Inclusive design and assistive technology as part of the HCI curriculum

Transcription

1 Inclusive design and assistive technology as part of the HCI curriculum Helen Petrie and Alistair D N Edwards Department of Computer Science University of York HeslingtonYork YO10 5DD United Kingdom Helen.Petrie Alistair.Edwards@cs.york.ac.uk ABSTRACT Designing for disabled and elderly users is an increasingly important topic within the HCI curriculum, particularly given the current legislative requirements. After introducing the concepts of inclusive design (ID) and assistive technology (AT), we present a number of arguments, some radical, some more conventional, for including them as part of mainstream HCI courses. We introduce some suggestions for what and how one might teach these topics within a mainstream HCI course, and a number of useful resources for teaching them. We conclude with some lessons we have learnt from a number of years of experience in including these topics in our own HCI courses. Keywords HCI education, inclusive design, assistive technology, disabled users, elderly users 1. INTRODUCTION: WHY INCLUDE INCLUSIVE DESIGN AND ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY IN THE HCI CURRICULUM? Know thy users is a common motto in HCI, and many would add for they are not you. No matter how well this message is conveyed to students, though, it usually does not extend to their realizing that users may be very different from them, HCI students being typically young, male (at least in computer science departments) able-bodied and highly technically literate. It is imperative that students learn an awareness of the needs of users with other characteristics, particularly disabled and elderly (potential) users of technologies and how to design and evaluate systems that meet these needs for a number of reasons, as we will discuss below. First we discuss the terms inclusive design and assistive technology, relevant to designing and evaluating for these user groups. 2. INCLUSIVE DESIGN (AND ITS SYNONYMS) AND ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY: AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO TEACHING HCI CONCEPTS Accessible design, design for all, inclusive design, universal design and universal usability are all terms that have been used in recent years to convey a focus on: the design of products and environments to be usable by everyone, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialised design [1] However, as Vanderheiden and colleagues have noted [12, 13], there are probably as many definitions of these concepts, as there are people discussing them, and considerable misunderstanding. A common misunderstanding amongst HCI practitioners is that inclusive design (ID, the term we will use for convenience) requires systems that will be usable by every user, regardless of capability, and that to attempt to achieve this might seriously compromise their designs. Yet the reality is much more complex and interesting and it is important that future HCI professionals realize this. The definition offered by the European Design for All e-accessibility Network (EdeAN) [4] for Design for All adds several more interesting, but less commonly mentioned aspects of the concept, but does incorporate some contradictions to the widely used definition above:

2 Design of products which are easily adaptable to different users (i.e. by incorporating adaptable or customisable user interfaces) Rather than the one size/design fits all philosophy generally associated with ID, here we have a focus on being able to adapt or customise a product or system. Design of products which have standardised interfaces, capable of being accessed by specialised user interaction devices Here we see a definition of ID that actually links to assistive technologies, if one is correct in assuming that this is what is meant by specialised user interaction devices. It is an implicit acknowledgement that ID can only go so far in meeting the needs of users with disabilities and at some point extra technologies are needed to allow them to interact with systems. The definitions of assistive technology (AT) are often very general and in some situations seem unhelpfully broad. For example: Assistive Technology is any product or service designed to enable independence for disabled and older people." (King's Fund Consultation, 14th March 2001) 1 The problem is that one person s mainstream technology might be another person s assistive technology. So if I use a miniature voice recorder to make my shopping list because I cannot see well enough to write one (or read it later), does that make a voice recorder an assistive technology? Well, yes for that person in that situation doing that task. Traditionally, ID and AT have been seen as two distinct topics, but the last component of the EdeAN definition opens up the possibility for an interesting design space around the two concepts. Some of the points in this design space might be: Mainstream system/product, not inclusively designed, only usable by fully able-bodied users (until recently, one would have counted mobile phones in this category, although they have now moved to the category below; unfortunately many consumer products still fall into this category); Mainstream system/product, designed with hooks for assistive technologies to support interaction by disabled or elderly users [7]; the Windows operating system is a good examplar of this category, as it allows ATs such as screen readers access to information to transform into synthetic speech or Braille for blind users [10]; Mainstream system/product with inbuilt but sometimes hidden means for adaptation for different users; browsers allow one to change the size of font (unless hard coded by a website author), but that feature may be more or less easy to find; a recent example which potentially pushes the definition of inclusive design is the inclusion of the screen reader VoiceOver with every Macintosh computer shipped, potentially making Macintosh accessible to blind users (but not yet in reality, xx) Inclusively designed system/product of the one size/system fits all, or at least as many as possible. The BT big button telephone is an excellent example of this category, a phone that was originally designed for elderly people and sold through the special needs catalogue, but within one month of its release it was BT s fourth-best-selling phone and the ninth-best-selling in the market [3]. Systems/products designed specifically for disabled or elderly audiences. These range from the very conceptually simple, such as a very large display digital clock for partially sighted people through to the very sophisticated such as reading systems for blind people that conduct optical character recognition (OCR) on printed text and then convert that text into synthetic speech and allow control of the speech stream for effective reading. 2.1 Inclusive design/at as a microcosm of HCI One reason for setting out this continuum of system types is our first, and most radical, argument for including inclusive design and assistive technology in mainstream HCI courses many of the concepts we teach in HCI are very well illustrated by studying these topics, and one could in fact design a very good HCI course totally 1

3 around them (if one wished). From eliciting and understanding user requirements, considering alternative and imaginative designs, multimodality and interaction devices, through to personalization and user profile and of course evaluation, all these can be addressed through inclusive design and assistive technologies. Even if one chooses not to design one s course around these topics, they serve as excellent illustrations of HCI principles and topics already considered in other parts of an HCI course, and provide a way of reinforcing messages already given. Let us now consider some of the more conventional arguments for including ID and AT in HCI courses. 2.2 Legal requirements Increasingly equality legislation is being introduced which ensures that disabled people have equal access to services, including those delivered through IT. In the UK, the most important law in this respect in the UK is the Disability Discrimination Act 2 (known as the DDA). Although case law is as yet still quite sparse, the case could be made under the DDA that any computer-based service (such as a website) which is not accessible to disabled users is liable under the act. A legally binding Code of Practice from the Disability Rights Commission [1] has made it clear that a website is a service, even if it is only providing information. Comparable legislation is planned in Europe 3 and already exists in the USA (notably the Americans with Disabilities Act 4 and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 amended ) and a number of other countries. Students who on graduation are going to be in charge of IT systems and of their design and implementation ought to understand their legal obligations in this area. 2.3 Economics of development Traditionally accessibility of mainstream systems has been achieved by the retro-fitting of modifications and adaptations to technologies. This has a number of disadvantages, including the fact that it can be very expensive particularly compared with the cost of building accessibility into the initial design. Students need to be encouraged to always adopt an accessible and inclusive approach and to be able to make appropriate arguments for such approaches to their future bosses and clients. 2.4 Market economics At least 10% of the population have a severe disability that may affect their interaction with a computer [5]. The proportion of the population who are elderly is currently increasing globally, and age is the principle cause of disability. For example, by the year 2030 one third of the population of the European Union will be over the age of By designing for disabled and older users, private enterprises can increase their market penetration and public organizations can reach a great proportion of their target audiences. 2.5 The usability bonus Products and services that have been designed for accessibility have repeatedly been shown to be more usable by the general population. Examples range from the BT Big Button phone to websites. The case of the BT phone has been illustrated above. For websites, research undertaken for the Disability Rights Commission [x] found that websites which were high on accessibility criteria were also 35% faster for non-disabled people to use when compared with low accessibility sites, an astonishing efficiency difference. 3. HOW AND WHAT TO TEACH It should be evident from this discussion that what is required is not only specialist courses on designing for disabled users, but also promotion in all HCI (and indeed design) courses of an awareness of the relevant issues: awareness firstly of the existence of people with disabilities, then of their needs in relation to technologies, and finally of how to design to include their needs. This can be achieved, for instance, by the inclusion of one or two LIBE_PR(2005)355475_EN.pdf

4 lectures on the topic within courses on HCI and web design. At the same time it is also possible, and perhaps preferable, to infiltrate information on inclusive design and assistive technology throughout a course. Topics to be covered should include: relevant legislation and legal responsibilities. Characteristics of disabilities and ageing as they are relevant to computer and technology use. How people with disabilities and older people current use technologies: screenreaders, keyboard alternatives, mouse alternatives etc. Inclusive design as a design methodology. This is always difficult to teach in practice, and achieving truly inclusive design is that much more difficult when wish to include a broad range of disabled people. Discussion as to how to achieve this may be most valuable. Disabled people do not represent the only manifestation of diversity. Other groups to discuss include older people, children, speakers of different languages and from different cultures. While the whole point is that their needs are very diverse, the approaches to understanding and meeting those needs can often have a lot in common. One book which supports this approach to teaching is Spolsky [6]. This is a book on interface design which is aimed at programmers (those who may be more interested in the mechanics of an implementation than by its usability) but which makes the point about the usability bonus, as above. Thinking of the average user, Spolsky suggests that programmers should: Design for people who can t read. Design for people who can t use a mouse. Design for people who have such bad memories they would forget their own name if it weren t embossed on their American Express. In so-doing they will not only ease interaction for most users, but they will also accommodate those who literally cannot read, cannot use a mouse or who have cognitive deficits. A number of researchers in HCI and related fields have developed useful frameworks and methodologies for extending user-centred design and evaluation to include the needs of disabled and elderly people. For example, Newell and his colleagues have developed the idea of user sensitive inclusive design [4]. A number of groups have developed guidelines to assist interface and web developers in producing accessible designs, for example the Centre for Universal Design at North Carolina State University have produced very general principles of universal design 7 and the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium have developed a range of guidelines to ensure the accessibility of the Web (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 8, Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 9 and User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 10 ). Other researchers including Law, Barnicle and Henry [2] have developed techniques that developers (and students) can use to understand the needs of disabled users and conduct initial checks on the accessibility and usability of designs for these groups. Studying such materials not only helps students understand the needs of disabled users and how to design for them better, but also helps reflect on the general processes, such as user-centred design, that they are learning in HCI courses. Such material can also lead to useful and challenging student projects. There are many other resources available, particularly via the Web, that are useful for teaching ID and AT. Some we have found particularly useful include: Demonstration versions of assistive technologies, for example demonstration versions of screenreaders, assistive software for dyslexic people, World Wide Web Consortium. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). Available at: 9 World Wide Web Consortium. Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG). Available at: 10 World Wide Web Consortium. User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG). Available at:

5 Lessons learnt from teaching assistive technology and inclusive design In attempting to teach ID and AT as part of general HCI courses for a number of years, we have developed some ideas which may be useful to others in their courses. Of course, we have to teach what we know and feel confident about it. To that end it may be helpful to get some training in disability awareness. Many organizations of disabled people, both local and national, provide such training. Bring assistive technology to life in HCI classes. If possible get a user of assistive technology to come and give a demonstration, particularly of how they use standard packages (such as Word and Excel) and the World Wide Web. For example, you might recruit a blind person who is a competent screenreader user or someone with a physical disability who uses an alternative input device such as a switch system. If you do not know such a person, contact your institution s disability officer for ideas or contact your local organizations of disabled people. Make sure you are able to recompense them appropriately for their time; no-one should be asked to do this for charity. If they choose not to accept a fee, that is fine; you could offer to make a donation to a charity of their choice. In any design exercises that you set, include a requirement for accessibility and inclusive design. Of course, you do not want to overwhelm the students, so expecting them to produce a universally accessible design equally useable by deaf and blind and partially sighted users is unrealistic, but you might ask them to address one of these groups. Later, in discussion of their design it can be instructive to raise the question as to whether opening access to one group has in practice disadvantaged another. Finally, in general turn accessibility into a positive intellectual challenge for students rather than something bolted on or considered separately. Developing a design that meets the needs of the widest possible range of users, or the specific needs of a group of users one is not familiar with, is more difficult and challenging than one that meets the needs only of mainstream users, but is also more intellectually satisfying and stretches students further. REFERENCES 1. Burgstahler, S. (2004). Universal design: principles, process and application. Available at: 2. Disability Rights Commission (2002). Code of Practice: Rights of access to goods, facilities, services and premises. Manchester, UK: Disability Rights Commission. 3. Disability Rights Commission. (2004). The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People. London: The Stationery Office. 4. European Design for All e-accessibility Network (EDeAN). E-Accessibility and Design for All. Available at: 5. Law, C., Barnicle, K. and Henry, S.L. (2000). Usability screening techniques: evaluating for a wider range of environments, circumstances and abilities. Proc. UPA Available at: trace.wisc.edu/docs/usability_screen_techs_upa2000/ usability_screening_techs.htm 6. Leventhal, J. (2005). Not what the doctor ordered: a review of Apple s VoiceOver screen reader. Access World, 6(5). Available at: 7. Lewis, T., C. Eckert and P. J. Clarkson (2004). Product architecture issues within inclusive design. Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Product Structuring - Product Platform Development, Göteborg, pp ( pdf). 8. Newell, A.F. (2003). Inclusive design or assistive technology. In J. Clarkson, R. Coleman, S. Keates, and C. Lebbon (Eds.), Design for the whole population. London: Springer.

6 9. Newell, A.F. and Gregor, P. (2000). User sensitive inclusive design in search of a new paradigm. In J. Scholtz and J. Thomas (Eds.), CUU 2000: First ACM Conference on Universal Usability. New York: ACM Press. 10. Petrie, H. (2001). Acessibility and usability requirements for ICTs for disabled and elderly people: a functional classification approach. In J.G. Abascal and C. Nicolle (Eds.), Inclusive guidelines for human computer interaction. London: Taylor and Francis Petrie, H., O Neill, A-M. and Colwell, C. (2002). Computer access by visually impaired people. In A. Kent and J.G. Williams (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Microcomputers Volume 28. New York: Marcel Dekker. 12. Spolsky, J. (2001). User Interface Design for Programmers. Berkeley, CA: Apress. 13. Vanderheiden, G. (2000). Fundamental principles and priority setting for universal usability. In J. Scholtz and J. Thomas (Eds.), CUU 2000: First ACM Conference on Universal Usability. New York: ACM Press. 14. Vanderheiden, G. and Tobias, J. (1998). Barriers, incentives and facilitators for adoption of universal design practices by consumer product manufacturers