Advertisement

Issues of Culture in Designing for Accessibility

  • Helen Petrie
  • Gerhard Weber
  • Charudatta Jadhav
  • Jennifer S. Darzentas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10774)

Abstract

Cross cultural differences and cultural sensitivities have not yet received much attention in the areas of accessibility, assistive technologies, and inclusive design and methods for working with disabled and older users. However it is important to consider the challenges of developing accessible and usable technologies for people with disabilities and older people in different cultural contexts. This chapter presents the background to the topic and then considers three particular issues in relation to the topic: the accessibility of interactive systems in the home and implications for emerging markets; the accessibility problems in relation to a multilingual society such as India; and finally, the issues of the cultural biases of the methods used when working with users within a user centered design lifecycle or a “double diamond” methodology, whether they are mainstream users, disabled or older users.

Keywords

Cross cultural differences Cultural sensitivities Accessibility Universal design Assistive technology Users with disabilities Older users 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the participants at the INTERACT 2017 Workshop “Cross Cultural Differences in Designing for Accessibility and Universal Design” for their very stimulating discussions around the topics elaborated in this chapter.

The research carried out by Jenny Darzentas for this chapter has been funded by the European Union under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action Experienced Researcher Fellowship Programme, as part of the Education and Engagement for inclusive Design and Development of Digital Systems and Services Project (E2D3S2, Grant No. 706396).

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization: Disability and Health Fact Sheet (2015). http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs352/en/
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Mynatt, E., Melenhorst, A.-S., Fisk, A.D., Rogers, W.A.: Aware technologies for aging in place: understanding user needs and attitudes. Pervasive Comput. 3(2), 36–41 (2004). ISSN 1536-1268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marcus, A., Aykin, N.M., Chavan, A.L., Prabhu, G.V., Kurosu, M.: SIG on one size fits all?: cultural diversity in user interface design. In: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 1999), vol. 342 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chavan, A.L., Gorney, D., Prabhu, B., Arora, S.: The washing machine that ate my sari - mistakes in cross-cultural design. Interactions 16(1), 26–31 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1145/1456202.1456209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Euromonitor International. Increase in Washing Machine Penetration. http://euromonitor.typepad.com/files/ingredients-trends-in-powder-detergents-a-bright-clean-future.pdf
  7. 7.
    http://www.worldbank.org. Accessed 17 July 2012
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    http://www.gfk.com. Accessed 31 Aug 2012
  11. 11.
    Phong, K., Srou, L., Solá, J.: Mobile Phone and Internet Use in Cambodia 2016. Open Institute, Phnom Penh, Cambodia (2016). http://www.open.org.kh/research/phones_2016.pdf
  12. 12.
    Office of Communications (Ofcom): Adults’ media use and attitudes. Report 2017. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/102755/adults-media-use-attitudes-2017.pdf
  13. 13.
    Loitsch, C., Weber, G., Kaklanis, N., et al.: A knowledge-based approach to user interface adaptation from preferences and for special needs. User Modell. User Adap. Interact. 27(3–5), 445–491 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11257-017-9196-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thanvi, B., Lo, N., Robinson, T.: Essential tremor – the most common movement disorder in older people. Age Age. 35(4), 344–349 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afj072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
    Groenewold, H., Dipp, A.: IFA 2016: Accessible Household Appliances and Consumer Electronics (2017). http://www.dvfr.de/fileadmin/user_upload/DVfR/Downloads/Internationales/DBSV_Documentation-IFA-2016_English.pdf
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Bhasha Research and Publication Centre: The People’s Linguistic Survey of India (2011). http://www.peopleslinguisticsurvey.org/
  28. 28.
    The Unicode® Standard. http://www.unicode.org/standard
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Clemmensen, T., Katre, D.: Adapting e-gov usability evaluation to cultural contexts. In: Buie, E., Murray, D. (eds.) Usability in Government Systems: User Experience Design for Citizens and Public Servants. Morgan Kaufman, Waltham (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Narasimhan, N.: Accessibility of Government Websites in India: A Report (2013). http://cis-india.org/accessibility/accessibility-of-govt-websites.pdf
  32. 32.
    Kaur, A., Dani, D.: Banking Websites in India: an accessibility evaluation. Comput. Soc. India Trans. Inf. Commun. Technol. 2(1), 23–34 (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    W3C: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. https://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
  34. 34.
    W3C: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
  35. 35.
    Tejaswi, M.: India’s Will to go Digital Evident in Budget FY19, Friday 2 February 2018. http://www.mydigitalfc.com/companies-and-markets/india%E2%80%99s-will-go-digital-evident-budget-fy19
  36. 36.
    Ismail, A., Kuppusamy, K.S., Kumar, A., Ojha, A.K.: Connect the dots: accessibility, readability and site ranking – an investigation with reference to top ranked websites of Government of India. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci. (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2017.05.007
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
  42. 42.
    Cairns, P., Cox, A.L.: Research Methods for Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., Minkov, M.: Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
  45. 45.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A. (eds.) Usability evaluation in industry. Taylor and Francis, London (1996)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sauro, J.: 10 Things to Know About the System Usability Scale (SUS). https://measuringu.com/10-things-sus/
  47. 47.
    Bangor, A., Kortum, P.T., Miller, J.T.: An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 24(6), 574–594 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Finstad, K.: The System Usability Scale and non-native English speakers. J. Usability Stud. 1(4), 185–188 (2006)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cronbach, L.J.: Response sets and test validity. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 6, 475–494 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chun, K.-T., Campbell, J.B., Yoo, J.H.: Extreme response style in cross-cultural research: a reminder. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 5(4), 465–480 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hui, C.H., Triandis, H.C.: Effects of culture and response format on extreme response style. J. Cross Cult. Psychol. 20(3), 296–309 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chen, C., Lee, S.-Y., Stevenson, H.W.: Response style and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East Asian and North American students. Psychol. Sci. 6(3), 170–175 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Clarke, I.: Extreme response style in cross-cultural research. Int. Mark. Rev. 18(3), 301–324 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen Petrie
    • 1
  • Gerhard Weber
    • 2
  • Charudatta Jadhav
    • 3
  • Jennifer S. Darzentas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceTechnische Universität DresdenDresdenGermany
  3. 3.Accessibility and Inclusive Design GroupTata Consultancy ServicesMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations