Universal Design: Is It Really about Design?

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The accessibility utilities built into a common computer operating system are found to be used by less than 25% of people who could benefit from them. Programs that distribute free TTYs to people who cannot otherwise use telephone find that as many as 80% of TTYs are returned. A company that marketed a talking Caller ID device to blind telephone customers found that less than 5% were interested. What's going on here? Why do people appear to reject or ignore technologies that are known to be effective barrier busters, even when cost is not an object? This paper will raise some of overriding non-technological reasons that is only a moderate success in market. It is aimed at audience of accessible technology experts and policy makers. UNIVERSAL DESIGN, A TECHNIQUE Universal has been defined as the of products and environments to be usable by all people, to greatest extent possible, without need for adaptation or specialized design [2] by its inventor, Ron Mace. The concept first emerged in architecture, but has been expanded to apply to entire designed environment, including computers, telephones, and information systems of all types. Note that word universal is somewhat misleading, as no one claims to be able to a single product that will serve needs of every imaginable user. UD is often referred to as a direction, towards an expanding range of users. Universal has two basic strategies. The first is to make product's features easier to use. Theoretically, a feature can be made so easy to use that it imposes no burden whatsoever on user, and it becomes difficult to identify anyone who could not use it. Such ease of use is approached, for example, by automatic door openers. Only mobile individuals need to access doors, and act of mobility itself activates door [3]. However, a door is an essentially simple product. For complex products in information technology, there are limits in usability, especially in cognitive realm. Input devices may become easier to use, but understanding necessary functioning of a word processor will probably always require high cognitive performance. The other UD strategy is called redundancy, meaning that product has more than one mode of interaction. A computer user may open a file by using: * mouse (or trackball or ...) to reach and activate an on-screen menu * keyboard via a shortcut key * a speech recognition system According to redundancy, more options mean more ways to succeed. So universally designed information products offer user redundant input and output technologies, allowing each user to select and operate them in most usable and convenient manner. There are two potential limits to redundancy. The first is cost. Adding a feature usually has some cost, even if it is only in software; software testing costs can be significant. The second limit, an ironic one, is that redundancy increases user options, and therefore complicates interface. If a computer only has a keyboard interface, input for those who can type is easy. If user must actively select an input modality, some users may abandon attempts. Such interface complications may essentially force a trade off between physical and cognitive limitations. In words of Devo, of choice; that's what you've got. Freedom from choice; that's what you want. Both of these limits, of course, can be addressed successfully, but never eliminated completely. UNIVERSAL DESIGN, A TECHNICAL PHILOSOPHY Universal has been so actively accepted by disability community because it parallels community's demand for full integration into society. It posits an alternative to clinical and segregated models of technological accommodation often experienced by users of assistive technology. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 13 citations exist upstream.