Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 2, Issue 3, pp 215–225 | Cite as

Countering design exclusion: bridging the gap between usability and accessibility

Special issue on countering design exclusion

Abstract

It is known that many people are being excluded unnecessarily from using products, services and environments that are essential for supporting independence and quality of life. Such exclusion often arises from designers taking inadequate account of the end user’s functional capabilities when making design decisions. This paper addresses how traditional usability techniques can be extended to include accessibility issues by considering the spread of user functional capabilities across the population. A series of measures for evaluating the level of design exclusion based on those capabilities is also presented.

Keywords

Inclusive design cube Inclusive merit Inclusive design knowledge loop 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    (1990) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, US Public Law 101–336, USA Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benktzon M (1993) Designing for our future selves: the Swedish experience. Appl Ergonom 24(1):19–27 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    British Standards Institute (1991) BS4467: guide to designing for elderly people. BSI, London, UK Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowe FG (2000) Universal design in education. Bergin & Gavey, Westport, CT Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buhler C (1998) Robotics for rehabilitation – a European(?) perspective. Robotica 16(5):487–490 Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper A (1999) The inmates are running the asylum. SAMS Publishing, Indianapolis, IN Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    (1995) The Disability Discrimination Act - Ch. 50, Department for Education and Employment, UK. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dong H, Keates S, Clarkson PJ (2002) Implementing inclusive design. In: Proceedings of the 7th ERCIM workshop, Paris, pp 173–186 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    FDA (1997) Design control guidance for medical device manufacturers. Center for devices and radiological health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gardner L, Powell L, Page M (1993) An appraisal of a selection of products currently available to older consumers. Appl Ergonom 24(1):35–39 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldsmith S (1997) Designing for the disabled: the new paradigm. Taylor and Francis, London Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grundy E, Ahlburg D, Ali M, Breeze E, Sloggett A (1999) Disability in Great Britain. Department of Social Security, Research report no. 94, Corporate Document Series, London Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hewer S, Kingsland C, D’hondt E, Rietsema J, Westrik H, Brouwer J, Chan S, Coleman R, Gudiksen M, Tahkokallio (1995) The DAN teaching pack: incorporating age-related issues into design courses. RSA, London Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO (1985) Wheelchairs – nomenclature, terms and definitions – ISO6440, ISO, Geneva Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISO (1998) Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs), Part 11: Guidance on usability – ISO9241, ISO, Geneva Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO (2000) Quality management and quality system elements – ISO1007, ISO, Geneva Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keates S, Harrison LJ, Clarkson PJ, Robinson P (2000) Towards a practical inclusive design approach. In: Proceedings of CUU 2000, ACM Press, New York, pp 45–52 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keates S, Clarkson PJ (2003) Countering design exclusion: an introduction to inclusive design. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mahoney R (1997) Robotic products for rehabilitation: Status and strategy. In: Proceedings of international conference on rehabilitation robotics 1997, BIME, Bath, UK, pp 12–22 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martin J, Meltzer H, Elliot D (1988) OPCS surveys of disability in Great Britain. Report 1: The prevalence of disability among adults, HMSO, London, UK Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peebles L, Norris B (1998) Adultdata: the handbook of adult anthropometric and strength measurements – data for design safety. Department of Trade and Industry, London Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pirkl JJ (1993) Transgenerational design: products for an aging population. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    (1973) Rehabilitation Act of 1973, US Public Law 93–112 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shigley JE, Mischke CR (2001) Mechanical engineering design. McGraw-Hill, New York Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smith S, Norris B, Peebles L (2000) Older Adultdata: the handbook of measurements and capabilities of the older adult – data for design safety. UK Department of Trade and Industry, London Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stephanidis C (1997) Editorial: disabled and elderly people in the Information Society. ERCIM News, no. 28, Special issue on information technology empowering disabled and elderly people, pp 4–5 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    W3C (2002) Web Accessibility Initiative. Available at: http://www.w3c.org/WAI/Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    (1988) Workforce Investment Act of 1998, US Public Law 105–220 Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vredenburg K, Isensee S, Righi C (2001) User-centred design: an integrated approach. Prentice-Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations