Every day, one in five Australians
experiences difficulties or frustrations in performing everyday tasks with
everyday things, such as consumer electronics and appliances. As technology
develops, an increasing proportion of products are inaccessible to people with
a range of different disabilities. These one-in-five Australians are what the
author terms the ‘overlooked consumers’.
Since 1992 guidelines have been available
explaining the issues and approaches needed to make consumer electronics
accessible to people with disabilities, but 15 years on, the state of play has
almost stood still, and in many cases has further deteriorated.
In that time we have seen accessible ATMs,
the ability for people who are blind to cast a secret and independent ballot,
access to the internet and computers, and in many cases, access to the advances
in mobile phone devices. But when it comes to washing clothes, cooking,
changing the channel on a VCR, adjusting the temperature of house heating or
cooling, setting the alarm on a clock radio or reheating a meal, access and options
have regressed profoundly for people who are blind and people with dexterity
issues, and indeed a wide range of people with diverse disabilities, permanent
or temporary.
The paper explains the vast access problems
encountered by people with disabilities and older people in accessing consumer
electronics and home appliances. It discusses some strategies and design
approaches which can be adopted to improve the situation. It then collates and
summarises work being done, including initiatives, research projects,
guidelines and standards, and concludes with recommendations to the Australian
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission aimed at improving the situation
in Australia.
At the most fundamental level, in line with
Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs, the core of independence is being
able to care for one’s self and for one’s family, ensuring safety and security,
and being able to be self-sufficient in basic tasks. In contrast, technology
regularly enables people with disabilities and older people to perform all
manner of professional and academic tasks independently, allowing for gainful
employment, undertaking a course of study, keeping in touch with friends via
mobile phones, and generally being able to access computers and the internet. However,
technology used in the home still falls very short of enabling increased
independence for people with disabilities and older people.
Some everyday life examples from people
with disabilities are provided, demonstrating the access challenges of
blindness, dexterity and aging with consumer electronics and appliances, but It
is not just about the accessibility needs of people with disabilities, it is
about basic needs that all or nearly all of us will have at some time in life.
The scope of the project included home
entertainment systems and their remotes; whitegoods and other appliances; home
environment and control; portable devices; and personal care, health and
fitness devices
It is well documented that designers are
prone to design environments and devices best suited to their own situations,
architecturally and technologically. Even in 2007, manufacturers, marketers
and designers still create devices that are suited to their own cerebral
capabilities, full vision, hearing and dexterity. It is quite amazing (and
disappointing) that the younger designers of today persist in designing a world
and things in it, which in many cases cannot be used by the generations that
came before them. This is the heart of the problem. Too often, when designing
products, attention is given to a narrow notion of who will use the products,
with little thought given to the numerous groups of people which the product
design will exclude.
In the simplest terms, a product is designed in the context of a
likely user or group of users. If the designer’s idea of that user is limited,
then the design will be accordingly limited and will deny access for those
outside the narrow framing developed by the designer.
Poor existing designs are perpetuated in new designs, meaning the
problem doesn’t get fixed.
Industry appears to lack awareness of the access needs that have
high incidence in potential users of their products;
Designers are disproportionately concerned with visually aesthetic
user interfaces in many products. This is an increasing problem for people who
are blind or vision impaired, and for many people who have cognitive
disabilities.
In many cases, manufacturers don’t know of, or believe that there are
strategies and solutions for expanding the usability of their products. Even
if they do, they put these problems aside or say they will look at them down
the track. Sometimes the smallest change can make a difference. For example,
simply by adding some basic tones to provide audible feedback on the operations
of a device, can make it accessible to people who are blind or vision impaired.
Most people with disabilities probably are not aware that the kind
of technology which enables computers and automated telephone information
services to ‘talk’, can now be employed in consumer electronic devices, in a
cost-effective manner. This lack of awareness may be one of the key reasons
why people with disabilities have not been more vocal about their need to have
more accessible options.
Part of the problem is limited collaboration between manufacturers,
a highly competitive market and rapid technological development. As an
example, most home electronics standards tend only to apply to protocols for
device inter-connection, media formats and other non-user interface domains.
Unlike technology developed for business, government and industry, there is no
consolidated pressure for conformance, inter-connectivity or accessibility with
regard to consumer electronics.
There is inconsistent awareness by industry of the need for
accessible mainstream design, which will include people with disabilities and
older people. This problem is also contributed to by the high profile
dichotomy between ‘regular’ products designed for regular people and ‘special’
(assistive) products designed for specific groups of people with disabilities.
