Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 505–526 | Cite as

Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts—one goal? On the concept of accessibility—historical, methodological and philosophical aspects

  • Hans Persson
  • Henrik Åhman
  • Alexander Arvei Yngling
  • Jan Gulliksen
Long paper

Abstract

Accessibility and equal opportunities for all in the digital age have become increasingly important over the last decade. In one form or another, the concept of accessibility is being considered to a greater or smaller extent in most projects that develop interactive systems. However, the concept varies among different professions, cultures and interest groups. Design for all, universal access and inclusive design are all different names of approaches that largely focus on increasing the accessibility of the interactive system for the widest possible range of use. But, in what way do all these concepts differ and what is the underlying philosophy in all of these concepts? This paper aims at investigating the various concepts used for accessibility, its methodological and historical development and some philosophical aspects of the concept. It can be concluded that there is little or no consensus regarding the definition and use of the concept, and consequently, there is a risk of bringing less accessibility to the target audience. Particularly in international standardization the lack of consensus is striking. Based on this discussion, the authors argue for a much more thorough definition of the concept and discuss what effects it may have on measurability, conformance with standards and the overall usability for the widest possible range of target users.

Keywords

Accessibility Usability Disability Design for all Universal access Inclusive design 

References

  1. 1.
    Rømen, D., Svanæs, D.: Validating WCAG versions 1.0 and 2.0 through usability testing with disabled users. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 11(4), 375–385 (2012). doi:10.1007/s10209-011-0259-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stevenson, B., McQuivey, J.: The wide range of abilities and its impact on computer technology: study commissioned by Microsoft corporation and conducted by Forrester research, Inc., in 2003 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Velleman, E., van der Geest, T.: Business case study costs and benefits of implementation of Dutch Webrichtlijnen. Universiteit Twente, Enschede (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stephanidis, C., Emiliani, P.L.: Connecting to the Information Society: a European perspective. Technol. Disabil. J. 10(1), 21–44 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harley, D., Vetere, F., Fitzpatrick, G., Kurniawan, S.: Intergenerational context as an emphasis for design. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 11(1), 1–5 (2012). doi:10.1007/s10209-011-0228-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ANSI: ICC A117. 1-American National Standard for Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities. International Code Council:09-129 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stephanidis, C.: User interfaces for all: new perspectives into human-computer interaction. User Interfaces All Concepts Methods Tools 1, 3–17 (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    EIDD: The EIDD Stockholm Declaration 2004. Adopted on 9 May 2004, at the Annual General Meeting of the European Institute for Design and Disability in Stockholm. Design for All Europe (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hawkes, J.: The fourth pillar of sustainability: culture’s essential role in public planning. Common Ground, Champaign (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Socialdepartementet: Från patient till medborgare: En nationell handlingsplan för handikappolitiken. vol Prop. 1999/2000:79. Socialdepartementet, Stockholm (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    UN: Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml (2006). Accessed 26 April 2014
  12. 12.
    Mace, R.L., Hardie, G.J., Place, J.P.: Accessible environments: toward universal design. North Carolina State University: The Center for Universal Design. http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/pubs_p/pud.htm (1996). Accessed 10 March 2013
  13. 13.
    Connell, B.R., Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., Vanderheiden, G.: The principles of universal design. North Carolina State University, The Center for Universal Design. http://www.ncsu.edu/project/design-projects/udi/center-for-universal-design/the-principles-of-universal-design/ (1997). Accessed 10 March 2013
  14. 14.
    BSI TBSI: Design management systems. Managing inclusive design. Guide. vol BS 7000-6:2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shipley, A.: Creating an inclusive environment. Disability rights commission. http://www.designingaccessiblecommunities.org/policies/CreatingInclusiveEnvironment.pdf (2002). Accessed 26 April 2014
  16. 16.
    Gregor, P., Newell, A.F., Zajicek, M.: Designing for dynamic diversity: interfaces for older people. In: Proceedings of the fifth international ACM conference on Assistive technologies, 2002. ACM, pp. 151–156Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ISO: ISO/IEC Guide 71:2001. Guidelines for standards developers to address the needs of older persons and persons with disabilities (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    USA: Americans with Disabilities Act, As Amended. P.L. 110-325. United States of America (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stephanidis, C., Salvendy, G.: Toward an information society for all: aN international research and development agenda. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 10(2), 107–134 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stephanidis, C., Savidis, A.: Universal access in the information society: methods, tools, and interaction technologies. Univ. Access Inf. Soc. 1(1), 40–55 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenbaum, J., Kyng, M.: Design at work: cooperative design of computer systems. CRC, Boca Raton (1991)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schuler, D., Namioka, A.: Participatory design: principles and practices. CRC, Boca Raton (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bødker, S., Ehn, P., Sjögren, D., Sundblad, Y.: Co-operative design—perspectives on 20 years with ‘the Scandinavian IT Design Model’. In, 2000. pp. 22–24Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taxén, G., Druin, A., Fast, C., Kjellin, M.: KidStory: a technology design partnership with children. Behav. Inf. Technol. 20(2), 119–125 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Plato, Dodds E.R.: Plato: Gorgias. Clarendon Press, Alderley (1959)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Griffith, T., Ferrari, G.: Plato: the republic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fine, J.V.A.: The ancient Greeks: a critical history. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1983)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Liedman, S.E.: Från Platon till kommunismens fall: de politiska idéernas historia. Bonnier, Stockholm (1993)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Coarguo, J.: Havamal: the words of the high one a personal interpretation. AuthorHouse, Bloomington (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    USA: United States constitution: bill of rights. USA, Washington (1789)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    UN: Universal declaration of human rights. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly. http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ (1948). Accessed 26 April 2014
  32. 32.
    Welch, P., Palames, C.: A brief history of disability rights legislation in the United States. In: Welch, P. (ed.) Strategies for Teaching Universal Design. Adaptive Environments Center, Boston, MA (1995)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    USA: Disability rights legislation and accessibility guidelines and standards in the United States. US Department of Transportation. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalks/chap1.cfm. Accessed 17 March 2013
  34. 34.
    Group/W3C TW: World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Launches International Web Accessibility Initiative. http://www.w3.org/Press/WAI-Launch.html (1997). Accessed 17 March 2013
  35. 35.
    Stephanidis, C.: User interfaces for all: concepts, methods, and tools. CRC, Boca Raton (2000)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    EU EC: M/376, Standardisation Mandate to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI in support of European accessibility requirements for public procurement of products and services in the ICT domain (2005)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    UN Convention and Optional Protocol Signatures and Ratifications. http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?navid=12&pid=166. Accessed 17 March 2013
  38. 38.
    Handisam: Break the barriers: Guidelines for accessibility. Handisam, Stockholm (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yoxall, A.: DD CEN/TS 15945: 2011 packaging. Ease of opening. Criteria and test methods for evaluating consumer packaging (2011)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    WHO: ICIDH-2: international classification of functioning, disability and health: final draft, Full Version. Classification, Assessment, Surveys and Terminology Team, World Health Organization (2001)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    EU EC: Riga Ministerial Declaration on e-Inclusion of 11 June 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    USA: The rehabilitation act as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Diskrimineringslagen (2008:567) (2008). SFS 2008:567. Sveriges Riksdag, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kammarkollegiet IT-procurement: Municipalities and county councils use IT framework contracts. http://www.kammarkollegiet.se/node/747. Accessed 17 March 2013
  45. 45.
    ISO: IEC/ISO/ITU workshop on accessibility identifies priorities for international standardization. http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref1370 (2010). Accessed 10 March 2013
  46. 46.
    ISO: ISO 26800:2011. Ergonomics: general approach, principles and concepts (2011)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    ISO: ISO 9241-11:1998. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) (1998)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    W3C Why: The case for accessibility. http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility. Accessed 17 March 2013
  49. 49.
    W3C (2008) Web content accessibility guidelines (WCAG) 2.0: W3C Recommendation 11 December 2008. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/. Accessed 10 March 2013
  50. 50.
    Freeman, M., Locurto, C.: In Skinner’s wake: behaviorism, poststructuralism, and the ironies of intellectual discourse. New Ideas Psychol. 12(1), 39–56 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wei, Y.-K.: Corporate image as collective ethos: a poststructuralist approach. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 7(4), 269–276 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Williams, J.: Understanding poststructuralism. Acumen Publishing, Chesham (2005)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Trifonas, P.: Conceptions of text and textuality: critical perspectives in literary theory from structuralism to poststructuralism. Interchange 24(4), 381–395 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bardzell, J.: Interaction criticism and aesthetics. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S.: Interaction criticism: a proposal and framework for a new discipline of hci. Paper presented at the CHI ‘08 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy (2008)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Foucault, M. Diskursens ordning: Installationsföreläsning vid Collège de France den 2 December 1970. B. Östlings bokförl. Symposion (1993)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Foucault, M.: Diskursernas kamp: Texter i urval av Thomas Götselius & Ulf Olsson (1971)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Foucault, M., Bjurström, C.G.: Övervakning och straff: fängelsets födelse. Arkiv, Lund (1987)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Derrida, J. Of grammatology. Corrected edition edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore: Md (1997)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Åhman, H.: Social sustainability—society at the intersection of development and maintenance. Local Environ. 18(10), 1153–1166 (2013) Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Derrida, J.: Dissemination. Continuum, London (2004)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Bradley, A.: Derrida’s of grammatology: an Edinburgh philosophical guide. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh (2008)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Allers, U.S.: Rousseau’s second discourse. Rev. Polit. 20(1), 91–120 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Derrida, J.: Speech and phenomena: and other essays on Husserl’s theory of signs. Northwestern University studies in phenomenology & existential philosophy. Northwestern University Press, Evanston (1973)Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Derrida, J.: Margins of philosophy. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1984)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Derrida, J.: Positions. Contiuum, London (2008)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Arenilla, M.: Concepts in democratic theory. In: French, S., Ríos, D. (eds.) e-Democracy: A Group Decision and Negotiation Perspective, pp. 15–30. Springer, Dordrecht (2010)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Dahl, R.A.: Pluralism revisited. Comp. Polit. 10(2), 191–203 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    CEN/CENELEC: CEN/BT WG 185 project team report: conformity assessment systems and schemes for accessibility requirements (2008)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    ISO: ISO 9241-210:2010. Ergonomics of human-system interaction. Part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems (2010)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    ISO: ISO/IEC 25062:2006. Software engineering: software product Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE). Common Industry Format (CIF) for usability test reports (2006)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    ISO: ISO 9241-171:2008. Ergonomics of human-system interaction. Part 171: guidance on software accessibility (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Persson
    • 1
    • 2
  • Henrik Åhman
    • 2
  • Alexander Arvei Yngling
    • 2
  • Jan Gulliksen
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Humane Technology (IHT)BollnäsSweden
  2. 2.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations