Abstract
Despite years of addressing disability in technology design and advocating user-centered design practices, popular mainstream technologies remain largely inaccessible for people with disabilities. We conducted a design course study investigating how student designers regard disability and explored how designing for multiple disabled and nondisabled users encouraged students to think about accessibility in the design process. Across two university course offerings one year apart, we examined how students focused on a design project while learning user-centered design concepts and techniques, working with people with and without disabilities throughout the project. In addition, we compared how students incorporated disability-focused design approaches within a classroom setting. We found that designing for multiple stakeholders with and without disabilities expanded student understanding of accessible design by demonstrating that people with the same disability could have diverse needs and by aligning such needs with those of nondisabled users. We also found that using approaches targeted toward designing for people with disabilities complemented interactions with users, particularly with regard to managing varying abilities across users, or incorporating social aspects. Our findings contribute to an understanding about how we might incur change in design practice by working with multiple stakeholders with and without disabilities whenever possible. We refined Design for Social Accessibility by incorporating these findings into three tenets emphasizing: (1) design for disability ought to incorporate users with and without disabilities, (2) design should address functional and social factors simultaneously, and (3) design should include tools to spur consideration of social factors in accessible design.
- Kimberly E. Bigelow. 2012. Designing for success: Developing engineers who consider universal design principles. J. Postsecond. Edu. Disabil. 25, 3, 211--225.Google Scholar
- Paul Bohman. 2012. Teaching accessibility and design-for-all in the information and communication technology curriculum: Three case studies of universities in the United States, England, and Austria. Utah State University, Logan, UT.Google Scholar
- Tim Brown. 2008. Design thinking. Harvard Bus. Rev. 86, 6, 84--92.Google Scholar
- Sheryl Burgstahler. 2015. Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice. Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- William Buxton. 2007. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam/Boston. Google ScholarDigital Library
- James I. Charlton. 1998. Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
- Albert M. Cook and Susan M. Hussey. 2002. Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice. Mosby, St. Louis.Google Scholar
- Albert M. Cook, Jan Miller Polgar, and Nigel J. Livingston. 2010. Need- and task-based design and evaluation. In Design and Use of Assistive Technology: Social, Technical, Ethical, and Economic Challenges, Meeko Misuko K. Oishi, Ian M. Mitchell, and H. F. Machiel Van der Loos (eds.). Springer, New York, 41--48.Google Scholar
- Nigel Cross. 1982. Designerly ways of knowing. Special Issue Design Edu. 3, 4, 221--227. Retrieved fromGoogle Scholar
- Beth Crutchfield. 2016. ADA and the Internet: ADA settlements-fitting accessibility compliance into your product lifecycle. SSB Bart Group. Retrieved from http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/ada-internet-ada-settlements-fitting-accessibility-compliance-product-lifecycle/.Google Scholar
- Lennard J. Davis. 2010. Disability Studies Reader. Taylor and Francis, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Elizabeth DePoy and Stephen Gilson. 2014. Branding and Designing Disability: Reconceptualising Disability Studies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Batya Friedman, Peter Kahn, and Alan Borning. 2006. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. M. E. Sharpe, New York.Google Scholar
- Erving Goffman. 1963. Stigma. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
- Elizabeth Goodman, Erik Stolterman, and Ron Wakkary. 2011. Understanding interaction design practices. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11). 1061--1070. Google ScholarDigital Library
- John D. Gould and Clayton Lewis. 1985. Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. CACM 28, 3, 300--311. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Suzette Keith and Gill Whitney. 2008. Bridging the gap between young designers and older users in an inclusive society. In Proceedings of the Good, the Bad and the Challenging: The User and the Future of ICT.Google Scholar
- G. V. Kondraske. 1988. Rehabilitation engineering: Towards a systematic process. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 7, 3, 11--15.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Richard E. Ladner. 2015. Design for user empowerment. Interactions 22, 2, 24--29. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jonathan Lazar. 2002. Integrating accessibility into the information systems curriculum. In Proceedings of the International Association for Computer Information Systems. 373--379.Google Scholar
- Simi Linton. 1998. Disability Studies/Not Disability Studies. Disability and Society 13, 4, 525--540.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Simi Linton. 1998. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Stephanie Ludi. 2007. Introducing accessibility requirements through external stakeholder utilization in an undergraduate requirements engineering course. In Proceedings of the Conference on Software Engineering, 736--743. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. L. Mace, G. J. Hardie, and J. P. Plaice. 1991. Accessible environments: Toward universal design. In Design Intervention: Toward a More Human Architecture, W. Preiser, J. Vischer, and E. White (eds.). Reinhold, NY, 155--176.Google Scholar
- I. Martin-Escalona, F. Barcelo-Arroyo, and E. Zola. 2013. The introduction of a topic on accessibility in several engineering degrees. In Proceedings of the Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON’13), IEEE. 656--663.Google Scholar
- J. J. Meddaugh. 2017. Firefox quantum may slow down your screen reader on Tuesday; Here's what you can do. Blind Bargains. Retrieved from https://www.blindbargains.com/bargains.php?m=18004.Google Scholar
- Harold G. Nelson and Erik Stolterman. 2012. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Alan Newell, P. Gregor, M. Morgan, Graham Pullin, and C. Macaulay. 2011. User-sensitive inclusive design. Univ. Access Info. Soc. 10, 3, 235--243. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Donald Norman. 1988. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Book, New York.Google Scholar
- Cynthia Putnam, Maria Dahman, Emma Rose, Jinghui Cheng, and Glenn Bradford. 2016. Best practices for teaching accessibility in university classrooms: Cultivating awareness, understanding, and appreciation for diverse users. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. (TACCESS) 8, 4, 1--26. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David J. Roedl and Erik Stolterman. 2013. Design research at CHI and its applicability to design practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1951--1954. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Brian J. Rosmaita. 2006. Accessibility now!: Teaching accessible computing at the introductory level. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’06). 277--278. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Marcia J. Scherer. 1993. Living in the State of Stuck: How Technologies Affect the Lives of People with Disabilities. Brookline Books, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
- Donald A. Schön. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
- Douglas Schuler and Aki Namioka. 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practice. Erlbaum Assoc., NJ. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Helen Sharp, Yvonne Rogers, and Jenny Preece. 2007. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-computer Interaction. Wiley, NJ. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kristen Shinohara, Cynthia L. Bennett, and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2016. How designing for people with and without disabilities shapes student design thinking. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’16). 229--237. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kristen Shinohara and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2011. In the shadow of misperception: Assistive technology use and social interactions. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’11), 705--714. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kristen Shinohara and Jacob O. Wobbrock. 2016. Self-Conscious or Self-Confident? a diary study conceptualizing the social accessibility of assistive technology. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. (TACCESS) 8, 2, 1--31. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Annalu Waller, Vicki L. Hanson, and David Sloan. 2009. Including accessibility within and beyond undergraduate computing courses. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS’09), 155--162. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Langdon Winner. 1980. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109, 1, 121--136.Google Scholar
- Jacob O. Wobbrock, Shaun K. Kane, Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Susumu Harada, and Jon Froehlich. 2011. Ability-based design: Concept, principles, and examples. ACM Trans. Access. Comput. (TACCESS) 3, 3, 1--27. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Xiao Zhang and Ron Wakkary. 2014. Understanding the role of designers’ personal experiences in interaction design practice. In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 895--904. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Tenets for Social Accessibility: Towards Humanizing Disabled People in Design
Recommendations
Design for Social Accessibility Method Cards: Engaging Users and Reflecting on Social Scenarios for Accessible Design
Regular Papers and Special Issue on ASSETS 2018This article is an extended version of our 2018 ASSETS paper entitled, “Incorporating Social Factors in Accessible Design.” In our ASSETS paper, we demonstrated the viability of the Design for Social Accessibility perspective through a series of user-...
Social accessibility: the challenge of improving web accessibility through collaboration
W4A '10: Proceedings of the 2010 International Cross Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A)There are billions of people who face problems in accessing webpages, including people with disabilities, elderly people, and illiterate people in developing countries. The needs for accessible webpages have become too broad to be left only to Web ...
Comments