skip to main content
research-article

Tenets for Social Accessibility: Towards Humanizing Disabled People in Design

Published:12 March 2018Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

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.

References

  1. Kimberly E. Bigelow. 2012. Designing for success: Developing engineers who consider universal design principles. J. Postsecond. Edu. Disabil. 25, 3, 211--225.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Tim Brown. 2008. Design thinking. Harvard Bus. Rev. 86, 6, 84--92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Sheryl Burgstahler. 2015. Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice. Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. William Buxton. 2007. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam/Boston. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. James I. Charlton. 1998. Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Albert M. Cook and Susan M. Hussey. 2002. Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice. Mosby, St. Louis.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Nigel Cross. 1982. Designerly ways of knowing. Special Issue Design Edu. 3, 4, 221--227. Retrieved fromGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Lennard J. Davis. 2010. Disability Studies Reader. Taylor and Francis, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Elizabeth DePoy and Stephen Gilson. 2014. Branding and Designing Disability: Reconceptualising Disability Studies. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Batya Friedman, Peter Kahn, and Alan Borning. 2006. Value Sensitive Design and Information Systems. M. E. Sharpe, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Erving Goffman. 1963. Stigma. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. John D. Gould and Clayton Lewis. 1985. Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. CACM 28, 3, 300--311. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. G. V. Kondraske. 1988. Rehabilitation engineering: Towards a systematic process. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Mag. 7, 3, 11--15.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Richard E. Ladner. 2015. Design for user empowerment. Interactions 22, 2, 24--29. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Jonathan Lazar. 2002. Integrating accessibility into the information systems curriculum. In Proceedings of the International Association for Computer Information Systems. 373--379.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Simi Linton. 1998. Disability Studies/Not Disability Studies. Disability and Society 13, 4, 525--540.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Simi Linton. 1998. Claiming Disability: Knowledge and Identity. New York University Press, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Harold G. Nelson and Erik Stolterman. 2012. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. Cambridge, Massachusetts, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Donald Norman. 1988. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Book, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Marcia J. Scherer. 1993. Living in the State of Stuck: How Technologies Affect the Lives of People with Disabilities. Brookline Books, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Donald A. Schön. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Douglas Schuler and Aki Namioka. 1993. Participatory Design: Principles and Practice. Erlbaum Assoc., NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Helen Sharp, Yvonne Rogers, and Jenny Preece. 2007. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-computer Interaction. Wiley, NJ. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Langdon Winner. 1980. Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus 109, 1, 121--136.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. 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 ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Tenets for Social Accessibility: Towards Humanizing Disabled People in Design

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing
      ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing  Volume 11, Issue 1
      Special Issue of Papers from ASSETS 2016
      March 2018
      154 pages
      ISSN:1936-7228
      EISSN:1936-7236
      DOI:10.1145/3194310
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 March 2018
      • Accepted: 1 January 2018
      • Revised: 1 November 2017
      • Received: 1 April 2017
      Published in taccess Volume 11, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader