Scientific and technological reports

Bridging the Gap?
Access to telecommunciations for all people

3.3 Industry Awareness and Transfer in Europe and the USA

3.3.1 Introduction

There has undoubtedly been an increase over the last decade of awareness in the industry of issues relating to the design of products for people with limited ability and, for example, the terms "Design for All" or "Inclusive design" are usually well-known if not always fully understood.

The question still nevertheless arises as to whether industry awareness, or lack of it, is still a factor preventing more products from reaching the market? If so what can be done to increase awareness? Or have we now reached a phase where it no longer is a matter of awareness but more of willingness to react to this information? In this case, what can be done to allay industry apprehension and "persuade" decision makers to adopt inclusive design principles? In some cases this has already happened and the next question is how to assist industry and how to efficiently transfer the information they need to have, in order to incorporate accessibility concepts successfully into their overall corporate structure in a systematic approach.

Figure 3-4. Illustration of various states of adoption of the industry

There is no single straightforward answer to the question illustrated in Figure 3-4. It depends very much from country to county. In Japan, for example, a sign of increased awareness can be seen in the recent publication of the guidelines "Accessibility Guideline for Electrical Communication Facilities for the Disabled" [Electrical Communication Access Committee] which are an important tool in informing and assisting industry. There is also a marked difference between the situation in the EU and the United States of America where legislation has had a profound effect on awareness and take-up of these issues. For this reason the situation in Europe and the USA will be treated separately.

3.3.2 The Situation in Europe
Hannele Hyppönen

Introduction

The absence in the EU of similar legislation to the USA has meant that the only basis for the European approach has been co-operation with industry and information transfer. The EU-funded INCLUDE project is one good example of such a co-operation. One of the main findings of this project was that "Design for All" experts need to understand industry in a much more profound way in order to work with them and to create motivation, useful tools and information about design for all.

As already mentioned, it is not possible to give a simple and generalised answer regarding European Industry, as to what is the state of adoption and awareness as shown in figure 3-4. The examples given in sub-chapter 2.1 clearly show that some companies have been "converted" to the inclusive design concept and are manufacturing products for the market. It is not clear as to whether these were part of a systematic approach and integrated within the company structure or individual efforts.

A growing number of companies are aware of these issues but many are still either unconvinced by the business case or still confused as to what exactly is expected of them. This can be described as being in a state of apprehension based on a range of understandable if often misconceived beliefs and fears. The reaction within the industry to the recent publication and distribution of the Telecommunications Charter by the UK COST 219bis reference group is just one such example [PERRET, B]. Another example is the disappointing response to the invitation to participate in the EU Workshop and fair in Klagenfurt in September 2000 [PROMISE, p.9]. The question is therefore how to allay some of these fears and persuade these companies to adopt inclusive design. First of all let us look at some of the beliefs and concerns that have been identified.

Beliefs and Concerns

It should be stressed that this is an attempt to understand and analyse the genuine concerns of industry. It should not be seen as litany of complaints towards industry but as an insight into their needs for the benefit of promoters of the "Design for All" concept with some suggestions of how best to approach these issues.

No Money to be made

The main aim of companies is naturally to make money. They may believe that there is no money to be made in markets consisting of people with reduced functional abilities, especially older people and people with severe disabilities. Design for All experts need to collect and disseminate results of research that show the cost-benefits of Design for All. A problem with current calculations is, that time to market is often used as the main figure expressing productivity, not break-even or long-term gain, which would have more potential in showing benefits of Design for All in the longer term. Another problem is that benefits to people without disabilities are usually not included.

Cost Considerations

Usability engineering is frequently considered both time-consuming and costly and its use is therefore discouraged. However, this can be very short-sighted as the emphasis should be on time to break even and not time to market, as indicated for example by Peter Conklin (INCLUDE). By meeting user needs and thus increasing product acceptance, it is possible to shorten the time to break even, thus increasing the economic success of the industry. The INCLUDE report posits that taking user needs into account during development by using usability engineering methods can be cost-efficient and produce cost savings cost savings. (www.stakes.fi/include/incb240.html)

There are undoubtedly some companies which may believe that designing and manufacturing customisable products to fill the many requirements of people with varying abilities is more expensive than traditional design: a company designs a product family, for example, along with separate accessories for the varying requirements. Some companies may worry that it is very expensive to communicate accessibility features to the users. This may include training retailers, developing targeted marketing etc. The return on this investment is not foreseen. Companies may also believe that it is more expensive and time consuming to incorporate the needs of people with varying abilities into product design than to design for a very homogeneous user group. Superficially this may seem true, but a deeper look into the issue generates strong doubts. User groups are very rarely if ever homogeneous. Also, situations and contexts of use vary and can make any of us temporarily disabled. Products which take into account the needs of people with varying abilities in varying contexts/situations need not be any more expensive to manufacture than products designed for an imaginary standard customer. Designing for a 'standard' customer may create a "lost opportunity cost" of between 20 % and 50% of potential users.

Another argument often heard is that it is too time-consuming, and therefore costly, to involve end-users as well as there being a risk of involving outsiders. One of the biggest identified problems in user and producer co-operation is the lack of common language [POULSEN, D., KAULIO, M.]. However, There are many well-documented examples of how the use of user-centred design methods can lead to cost savings [NIELSEN J.]. Unfortunately, many cost-savings are not directly visible in the short term; many show up only some time after the release of the product. A lack of consideration of usability issues does, however, also show up during product development: in one study on cost estimates it was found that about 63% of large software engineering projects significantly overran their estimates. Twenty-four different reasons for this were given, out of which the four most important ones were related to (a lack of) usability engineering, reported by Lederer and Prasad 1992 in [NIELSEN, J.]. Moreover, if the system is not tested for usability by the company, it is tested by their customers when struggling to use it. Knowledge of problems found will spread around and undermine company reputation.

According to Nielsen, meeting the resulting requests for improvements will be about 100 times more expensive than to implement usable solutions in the early phases of product development.

Need to have all the solutions

Companies may be afraid that if applying design for all, they truly have to have all the solutions for everyone. The "Design for All" term is not helpful in this sense. Design for all should be promoted as a 3-level activity, inclusive design / adaptable interfaces / specific solutions. It is also worth pointing out that the inclusive design approach can often cover many of the needs of people with minor disabilities who form the largest group of disabled users.

Damage to the brand and company image

Simple, easy-to-use devices may in some instances be seen as reducing a company's image as a high-tech market leader. Many manufacturers tend to base their development work on the idea, that each new product has to have some new features on top of the existing ones. A large number of industrial companies also often want to foster their image as producers of goods for young, successful, high-tech people. They may not want to be associated with older or fragile people. In addition, some companies may also be afraid of doing something that the competitors are not doing. There is a need to carry out case studies to show, that producing usable, accessible design creates a positive image, showing their social responsibility and ethics in design and marketing (60% of Europeans think, that industries are not taking their social responsibility seriously).

The factors in creating motivation

There is still a wide range of factors impeding the adoption of inclusive design concepts by industry. The main ones that have been identified are given below along with an indication of what can or should be done to help bridge these gaps.

Accessibility and Usability

Accessibility is often separated from usability within the company, and also promoted separately from usability. This happens even though accessibility can be regarded as increasing usability for as many potential users as possible. Usability is being gradually accepted in industry as an important aspect of product quality, but it does not help to raise the essential questions of: "Usability for whom?", "In which environment and situation?". Instead of considering the needs of older people and people with disabilities in mainstream design, they have been considered in the design of niche products, e.g. assistive technology or disability aids, which provide separate, often stigmatising solutions for these user groups. In recent years this position has been altered to some extent, however, as the Universal Design, or Design for All movement has taken off. It is now appreciated by many that the traditional concept of designing for the 95th percentile is no longer appropriate in many cases. Instead, designing for the full range of user capabilities is more useful. Accessibility integrated into usability would also help to extend an already accepted aspect of quality towards Design for All. Concepts related to usability and accessibility and how they are and can be related need further examination.

Another important point is that accessibility and usability should be regarded as integral parts of the quality system of the company as a whole, in the same way that modern approaches see quality and marketing as integral parts in the process of constructing the outcome. Just as marketing does not work when it is merely a department, usability and accessibility engineering must be well co-ordinated with other company departments [ULRICH, K.T, KOTLER, P.]. This is sometimes not helped by the fact that advocates of accessibility and usability engineering and inclusive design tend to offer concrete support mainly to just one functional part of the industrial activity: the design process. Producing usable, accessible products requires teamwork, where input from all processes in the industry is needed. This is the responsibility of the management to put in place the necessary infrastructure, and also the responsibility of the disability research community to provide resources that make this process easier.

The decision to include usability and accessibility in company goals demands a commitment from the whole organisation. There has to be a supportive environment. Only then is it feasible to train personnel to start applying user-centred design methodology and tools. If you wish to check if usability and accessibility issues are a problem in your company, one of the two quick tests described in the INCLUDE Web pages (www.stakes.fi/include/inca031.htm) can be performed. If the result is not satisfactory, then it may be in order to rethink the design process to conform to a human-centred design process, such as that described in the standard ISO13407 (www.iso.ch/cate/d21197.html). The final outcome can only be constructed together by industry, users and other stakeholders.

Lack of data about requirements related to varying functional ability

The "Design for All" specialists do not produce data about requirements related to varying functional abilities of potential users that can easily and quickly be integrated into the design process. Guidelines are good to have, but information should also be available about those technical specifications, which would increase the number of users for whom the device/service is usable. (e.g. if your display contrast ratio is x, then the design is usable for xx% users, if it is y, then it is usable for yy% users).

Need to focus on functional abilities

Design for all specialists speak about disabled and elderly users as if they would be separate market segments, instead of speaking of markets, that consist of people with varying abilities. Medical ethos is directing us. There is a need to stop focusing on disabilities and start focusing on functional abilities, that vary not only due to factors related to individuals' health and functioning or age, but also due to personal history, task, situation and environment.

Lack of demand

Many manufacturers do not design usable products, because retailers are not demanding them. The retailers are not getting usable products because manufacturers do not design them. Consumer organisations can play an important role in pressuring companies to see the market demands. User-empowerment and the potential of using a "bottom-up" approach are discussed further in sub-chapter 3-4.

Greater co-operation with industry

Design for All specialists commit the same sin as they blame designers for: they 'design' tools (design methodologies and methods) for the industry without knowledge of the context in which they are used, without asking about industries' needs and requirements, and without involving them in the process. Guidelines are created for the industry without sufficient co-operation with the industry telling them how things should be done. The image of design for all specialists needs to change, in order to stress, that they work with the industry to help them, not to criticise them or create problems for them.

There are also not enough direct contacts and forums to co-operate with the industry. One forum is the COST219 national reference groups. There is a need to co-operate with individual organisations and trade organisations, that reach the industry as a whole. Just such a telecommunications industry forum for has been recently set up in the UK allowing an exchange of information in a less confrontational style.

From motivation to developing the design activities

As part of the INCLUDE project, Handbook of Inclusive Design was written in co-operation with industry and researchers. It goes through a design process step by step, starting from the management and strategy level, and ending in after sales, showing checkpoints, where usability and accessibility can be integrated into the decision making at each phase, generating better products and services for more users. Figure 3-5 depicts the core of the Handbook with the different industrial processes.

Figure 3-5. Development processes in detail

3.3.3 The Situation in the USA
Chris Law, Gregg Vanderheiden,

Introduction

As already mentioned, the introduction of legislation in the USA has had a major effect on industry awareness to these issues. This sub-chapter focuses on the process of bridging the gap between access regulations and accessible mass market information technology products [LAW, C. 2001]. Any new product goes through a development process where it is attended to by people from various industry disciplines: design, evaluation, marketing, safety etc. Academic, governmental and other groups who are looking to help industry build accessible products must provide not only regulations, standards and guidelines, but also tools and resources for designers to understand accessibility, and apply accessible / universal design techniques quickly and effectively.

Why regulate?

In the US, three significant regulations have been passed in the 1990s which affect accessibility of products: The Americans with Disabilities Act [ADAAG], Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act [TAAG], and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act [Section 508] (see sub-chapter 3.5.5 for a summary of the regulations).

Regulations typically come about when industry is not doing something of its own accord. For example, prior to 1990, wheelchair ramps to buildings were a rarity in the US. Now they are available for accessing most public and public access buildings. This is due to implementation of the ADA. Regulations can be thought of as societies' way of taking things that would not ordinarily get done due to normal business pressures, and making them into normal business pressures [VANDERHEIDEN, TOBIAS, 2000]. If strong and enforced, regulations can move societal beliefs directly into the profit/loss equations of a company. For example, the product cannot be shipped unless it meets a regulation, then it is decidedly unprofitable not to meet the regulation.

After making the business case

Once the business case for looking at accessible design has been established (including market, regulatory, and positioning factors), the next stage is in linking these objectives to the product evaluation and design process. Anytime there is an abrupt change in the design process or product functionality, there is a discontinuity in the product design process that must be bridged. If the entire industry shifts to a new technology, then all of the knowledge base in a company that was based on the old technology needs to be updated to incorporate the new technology. In some cases, individuals with this expertise can be brought in. In some cases, the specific technical expertise comes up from students coming into the company from academia, and it is combined with technical knowledge of the market and product design that is inherent in the company.

The current rapid shift of emphasis to products that are accessible by people with disabilities represents just such a discontinuity. Companies are rapidly being expected to design products that are usable by a customer base that they are unfamiliar with and which have skills and limitations for which they received little or no training.

Our goal in the following is to highlight some of the common problems that have occurred in recent years as manufacturers have tried to make this rapid shift to creating accessible (or universally designed) electronic products and to highlight some of the U.S.-based projects which are intended to help companies as they bridge some of the knowledge gaps.

Common problems

Many areas of industry have been affected by disability regulations during the last decade, but it is only within the last few years that disability resources in the area of design and evaluation processes have emerged from academia and government agencies. Before considering current resources, it is useful to examine some previous design problems that have, in part, led to the need for the creation of new design resources. It is not the authors' wish to cite any particular company in discussing these problems; therefore, the following examples are anecdotal based on the authors' experience in the accessibility/ universal design field.

In working with companies, a number of common themes or problems have emerged. These include:

Problem #1 - Trying to understand everything about disability and ageing at design time

Often designers first encounter the topic of accessible design when they are asked to make a current or new product usable by people with disabilities or the ageing. Immediately they set out in search of something that will tell them "what they should do." There are literally thousands of resources (books, conferences, organisations, on-line resources) concerning disability or ageing. Given their product design timelines, there is not time for them to begin to master all of this information. Although they may develop expertise over time, the more immediate need is to figure out good mechanisms for learning the essentials and tapping into the expertise of others.

Problem #2 - Believing that the charge is to design a product which will work for every single person with a disability

If the mandate from management is to come up with a design that is "usable by people with disabilities," a common misconception on the part of designers is that they are being asked to meet the needs of people with "all" disabilities. In part, this is caused by a misunderstanding of the term "universal design." Whereas the term "universal design" or "design for all" is meant to indicate that everybody's needs and capabilities should be taken into account when designing a product (and the product should be designed to meet as many of them as possible), it does not mean that every product can be designed to work with every person no matter what the severity or combinations of their disabilities. When one considers the varying needs in the major categories of disabilities (hearing, vision, physical manipulation, and cognition), it is easy to envision a product a number of modes, multiple sets of controls, and a variety of form factors. There will always be people with some combination of disabilities that will not be able to use the product. Fortunately, the direction that modern electronic products are heading allows their interfaces to be designed in flexible fashion which is making it possible to create products that are usable by people with an ever-widening range of abilities and disabilities. There are limitations, however, on the ability of standard products to be able to work with individuals who have severe and multiple disabilities. The difficult part is figuring out how to reach the greatest number of people who can be practically and commercially reached while still working within the limits imposed by the product and current technologies.

Problem #3 - Creating a separate product for people with disabilities

Faced with the unknowns of building accessibility into standard products, one alternative often considered is to build a special product only for people with disabilities. The thought here is that creating a "special product" would allow them to use large buttons, large fonts, high contrast on everything, etc. Designers may also feel that this approach is necessary if they believe that making products more accessible to people who are blind would make them less accessible to people who are deaf, etc. This approach, when tried in the past, has led to a number of problems. First, there are many different types of disabilities and if products must be designed for each of them, then the product line for people with disabilities grows very quickly to be larger than the standard product line. Secondly and more importantly, people who have disabilities shop and purchase their products in the same stores as everyone else. Special models are usually not known nor ever discovered by the vast majority of people who have disabilities. As a result, the number purchased is extremely small. A third problem stems from the fact that mass market companies do not have the marketing, distribution, or sales mechanisms to be able to identify and target very small, highly dispersed populations which is the market represented by people with disabilities. Finally, many individuals needing these adaptations are older and would not purchase "special products" because they are stigmatising and/or more expensive. Special products are designed and sold by assistive technology manufacturers who generally address the special needs in this area. These products, however, are usually only effectively marketed to individuals with very severe disabilities who cannot be reached through more accessible design or adaptation of special products. Developing and selling special versions of standard products is usually not practical, profitable or effective for mass market manufacturers.

Problem #4 - Mistaking product users for product designers

Another common mistake is to believe that the average person with a disability (or who is older) will be able to tell a product developer how to design a product that is accessible to people with disabilities. Although involving consumers in the design and evaluation of products is a critical component in the overall design process (as it is in the design of all products), the average person with disabilities is only able to design effective interfaces for people with disabilities to the same extent that the average person off the street is able to design effective interfaces for the average person off the street. In addition, there is a problem that the products need to have cross-disability accessible interfaces. That is, interfaces which work well across a range of people with different disabilities. Individuals with one type of disability may not have any experience or even knowledge about what would work for someone with a different disability. Even people with the same types of disability can vary widely in their preferences and abilities. For example, a group of individuals who are blind may be called on to participate in a design process. All of the individuals in the group may be able to read Braille and would suggest Braille as a strategy that would work well in making a particular product accessible for them. However, according to the National Health Interview Survey, less than 10% of the people who are legally blind read Braille. Thus, it would be a very good solution for those queried, but it would not be a viable solution for the greater population of people who are legally blind. For greater coverage, speech or speech plus Braille would need to be used. In seeking consumer input, it is therefore important that input from a very broad range of consumers, representing all types, degrees and combinations of disabilities, needs to be obtained either from such a broad range of individuals, or from individuals (including those with disabilities) who are experts in cross disability access issues.

Resources

The following is a listing of some U.S. projects and programmes that can act as resources to designers and evaluators seeking to create more accessible products.

The Universal Design Research Project

The Universal Design Research Project [Universal Design] was a three year study to gain an understanding of why and how companies adopt universal design, and what factors are the most important in a company making the decision to create accessible products. The study also examined factors that discouraged or impeded the adoption and successful practice of universal design.

The list of factors that were assembled in this project can be used as a resource for analysing the state of accessibility / universal design in any company, and therefore help in creating plans to address those issues that threaten the design process.

Market Monitoring Report

The U.S. Access Board, in order to monitor industry progress made year-to-year regarding the requirements of the Telecommunications Act, Section 255 [TAAG], commissioned a "Market Monitoring Report" (MMR) [U.S. Access Board]. The MMR was intended to be an initial baseline for how telecommunications and customer premises equipment were being designed to meet the Section 255 guidelines. The MMR gives designers an analysis of what the telecommunications industry was doing as a whole, and therefore an edge in the competitive analysis stage of product development.

Information Technology Training and Technical Assistance Centre

A new centre has just been funded and started up this year under funding from the US Department of Education. The center(1) is focused on providing training and technical assistance on accessible design of information and telecommunication technologies and universal design. The centre is developing its own training materials and also working in conjunction with other rehabilitation engineering research centres and resources, in the United States, in this area.

(1) Trace Center Website: trace.wisc.edu

Section 508 and Section 255 Websites

To facilitate locating information on these two pieces of U.S. legislation as well as resources for addressing them, special websites have been set up. One is focused on electronic and information technology (which includes telecommunication) as covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act(2). The other website is focused on Section 255(3).

(2) Section 508 website. Available: www.section508.gov/
(3) Section 255 website. Available: www.fcc.gov/cib/dro/section255.html

Consultants and Private Resources

Very important components in the overall system are the individual companies and private consultants who are providing expertise and advice in this area. Although the number of people with extensive experience in this area is quite small at the present time, the recent demand is causing rapid growth in this area. A listing of consultants is being maintained by ITTATC(4).

(4) Information Technology Training and Technical Assistance Center. Available: www.ittatc.org/

Useful services and tools

The following resources are also proving useful tools in helping the industry design, produce and market accessible products.

On-line Universal Design Evaluation Tool

An example is a tool consisting of a Product Design Ideas Browser and a Universal Design Custom Bibliography Tool. In its first embodiment, the Ideas Browser uses the structure of the Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines [Telecommunications Act]. The Design Tool is in an early stage of development, but it does give a glimpse of how an interactive system might be used to design for people with disabilities. A more detailed paper on this topic and the remaining development activities was presented at the CSUN Conference 2000 [SCHAUER, J.].

Reference Designs

A series of reference designs for cross-disability accessible cell phones. An example is a paper-based design intended to demonstrate how all of the specifications in the Telecommunications Act [TAAG] guidelines can be met. The design is "intended to show how a single phone can be designed so that it would be cross-disability accessible as well as usable and attractive to mass market customers". (Reference Design for Cell Phones. trace.wisc.edu/docs/phones/)

Cross-Disability Access Techniques

A set of cross-disability access techniques that can be applied to standard electronic products. This set of techniques is available for manufacturers to implement on their product as an enhancement to the way their products currently work. These techniques create product accessibility for people who: cannot see, have low vision, cannot read or have reading difficulties, are deaf, are hard-of-hearing, and people with various physical disabilities. An example is the set of low-cost access techniques, called "EZ Access" that utilises speech output, enhanced information display, easy to manipulate controls, and enhanced audio capabilities. EZ Access is part of ongoing research into access to mainstream products, as a means of showing manufacturers how they could put access into their own products. These techniques can be applied to most electronic products including kiosks and ATMs, telephones, microwave ovens, clock radios etc. (trace.wisc.edu/world/ez/)

Usability Screening Techniques

Many product evaluation professionals will not know where to start in the process of recruiting people with disabilities as test subjects, let alone the necessary procedures for successful usability tests on people with disabilities. As part of the general need for designers to be able to create accessible products, there is a need for making it easier for people in industry to conduct user testing on people with disabilities. One idea is to use extensive simulation activities with design and evaluation staff prior to real testing, to "screen out" and thus avoid some of the more "show-stopping" design problems that will be present when one embarks on a programme of design for disability for the first time [LAW, C.].

Training Course in Universal Design

In-depth hands-on training programmes on universal design of electronic products are proving very useful. Selected one-day introductory courses in conjunction with major conferences can also be helpful. These training programmes are co-ordinated with other training programmes around the United States that are carried out by others on related topics. Both descriptive materials for carrying out such screening tasks and kits of materials to facilitate screening evaluations are being developed.

Many of these services can be found, for example, at The Trace Center, which has a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Access to Information Technologies and a joint RERC with Gallaudet University on Access to Telecommunication Technologies (http://trace.wisc.edu).

What is still missing?

The Functional Limitation perspective

Because of the complexities of gaining a thorough understanding of what constitutes "disability," a useful framework to use with designers is that of "functional limitation," rather than "disability." To design something that is usable by people who are blind (including all types of pathologies), is a more daunting task in a designer's mind than the more simple phrase "design the product so that it is usable without relying on the function of user vision." This means, simply, that the product must be usable with only hearing and physical manipulation (via speech output and easy to find controls, for example). If the functional limitation can be addressed in design, be it a sensory, physical or cognitive limitation, the solution may benefit not only people who have a disability, but also people who are working under functionally constrained conditions. For example, a product that is usable without relying on vision is usable by people who have their eyes occupied on another task, people in dark environments, as well as people who are blind or who have low vision, and people with reading difficulties, or people cannot read at all.

There is a need for quick-fire awareness materials on the topic of functional limitation, so that designers can be sure they are covering as many bases as is practical given their resources. Thinking in terms of functional limitations is easier to do, and so removes some of the mental burden from the designer. This postulation is somewhat controversial, however, in that it could be taken as implying that designers do not need to be aware of or really understand disability. This is not the case. Instead, the designer should be asked to think about disability in a non-traditional sense, that is, thinking in terms of what functions the product should provide to overcome functional limitations of users in broad terms (a designer who understands the difference between cataracts and diabetic retinopathy is not as valuable as a designer who knows that the products should work for the user in at least one mode that does not require the user to be able to see).

A "functional limitations" orientation is already a part of many projects. The creation of resources relating to the functional limitation perspective of design is required, to enable more manufacturers to create cross-disability accessible products in a time efficient manner.

There is also a general need for more resources which cover each part of the design process from start to finish. Currently there are a number of individual resources for certain parts of the process (i.e. usability testing), but there are various gaps which need to be filled, in order for designers of mass-market products to be able to quickly assimilate and act on disability access issues.

3.3.4 Conclusion

Industry awareness and transfer of information is clearly an area where there are still many gaps that need to be bridged. The state of awareness and up-take of the inclusive design concept varies greatly from one country to another. It is clear that the introduction of legislation in the USA has had a major effect although the introduction of inclusive designs has been very slow. The situation in the USA has also highlighted the services and tools that industry needs to help them in this process.
The situation in Europe is more mixed where the lack of similar legislation makes it more difficult to make the business case. The approach is based on co-operation with the industry. The jury is still out as to whether companies in the EU will adopt and incorporate inclusive design into their corporate structure without the introduction of legislation. This will certainly vary from country to country depending on the social and cultural context. It is however interesting to note that The INCLUDE Website gets more visitors from countries where the legislation requires anti-discrimination in the telecommunications and teleinformatics field; i.e. countries where the law requires new information-society devices and services to be accessible also to disabled people and older people [INCLUDE]. There can be no doubt that legislation would certainly speed up the process and give a major push in bridging many of the gaps.

3.3.5 References

ADAAG, (1991), The Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm

IINLCUDE (2000). Include Handbook. www.stakes.fi/include/handbook., 2nd revised edition: Handbook on Inclusive Design of Telematics Applications, Themes 2/2000, National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, Helsinki.

ISO, ISO 13407:1999(E) Human-centred design processes for interactive systems, 1999, ISO (the International Organisation for Standardisation).

KAULIO, M., et al. (1995). Product requirements engineering: methods, mediating objects and preconditions in SMEs. in the 10th International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED '95. Praha.

KOTLER, P., Marketing management. Analysis, planning, implementation and control. Ninth edition ed. 1997, London: Prentice-Hall.

LAW, C.M. (2001), Keeping designers up with the times... projects for enabling the rapid development of universally accessible information technology by industry. Presented at the Inclusion by Design World Congress, Montreal, Canada 1-5 June 2001. www.ccrw.org/worldcongress/proceeding.htm

LAW, C. M, & VANDERHEIDEN G. C., (1999). Tests for screening product designs prior to user testing by people with functional limitations. HFES'99 (Human Factors & Ergonomics Society annual meeting), Houston, TX, September 27-October 1.

National Health Interview Survey for the US 194/1995. Census Bureau

NIELSEN, J., (1993) Usability Engineering. London: Academic Press.

PERRET, B. (2001). COST 219bis, Stockholm Conference Proceedings "Bringing Universal Design to the ICT Market, What are the prerequisites?.

POULSON, D., M. Ashby, and S. Richardson, (1996) UserFit. A practical handbook on user-centred design for Assistive technology. Brussels: TIDE 1062 USER project.

PROMISE (1999). Preparing a European Deaf Network for Information and Communication, European Commission, DG "Information Society". www.stakes.fi/promise.

Section 508, Rehabilitation Act, Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. Publishing in the Federal Register on 21 December 2000. Available: www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm

SCHAUER, J (2000) . CSUN annual conference on disability & technology, Los Angeles, March 20-24, 2000. Available:
www.csun.edu/cod/conf2000/proceedings/0110Schauer.html.

TAAG, Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. Publishing in the Federal Register on 3 February 1998. Available: www.access-board.gov/rules/telfinal.htm

The U.S. Access Board Market Monitoring Report. Available www.access-board.gov/mmr/

ULRICH, K.T. and S.D. Eppinger, (1995). Product Design and Development. New York, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Universal Design Research Project. Available: trace.wisc.edu/docs/univ_design_res_proj/udrp.htm

Vanderheiden, G. & Tobias, J. (2000). Universal Design of Consumer Products: Current Industry Practice and Perceptions. In Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 6, 19-22. Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

PREVIOUS PAGE

CONTENTS PAGE

NEXT PAGE