www.adaptiveenvironments.org/universal/index.php.
Administration on Aging. (2002). A Profile of Older
Americans: 2002. Retrieved August 28, 2003 from http://www.aoa.gov/prof/Statistics/profile/profiles2002.asp.
Adult Literacy Survey. (2003). Retrieved September
2003 from
http://www.nald.ca/nls/ials/introduc.htm and
http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/reference.html#sum2002.
Age Structure. (2003). The World Factbook 2003. Demographic
Data. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2010.html.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. (1990). P.L.
101-336, codified at 42 USC Sec. 12101 et seq.
Area. (2003). The World Factbook 2003. Demographic
Data. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2147.html.
Asset-Based Marketing Definition. (2003). Network
for Information Exchange. Also known as undifferentiated marketing,
unsegmented marketing,. Retrieved August 28, 2003, http://www.legamedia.net/lx/result/match/4fbf93ec5664737908069eea37caf83b/
index.php.
Assistive Technology Act of 1998. (1998). Retrieved
September 2003 from http://www.mdtap.org/tt/1998.09/1b-art.html.
(AAATE) Association for the Advancement of Assistive
Technology in Europe. (2003). A 2003 View on Technology and Disability.
AAATE position paper. Retrieved January 6, 2004, from http://139.91.151.134/aaate/aaatenew.htm#positionTechnologyDisability.
Australian Bankers’ Association. (n.d.). Automated
Teller Machines (ATMs). Retrieved September 2003 from http://www.bankers.asn.au/ABA/pdf/ATM%20Standard.htm.
Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. (2000).
W3C Recommendation 3 February 2000. Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10/.
Auto Channel. (2003). “Bluetooth Helps Drivers
Say No to DWD: Driving While Dialing.” Retrieved October 5,
2003, from
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2003/07/10/164605.html
Ballon, P., M. van Dusseldorp, L. Haddon, and G. Paul.
(1998). Design for All and ICT Business Practice: Addressing the
Barriers, Examples of Best Practice. Delft, Netherlands. Institute
for Strategy, Technology, and Policy of the Netherlands, Organization
for Applied Scientific Research.
Benyon, D., Al Crerar, and S. Wilkinson. (2001). “Individual
Differences and Inclusive Design.” In User Interfaces for
All: Concepts, Methods, and Tools, ed. C. Stephanidis. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bhatnagar, Subhash. (n.d.). The Future of E-Government
in Developing Countries. Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/egov/bhatnagar_juneconference.pdf.
Bow-Lingual CONNECT. (2003) A service that can convert
dog barks into text and expressions. Customers can enjoy Bow-Lingual
CONNECT by using it in conjunction with Vodafone K.K.’s V601SH,
a mobile handset by Sharp.
California Community College. (1999). Distance Education
Access Guidelines for Students with Disabilities. Retrieved October
5, 2003, from http://www.htctu.fhda.edu/publications/guidelines/distance_ed/disted.htm.
Cambridge Telecom Report. (2000). “Lucent Technologies
Introduces New Portfolio of Enhanced Services for Wireless Carriers.”
Retrieved October 5, 2003, from http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0BFP/2000_March_6/59976170/p1/article.jhtml?term=lucent+technologies+introduces+new+portfolio.
CardioNet. (n.d.). How It Works. Retrieved October
5, 2003, from http://cardionet.com/how.html.
Center for Universal Design (n.d.). Retrieved August
7, 2003, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud.
China. (2003). United States and Foreign Commercial
Service Market Research Report. “Leading Sectors for U.S.
Exports and Investments (China) FY2004.” [7/15/2003]. Matthew
Gettman. Retrieved August 2004 from http://www.stat-usa.gov/mrd.nsf/vwCCG_Country/9D3C7D7A6F111FCB85256EEE002E2C12?OpenDocument&sessID=E0CB08BD1264A4E.
Cipherwar.com. (2000). Bank Accounts for Everyone.
Retrieved October 5, 2003, from http://www.cipherwar.com/news/00/first_accounts.htm.
Collin, N. (n.d.). Automated Speech Recognition. Retrieved
October 5, 2003, from www.ncollin.demon.co.uk/speechrecognition.html.
Cover Pages by Oasis. (2001). VoiceXML Forum. Retrieved
October 5, 2003, from http://www.oasis-open.org/cover/vxml.html.
Czinkota, Michael R. (2001). Foundation for International
Business Education and Research and The McDonough School of Business,
Georgetown University. The STAT-USA /Internet Companion to International
Business Exercise 2, page 55. Retrieved on April 5, 2003, from http://www.stat-usa.gov/companion.
Developmental Marketing. (2003). Network for Information
Exchange. Retrieved August 28, 2003, from http://www.legamedia.net/lx/result/match/faedb8a717a0aa6e050e96312b89ff1e/
index.php
Directions Magazine. (2003a). “Gartner Says
Palm OS Licensees Accounted for 51 Percent of PDA Shipments and
41 Percent of Worldwide Revenue in Second Quarter of 2003.”
Retrieved August 1, 2003, from
http://www.directionsmag.com/press.releases/index.php?duty=Show&id=7682).
———. (2003b). “Intergraph
Public Safety Launches New Wireless PDA-Based Application Providing
Superior In-the-Field Dispatch Response and Flexibility.”
Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.directionsmag.com/press.releases/index.php?duty=Show&id=7639.
———. (2003c). “Cobb EMC to
Deploy Intergraph Solution for Outage and Mobile Workforce.”
Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.directionsmag.com/press.releases/index.php?duty=Show&id=7709.
Disabilities, Opportunities, Internetworking, and
Technology (n.d.). Retrieved August 22, 2003, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Technology/universal.design.html.
DisabilityInfo.gov. (2003). Retrieved August 28, 2003.
from http://www.disabilityinfo.gov/.
EITAAC Report. (May 12, 1999). Retrieved January 8,
2001, from
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/commrept/eitaacrpt.htm.
Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility
Standards. (2000). Retrieved January 24, 2003, from http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm.
Emiliani, P. L. (2001). “Special Needs and Enabling
Technologies: An Evolving Approach to Accessibility.” In User
Interfaces for All: Concepts, Methods, and Tools, ed. C. Stephanidis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ESL Online Education and Training. (2000). Leadership
in the Global Economy Through English. Retrieved September 2003
from http://www.molinedu.com/countryprof/english/uk/uk_eng.htm.
Fact Sheet. (2003). Telephone Access for People with
Speech Disabilities, from http://www.disabilityworld.org/01_03_03/access/phone.shtml.
Fain, W. B., A. Cianciolo, H. Hancock, and T. M. Whaley.
(2001). Structured Interviews to Support the ITTATC Needs Assessment.
Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
Fastap. (n.d.). Retrieved October 5, 2003, from http://www.digitwireless.com/demos/interactive_flash.html.
(FCC) Federal Communications Commission. (1999.) Notice
of Inquiry. Docket No. WT 96-198); also generally, FCC Report on
High Speed and Advanced Telecommunications (August 3, 2000).
———. (n.d. a). FCC Closed Captioning
Fact Sheet. Retrieved August 27, 2003, from http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html.
———. (n.d. b). Accessibility of
Emergency Video Programming to Persons with Hearing and Visual Disabilities.
Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/emergencyvideo.html.
Feeney, R. (2003). Access to ATMs: UK Design Guidelines.
Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.equalopportunity.on.ca/eng_g/subject/index.asp?action=search_7&file_id=17644.
Fletcher, V. (2002). Universal Design, Human-Centered
Design for the 21st Century. Retrieved August 22, 2003, from
http://www.adaptiveenvironments.org/examples/humancentered.php?f=4.
Francik, E. (1996). Telephone Interfaces: Universal
Design Filters. Retrieved August 22, 2003, from http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/taacmtg_aug96/pbfilter.htm.
General Dynamics C4 Systems. (n.d.). Rugged Workstations,
Servers and Displays. Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/computers/general_d/general_d1.
Global Edge. (2003). Potential Indicators for Emerging
Markets 2003. Michigan State University. Retrieved October 5, 2003,
from http://globaledge.msu.edu/ibrd/marketpot.asp.
GlobalEDGE. (2003). Market Potential Indicators for
Emerging Markets. Overall Market Potential. Michigan State University,
Center for International Business Education and Research. Retrieved
September 1, 2003, from
http://globaledge.msu.edu/ibrd/marketpot.asp?SortField=OverallMarketPotentialIndexR#MarketPotential.
Global Marketing Definition. (2003). Network for Information
Exchange. Also known as international marketing. Retrieved August
28, 2003, from
http://www.legamedia.net/lx/result/match/0c4701a7d182077ab602256788097058/index.php.
Global Reach. (2003). Global Internet Statistics (by
Language). Retrieved August 28, 2003, from http://www.global-reach.biz/globstats/index.php3.
Grant Thornton. (2003). “ATM Outsourcing Trend
on the Rise.” Retrieved October 5, 2003, from http://www.grantthornton.com.
Haub, C. (2003). World Population Data Sheet, July,
2003. Population Reference Bureau. Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2915603.pdf.
Hindu (2004). The Hindu Survey of Indian Industry.
Retrieved September 10, 2004, from http://www.hinduonnet.com/books/sii/2004/sii04.htm.
India. (2004). United States and Foreign Commercial
Service Market Research Report. “Leading Sectors for U.S.
Exports and Investments (India) FY2004.” [11/03/2003]. Hayden
Wetzel. Retrieved August 2004 from http://www.stat-usa.gov/mrd.nsf/vwCCG_Country/66AFB608D7BDD44B85256EEE002E2751?OpenDocument&sessID=504A087512541C1.
International Code Council. (n.d.). ICC/ANSI A117:
2003 Edition—Document Development. Retrieved October 5, 2003,
from http://www.iccsafe.org/a117/editiondev.html.
(IDC) International Data Corporation (2000). Web-Site
Globalization. The Next Imperative for the Internet 2.0 Era. Retrieved
August 28, 2003, from
http://www.etranslate.com/en/downloads/IDC_Globalization_report.pdf.
International Monetary Fund. (2003). Foreign Direct
Investment in Emerging Market Countries—Report of the Working
Group of the Capital Markets Consultative Group (CMCG). “Foreign
Direct Investment in Emerging Market Countries 1990-2002 (in millions
U.S. dollars).” Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.imf.org/external/np/cmcg/2003/eng/091803.pdf.
International Trade Administration. (1999). U.S. International
Travel And Tourism Balance Of Trade (Receipts/Exports And Payments/Imports)
1990-1999pr. Office of Travel and Tourism Industries. Retrieved
August 28, 2003, from
http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-1999-03-001/index.html?ti_cart_cookie=20031223.143327.04298.
———. (2001). International Arrivals
to U.S. by Country of Residency–Historical Visitation. Inbound
1994-2000. Office of Travel and Tourism Industries. Retrieved August
28, 2003, from http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/f-2000-04 001/index.html?ti_cart_cookie=20031223.143327.04298.
———. (2004). International Arrivals
to the United States for March and First Quarter 2004. Office of
Travel and Tourism Industries. Retrieved August 2003 from http://tinet.ita.doc.gov/view/m-2004-I-001/analysis_q1.html.
Internet Users. (2003). The World Factbook 2003. Demographic
Data. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved August 28, 2003, from
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2010.html.
iVoice, Inc. (2003). “iVoice Introduces Revolutionary
Voice Dialing Capabilities.” Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.ivoice.com/media/Apr012003221907.htm.
Jacobs, Steven I. (2002). The Business Benefits of
Accessible E&IT Design. Table 25. IDEAL Group, Inc. Not accessible
via the Internet.
———. (2003). The Business Benefits
of Accessible E&IT Design. Retrieved March 18, 2003, from http://www.ideal-group.org.
Kaplan, D. (n.d.). The Definition of Disability. Retrieved
September 18, 2003, from http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/demographics-identity/dkaplanpaper.htm.
Kearney, A. T. (2002). FDI Confidence Index. Vol.
5. Retrieved August 15, 2003, from http://www.atkearney.com/shared_res/pdf/FDI_Confidence_Sept2002_S.pdf.
Kiel v. Select Artificials Inc. 169 F. 3d 1131 (8th
Cir.). (1999) cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 59 (1999). (Employer who
restructured job to eliminate use of telephone did not violate reasonable
accommodation obligation by refusing to furnish teletypewriter.)
Kumagai, J. (n.d.). “Talk to the Machine.”
Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY/publicfeature/sep02/voic.html.
LegaMedia. (2003). “<LEXicon> E-zine &
Portal für Juristen & Unternehmer.” Retrieved August
28, 2003, from
http://www.legamedia.net/lx/result/match/1bcd9811926293346330da3b914990cb/index.php.
LaGeese, D. (2003). “They Know Where You Are.”
U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/030908/20030908041452_brief.php.
Leichtman Research Group, Inc. (2003). “Other
Key Findings.” Retrieved August 28, 2003, from http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/111203release.html.
Light Reading. (2002). News Wire Feed, “Internet
Backbone Growth Slowing. TeleGeography Study, 16 October 2002.”
Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=22747&site=lightreading.
Literacy Demographic Data. (2003). The World Factbook
2003. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2103.html.
Live Text. (2000). Learning Styles. Retrieved August
28, 2003, from
http://p12.livetext.com/doc/31762/139548.
Market Segmentation Definition. (2003). Network for
Information Exchange. Also known as differentiated marketing. Retrieved
August 28, 2003, from http://www.legamedia.net/lx/result/match/6d9104823ce91ef09659071c70cb54f4/index.
php.
Mass Marketing Definition. (2003). Network for Information
Exchange. Also known as undifferentiated marketing, unsegmented
marketing. Retrieved August 28, 2003, from
http://www.legamedia.net/lx/result/match/1bcd9811926293346330da3b914990cb/index.php.
McFarland, D. (2002). “Cell Phone Ownership
Grows 29% from 1999-2001 According to New Scarborough Study.”
Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.scarborough.com/scarb2002/press/pr_cellphone.htm.
McGill, J. (2002). “Banking the Unbanked.”
Retrieved October 5, 2003, from http://www.self-service-touchpoints.com/content.asp?contentid=137.
Mexico. (2004). United States and Foreign Commercial
Service Market Research Report. “Leading Sectors for U.S.
Exports and Investments (Mexico) FY2004.” [09/12/2003]. Aileen
Nandi. Retrieved August 2004 from http://www.stat-usa.gov/mrd.nsf/vwCCG_Country/9464AED4221E2E5C85256EEE002E365E?OpenDocument&sessID=600108EC12842ED
Microsoft. (n.d.). Accessibility Homepage. Retrieved
December 15, 2000, from http://www.microsoft.com/enable/. Note:
These guidelines have since been removed from this Web site.
Moe, M. T. (2002). “Emerging Trends in Post
Secondary Education—The View to 2012.” Retrieved October
5, 2003, from http://www.usdla.org/ppt/THINKEQUITY.ppt.
(NCAM) National Center for Accessible Media. (2003).
A Developer’s Guide to Creating Talking Menus for Set-top
Boxes and DVDs. Retrieved October 2003 from http://ncam.wgbh.org/news/pr_20030821.html.
(NCD) National Council on Disability. (1998). “International
Update.” NCD Bulletin. Retrieved from
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22million+people+with+disabilities+worldwide%22&btnG=Google+Search.
———. (2002). Universal Design Request
for Proposals. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability.
———. (2004). “Improving Federal
Disability Data.” Retrieved July 8, 2004, from http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/improvedata.htm.
National Institute for Literacy. (2003). “ESL
Literacy Fact Sheet.” Retrieved September 2003 from http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/facts_overview.html.
———. (n.d.). “FAQ.”
Retrieved August 15, 2003, from
http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/faqs.html#literacy%20rates.
Niche Marketing Definition. (2003). Network for Information
Exchange (2003). Also known as concentrated marketing,. Retrieved
August 28, 2003, from
http://www.legamedia.net/lx/result/match/b416dc4ed36ab23ac5d3129f3a8bbdde/index.
php.
Nielsen/NetRatings. (2004). “Web Connection
Speed Trends—Home Users (US).” Retrieved August 2003
from http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0406/.
North Carolina State University. (1997). Principles
of Universal Design. The Center for Universal Design. Retrieved
August 15, 2003, from
http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/principles/seven.htm.
Ostroff, E. (1999). Retrieved August 7, 2003, from
http://www.archvoices.org/index.cfm?pg=Resources&s=UniversalDesign.
———. (2001). “Universal Design:
The New Paradigm.” In (Eds.), Universal Design Handbook, ed.
W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff., pp. 1.3–1.12. New York:
McGraw Hill.
PCS-Direct. (n.d.). Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.pcs-direct.com/phones.htm.
Peppers, Don, and Martha Rogers. (1997). The One to
One Future. Available from Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=Martha%20Rogers/103-2833482-7027839.
Perera, Sylvie. (n.d.). “Interactive Digital
Television Services for People with Low Vision.” Retrieved
June 2004 from http://www.tiresias.org/itv/intro.htm.
Population. (2003). The World Factbook 2003. Demographic
Data. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2119.html.
Preiser, Wolfgang F.E., and Elaine Ostroff. (2001).
The Universal Design Handbook. Section 1.3, “Terminology:
Universal Design,” p. 1.5. Weimar, TX: C.H.I.P.S.
Pyramid Research (2004). http://www.pyramidresearch.com/home.asp.
Product Line Stretching Definition. (2003). Network
for Information Exchange. Retrieved August 28, 2003, from
http://www.legamedia.net/lx/result/match/d9ab49e1e15a71da44ae66fe708497c7/index.
php.
Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB). (n.d.)
Accessibility Guide. Retrieved June 4, 2003, from http://www.mandoforms.com/download/index.html.
———. (n.d.) Accessible Web Design.
Retrieved June 4, 2003, from http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital/hints.htm.
Russia. (2004). United States and Foreign Commercial
Service Market Research Report. “Leading Sectors for U.S.
Exports and Investments (Russia) FY2004.” [01/05/2004]. Geoffrey
Cleasby. Retrieved August 2004 from http://www.stat-usa.gov/mrd.nsf/vwCCG_Country/3CA107BDCD8D829185256EEE002E2959?OpenDocument&sessID=D084083C1204545.
Samsung. (n.d.). “Cell Phones.” Retrieved
October 5, 2003, from
http://www.001abc.com/cellphones/samsung_sch_t300.html.
Section508.gov. (2003). “Agency Section 508
Coordinator List.” Retrieved August 28, 2003, from http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=84.
SIL International. (2003). Ethnologue: Languages of
the World. 14th ed. Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.ideal-group.org/ncd/languages.htm.
Sandhu, J. S. (2001). “An Integrated Approach
to Universal Design: Toward the Inclusion of All Ages, Cultures,
and Diversity.” In Universal Design Handbook, ed. W. F. E.
Preiser and E. Ostroff, pp. 3.3–3.14. New York: McGraw Hill.
Steinfeld, E. (1994). The Concept of Universal Design.
Buffalo, NY: Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access,
State University of New York. Retrieved January 3, 2001, from http://www.arch.buffalo.edu/~idea/publications/free_pubs/pubs_cud.html.
Stephanidis, C. (2001). “User Interfaces for
All: New Perspectives into Human-Computer Interaction.” In
User Interfaces for All: Concepts, Methods, and Tools, ed. C. Stephanidis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stockwatch. (2003). “China Ventures to Help
Teach Chinese Children English.” News Release 30 January 2003.
Retrieved September 2003 from
http://new.stockwatch.com/newsit/newsit_newsit.pasp?bid=B-204275-C:CHV&news_region=C&symbol=CHV.
Story, M. F. (2001). “Principles of Universal
Design.” In Universal Design Handbook, ed. W. F. E. Preiser
and E. Ostroff, pp. 10.3–10.19. New York: McGraw Hill.
Story, M. F., J. L. Mueller, and R. L. Mace. (1998).
“The Universal Design File: Designing for People of All Ages
and Abilities.” Retrieved August 7, 2003, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/pubs/center/books/ud_file/toc3b14.htm.
Tabs, E. D. (2003). Distance Education at Degree-Granting
Postsecondary Institutions: 2001–2002. U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved September 5, 2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003017.pdf.
TechDis. (n.d.). Retrieved August 27, 2003 from http://www.techdis.ac.uk/PDA/front.htm.
Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines. (1998).
36 CFR Part 1193. RIN 3014-AA19. Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/html/telfinal.htm.
———. (n.d.). Retrieved January 24,
2003, from http://www.access-board.gov/telecomm/html/telfinl2.htm.
Telecommunications Industry Association, Access (TIA
Access). (1996). Resource Guide for Accessible Design of Consumer
Electronics. Designer’s Guide to Accessible Design. Retrieved
September 2003 from
http://www.tiaonline.org/access/guide.html.
Telecomworldwire. (2002). “Datamonitor Issues
Predictions for Voice Recognition Market.” Retrieved October
5, 2003. from
http://web2.infotrac.galegroup.com/itw/infomark/899/930/41123108w2/purl=rc1_PRS_0_A88830418&dyn=4!xrn_1_0_A88830418?sw_aep=cmlweb.
Telephones, Mobil Cellular: (2003). The World Factbook
2003. Telecommunications data. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved
September 2003 from
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2151.html.
Terrell v. USAIR, 132 F. 3d 621 11th Cir. (1998).
(Denial of access to modified keyboard not a violation where employee
not required to type in its absence.)
ThinkEquity Partners. (2003). National Science Foundation.
Retrieved September 2003 from http://www.usdla.org/ppt/THINKEQUITY.ppt.
Thunderbird. (n.d.). “Distance Learning Benefits.”
Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://www.t-bird.edu/exec_ed/ethunderbird/benefits.htm.
Tobias, J., and G. Vanderheiden. (1998). “Why
Companies Might Adopt Universal Design: An Initial Report from the
Universal Design Research Project.” Proceeding of RESNA 1998
annual conference, pp.349–351.
Trace Research and Development Center. (1999). Excerpt
from “User Interface for All.” Constantin Stephanidis.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Retrieved August 28,
2003, from http://www.trace.wisc.edu/docs/phones/tcrd1/summary/index.htm.
Turkey. (2004). United States and Foreign Commercial
Service Market Research Report. “Leading Sectors for U.S.
Exports and Investments (Turkey) FY2004.” [07/10/2003]. Erik
Hunt. Retrieved August 2004 from http://www.stat-usa.gov/mrd.nsf/vwCCG_Country/7387566F3CEA48F885256EEE002E2B58?OpenDocument&sessID=E00808B01264BF5.
U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service and U.S. Department
of State. China Country Commercial Guide FY 2003: Leading Sectors.
Market Research Reports. Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.stat-usa.gov/MRD.NSF/vwCCG_Country/4BB189FCD050B06285256DE20034574B?OpenDocument&sessID=509B12272323E94.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1997). Census Brief (CENBR/97-5),
p. 2. Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cenbr975.pdf.
———. (2000). “Characteristics
of the Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population by Age, Disability
Status, and Type of Disability: 2000.” Census 2000 Brief.
Retrieved August 28, 2003, from
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disable/disabstat2k/table1.html.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2003). “Technology
Assessment of the U.S. Assistive Technology Industry.” Retrieved
January 7, 2003, from http://67.98.119.215/atreportweb/.
(USDLA) U.S. Distance Learning Association. (n.d.).
“Resources: Research Information and Statistics.” Retrieved
October 5, 2003, from http://www.usdla.org.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2002). No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001, H.R. 1. Retrieved August 28, 2003, from
http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/107th/education/nclb/nclb.htm.
University of Washington DO-IT (Disabilities, Opportunities,
Internetworking, and Technology). (n.d.). World Wide Access: Accessible
Web Design. Retrieved June 4, 2003, from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Technology/universal.design.html.
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. (2002). W3C
Recommendation, 17 December 2002. Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/.
Vanderheiden, G. (n.d.). Fundamental Principles and
Priority Setting for Universal Usability. Retrieved August 7, 2003,
from http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/fundamental_princ_and_priority_acmcuu2000/index.htm.
———. (1990). “Thirty-Something
(Million): Should They Be Exceptions.” Human Factors, 32(4),
383–396. Available at http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/30_some/30_some.htm.
———. (1997). Design for People with
Functional Limitations Resulting from Disability, Aging, and Circumstance.
In (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, ed. G. Salvendy.
2nd ed., pp.2010–2052. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
———. (2001). “Fundamentals
and Priorities for Design of Information and Telecommunication Technologies.”
In Universal Design Handbook, ed. W. F. E. Preiser and E. Ostroff,
pp. 65.3–65.15. New York: McGraw Hill.
Vodafone K.K. (2003). “Vodafone K.K. Introduces
Japan’s First Handset with Built-In TV Tuner.” Retrieved
September 2003 from
http://www.vodafone.jp/english/release/2003/031014e.pdf
Vodafone K.K. (2003.) “Vodafone K.K. Launches
Sha-mail Card Service. Picture Messages Can Now Be Sent to Mailboxes.”
Retrieved September, 2003 from
http://www.vodafone.jp/english/release/2003/031029e.pdf.
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative. (n.d.). Checklist
of Checkpoints for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. Retrieved
June 4, 2003, from
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/full-checklist.html.
———. (n.d.). Policies Relating to
Web Accessibility. Retrieved October 5, 2003, from http://www.w3.org/WAI/Policy/#Introduction.
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. (1999).
W3C Recommendation, 5 May 1999. Retrieved September 2003 from http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/.
White House. (2001). President’s New Freedom
Initiative. Retrieved August 28, 2003, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/newfreedom/.
Winograd, T., ed. (1997). “Interspace and an
Every-Citizen Interface to the National Information Infrastructure.”
In More Than Screen Deep: Toward Every-Citizen Interfaces to the
Nation’s Information Infrastructure. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press. Available at http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/screen.
Wireless Phone Used to Withdraw Cash from ATM in Europe.
(2002). Retrieved September 2003 from http://www.3g.co.uk/PR/April2002/3271.htm.
Workforce Investment Act of 1998. (1998). P.L. 105-220,
Sec. 408(b), “Electronic and Information Technology,”
codified at 29 USC Sec. 794d.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508law.html
World Bank, World. (2002). Development Indicator Database.
Retrieved September 2003 from http://publications.worldbank.org/subscriptions/WDI/.
World Information Technology and Services Alliance.
(2003). Public Policy Report 2003: List of Key E&IT Industry
Issues That Will Need To Be Addressed If the Promises of a Global
IT Infrastructure and Digital Economy Are To Be Fulfilled.
XML Accessibility Guidelines. (2002). W3C Working
Draft, 3 October 2002. Retrieved September 2003 from http://www.w3.org/TR/xag.html.
