Advertisement

When Universal Access Does not Go to Plan: Lessons to Be Learned

  • Simeon Keates
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10907)

Abstract

While the theory of designing for Universal Access is increasingly understood, there remain persistent issues over realising products and systems that meet the goal of being accessible and usable by the broadest possible set of users. Clearly products or service that are designed without even considering the needs of the wider user base are implicitly going to struggle to be universally accessible. However, even products that have been designed knowing that they are to be used by broad user bases frequently still struggle to achieve the ambition of being universally accessible. This paper examines a number of such products that did not achieve, at least initially, the desired level of universal accessibility. Principal recommendations from each case study are presented to provide a guide to common issues to be avoided.

Keywords

Universal access Robots Kiosks Digital television HCI Input systems 

References

  1. 1.
    Stephanidis, C.: The Universal Access handbook. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keates, S.: Designing for Accessibility - A Business Guide to Countering Design Exclusion. CRC Press, Mahwah (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clarkson, P.J., Coleman, R., Lebbon, C., Keates, S.: Inclusive Design – Design for the Whole Population. Springer, London (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0001-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1994)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shneiderman, B.: Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley Longman, Boston (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Norman, D.: Affordance, conventions and design. Interactions 6(3), 38–43 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Card, S., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J.: Countering design exclusion – An Introduction to Inclusive Design. Springer, London (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0013-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldsmith, S.: Universal Design. Architectural Press, Routledge, Abingdon (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J., Harrison, L.A., Robinson, P.: Towards a practical inclusive design approach. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on Universal Usability (CUU 2000), pp. 45–52. ACM Press (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1145/355460.355471
  11. 11.
    Stephanidis, C.: Design for all. In: Soegaard, M., Dam, R.F. (eds.) The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn. The Interaction Design Foundation (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dong, H., Clarkson, P.J., Cassim, J., Keates, S.: Critical user forums-an effective user research method for inclusive design. Des. J. 8(2), 49–59 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.2752/146069205789331628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newell, A.F., Gregor, P., Morgan, M., Pullin, G., Macaulay, C.: User-sensitive inclusive design. Int. J. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. (UAIS) 10(3), 235–243 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-010-0203-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cardoso, C., Clarkson, P.J.: Simulation in user-centred design: helping designers to empathise with atypical users. J. Eng. Design 23(1), 1–22 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dong, H., Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J., Cassim, J.: Implementing Inclusive Design: The Discrepancy between Theory and Practice. In: Carbonell, N., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) UI4ALL 2002. LNCS, vol. 2615, pp. 106–117. Springer, Heidelberg (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-36572-9_8CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keates, S., Kozloski, J., Varker, P.: Cognitive impairments, HCI and daily living. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) UAHCI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5614, pp. 366–374. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02707-9_42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trewin, S., Keates, S.: Computer access for motor impaired users. In: Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 92–99. IGI, London (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Trewin, S., Pain, H.: Keyboard and mouse errors due to motor disabilities. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 50(2), 109–144 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keates, S., Robinson, P.: Gestures and multimodal input. Behav. Inf. Technol. 18(1), 36–44 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1080/014492999119237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    International Standard Organization (ISO): ISO 9241-11: ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs), Part 11: Guidance on Usability Specification and Measures. Technical report. ISO, Geneva (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Keates, S., Perricos, C.: Gesture as a means of computer access. Commun. Matters 10(1), 17–19 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keates S., Potter R., Perricos C., Robinson P.: Gesture recognition - research and clinical perspectives. In: Proceedings of RESNA 1997, pp. 333–335. RESNA Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keates, S.: Measuring acceptable input - What is “good enough”? Int. J. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 16(3), 713–723 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-016-0498-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hwang, F., Keates, S., Langdon, P.M., Clarkson, P.J.: Movement time for motion-impaired users assisted by force-feedback: effects of movement amplitude, target width, and gravity well width. Int. J. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 4(2), 85–95 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-0114-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hwang, F., Keates, S., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P.J.: A haptic toolbar for motion-impaired users. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction/11th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction. Springer (2005). ISBN 0-8058-5807-5Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carmichael, A., Rice, M., Sloan, D., Gregor, P.: Digital switchover or digital divide: a prognosis for usable and accessible interactive digital television in the UK. Int. J. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 4(4), 400–416 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-005-0004-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J.: Assessing the accessibility of digital television set-top boxes. In: Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J., Langdon, P.M., Robinson, P. (eds.) Design for a More Inclusive World, pp. 183–192. Springer, London (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-372-5_19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keates, S., Adams, R., Bodine, C., Czaja, S., Gordon, W., Gregor, P., Hacker, E., Hanson, V., Kemp, J., Laff, M., Lewis, C., Pieper, M., Richards, J., Rose, D., Savidis, A., Schultz, G., Snayd, P., Trewin, S., Varker, P.: Cognitive and learning difficulties and how they affect access to IT systems. Int. J. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. 5(4), 329–339 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-006-0058-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Keates, S.: A pedagogical example of teaching universal access. Int. J. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. (UAIS) 14(1), 97–110 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0398-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Keates, S., Kyberd, P.: Robotic Assistants for Universal Access. In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) UAHCI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10279, pp. 527–538. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58700-4_43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cooper, A.: The Inmates are Running the Asylum. SAMS Publishing, Indianapolis (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Keates, S., Lebbon, C., Clarkson, P.J.: Investigating industry attitudes to universal design. In: Proceedings of RESNA 2000, pp. 276–278. RESNAPress, Orlando (2000)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Buhler, C.: Robotics for rehabilitation – A European (?) perspective. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR 1997), Bath, UK, pp. 5–11 (1997)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mahoney, R.: Robotic products for rehabilitation: status and strategy. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR 1997), Bath, UK, pp. 12–17 (1997)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Topping, M.J., Smith, J.K.: The development of handy 1. A robotic system to assist the severely disabled. Technol. Disabil. 10(2), 95–105 (1999)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tijsma, H.A., Liefhebber, F., Herder, J.L.: Evaluation of new user interface features for the Manus robot arm. In: 9th International Conference on Rehabilitation Robotics (ICORR 2005), pp. 258–263. IEEE (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1109/icorr.2005.1501097
  37. 37.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J., Robinson, P.: Developing a practical inclusive interface design approach. Interact. Comput. 14(4), 271–299 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0953-5438(01)00054-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Keates, S., Clarkson, P.J., Robinson, P.: Design for participation: providing access to e-information for older adults. Int. J. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. (UAIS) 3(2), 149–163 (2004).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-004-0093-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grundy, E., Ahlburg, D., Ali, M., Breeze, E., Sloggett, A.: Disability in Great Britain. Department of Social Security, Research Report No. 94, Corporate Document Services, London, UK (1999)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Clarkson, P.J., Keates, S., Dong, H.: Quantifying design exclusion. In: Clarkson, P.J., Coleman, R., Keates, S., Lebbon, C. (eds.) Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole Population, pp. 422–437. Springer, London (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0001-0_26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    The Inclusive Design Toolkit. http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/. Accessed 29 Jan 2018
  42. 42.
    Keates, S.: Pragmatic research issues confronting HCI practitioners when designing for universal access. Int. J. Univers. Access Inf. Soc. (UAIS) 5(3), 269–278 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-006-0050-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GreenwichChatham Maritime, KentUK

Personalised recommendations