Yahoo.com. (n.d.). “Pocket Films Store.”
Retrieved October 5, 2003, from
http://store.yahoo.com/pocketpcfilms/xsxtremwinsp.html.
ZDNet Australia. (2002). “New Software Brings
Lip-Reading to Mobiles.” Retrieved September 2003 from
http://www.phonechoice.com.au/index.cfm?section=newsarchive&page=35
Appendix
Mission of the National Council on Disability
Overview and Purpose
The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent
federal agency with 15 members appointed by the President of the
United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The overall purpose
of NCD is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures
that guarantee equal opportunity for all individuals with disabilities
regardless of the nature or significance of the disability and to
empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency,
independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects
of society.
Specific Duties
The current statutory mandate of NCD includes the
following:
• Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing
basis, policies, programs, practices, and procedures concerning
individuals with disabilities conducted or assisted by federal departments
and agencies, including programs established or assisted under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or under the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, as well as all statutes
and regulations pertaining to federal programs that assist such
individuals with disabilities, to assess the effectiveness of such
policies, programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and regulations
in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.
• Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing
basis, new and emerging disability policy issues affecting individuals
with disabilities at the federal, state, and local levels and in
the private sector, including the need for and coordination of adult
services, access to personal assistance services, school reform
efforts and the impact of such efforts on individuals with disabilities,
access to health care, and policies that act as disincentives for
individuals to seek and retain employment.
• Making recommendations to the President, Congress,
the Secretary of Education, the director of the National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and other officials of
federal agencies about ways to better promote equal opportunity,
economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and
integration into all aspects of society for Americans with disabilities.
• Providing Congress, on a continuing basis,
with advice, recommendations, legislative proposals, and any additional
information that NCD or Congress deems appropriate.
• Gathering information about the implementation,
effectiveness, and impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.).
• Advising the President, Congress, the commissioner
of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the assistant secretary
for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within the Department
of Education, and the director of the National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the programs to
be carried out under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
• Providing advice to the commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration with respect to the policies
and conduct of the administration.
• Making recommendations to the director of
the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research
on ways to improve research, service, administration, and the collection,
dissemination, and implementation of research findings affecting
persons with disabilities.
• Providing advice regarding priorities for
the activities of the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council
and reviewing the recommendations of this council for legislative
and administrative changes to ensure that such recommendations are
consistent with NCD’s purpose of promoting the full integration,
independence, and productivity of individuals with disabilities.
• Preparing and submitting to the President
and Congress an annual report titled National Disability Policy:
A Progress Report.
International
In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department of State
to be the U.S. government’s official contact point for disability
issues. Specifically, NCD interacts with the special rapporteur
of the United Nations Commission for Social Development on disability
matters.
Consumers Served and Current Activities
Although many government agencies deal with issues
and programs affecting people with disabilities, NCD is the only
federal agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommendations
on issues of public policy that affect people with disabilities
regardless of age, disability type, perceived employment potential,
economic need, specific functional ability, veteran status, or other
individual circumstance. NCD recognizes its unique opportunity to
facilitate independent living, community integration, and employment
opportunities for people with disabilities by ensuring an informed
and coordinated approach to addressing the concerns of people with
disabilities and eliminating barriers to their active participation
in community and family life.
NCD plays a major role in developing disability policy
in America. In fact, NCD originally proposed what eventually became
the ADA. NCD’s present list of key issues includes improving
personal assistance services, promoting health care reform, including
students with disabilities in high-quality programs in typical neighborhood
schools, promoting equal employment and community housing opportunities,
monitoring the implementation of the ADA, improving assistive technology,
and ensuring that those persons with disabilities who are members
of diverse cultures fully participate in society.
Statutory History
NCD was established in 1978 as an advisory board within
the Department of Education (P.L. 95-602). The Rehabilitation Act
Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-221) transformed NCD into an independent
agency.
|