More progressive design approaches, such as
User Centred Design, which are described in the paper, are a path towards the
design of more inclusive products. However, this can only happen if people
with diverse capabilities and limitations, are included in product and user
research.
In order for real change to occur, the
manufacturer needs to change its processes and its values, so that pressure to
create products that are more accessible is top-down, and not just from a few
interested employees.
The paper briefly discusses some classical
and contemporary design methodologies, which either restrict or could have the
potential to lead to the increase of accessibility and usability of mainstream
products. It then explores some current design trends, in particular Universal
Design, which have significant promise for the future.
Finally, the paper reports on guidelines,
standards work, research projects, online resources and some products that are
more accessible, before closing with 15 recommendations, which are summarized
on the next page.
|
Recommendation 1:
|
Undertake Dialogue with Industry
|
|
Recommendation 2:
|
Identify Australian Chapters of
Manufacturing Associations
|
|
Recommendation 3:
|
Explore what legislation/regulation could
be used in concert with the DDA to improve the availability of inclusive
design of consumer electronics and home appliances
|
|
Recommendation 4:
|
Product Development Grants and Tax
Breaks to encourage accessible design
|
|
Recommendation 5:
|
Broaden discussions with Standards
Australia to include access for Consumer Electronics and Appliances
|
|
Recommendation 6:
|
Closer strategic collaboration of
People With Disabilities and Older People
|
|
Recommendation 7:
|
Australian Equivalent of the UK eInclusion Charter
|
|
Recommendation 8:
|
Expand Australian Design Awards
|
|
Recommendation 9:
|
Contact ABC New Inventor’s Program
|
|
Recommendation 10:
|
Increase access considerations as part of
Product Reviews from Choice Magazine
|
|
Recommendation 11:
|
Lectures, Training and Exposure for
Design Students
|
|
Recommendation 12:
|
Secondary School Accessible Design
Presentations
|
|
Recommendation 13:
|
Give presentations to, and forge
alliances with Open Source organizations in Australia
|
|
Recommendation 14:
|
Educate Industry in tangible ways
|
|
Recommendation 15:
|
Website aimed at manufacturers -
Opportunities in Universal Design
|
Table
of Contents
Acknowledgements: I
About the Author: I
Executive Overview. III
The Issue. III
Some of the reasons for inaccessible design include: IV
Solutions and Developments. V
Summary of Report Recommendations. VI
Introduction and Project Scope. 7
Some Everyday Life Examples from People with Disabilities. 7
John’s Wedding. 7
Jane is Moving Out 7
Jane is asked to work interstate for three months. 7
Chris is Noticing the Effects of Aging. 7
Scope of Consumer Electronics and Appliances. 7
Examining the Problem.. 7
Who is Affected?. 7
Seeing. 7
Hearing. 7
Reaching and Handling. 7
Thinking. 7
Why are things this bad?. 7
Design Approaches and Considerations. 7
Incidental or Accidental Accessible Design. 7
Accessible Design. 7
Universal Design. 7
Applications of Universal Design. 7
Universal Design in Practice and in Business. 7
User Participation in Design. 7
Separating A Device’s Function from its User Interface. 7
User Interfaces and Human Machine Interfaces. 7
The Disability Dichotomy. 7
Other Design and Market Considerations. 7
Buyers Want Complexity; Users want Simplicity. 7
John
Maeda's Laws of Simplicity. 7
Consumer Electronics Tend to be Replaced, not Improved by Manufacturers. 7
Apple iPhone Observations. 7
Standards and Guidelines. 7
Trace Guidelines for Accessible Design of Consumer Products. 7
Trace Guidelines by section. 7
Universal Remote Console Standard (V2) 7
Human Factors and Ergonomics Standards. 7
UK Inclusive Design Standard. 7
Other Promising Products, Initiatives and Developments. 7
NCAM Home Media Center Project 7
A New Accessible Wireless Remote Control 7
Digital Display Reader 7
NFB Consumer Appliance and Electronics Accessibility Initiative. 7
New, Usable Washers and Dryers Are Released in US. 7
Olympus Digital Voice Recorders with Voice Guidance. 7
i~design project 7
The Accessible Procurement Toolkit 7
Access on Main street Blog. 7
Recommendations and Action Needed. 7
Appendix A: Blind Customers Take Action against the Cell Phone Industry. A7
Appendix
B: Email about Inaccessible Home Stereo Equipment B7
Appendix C: List of Cited Web Addresses. C7
Guidelines have been available since 1992
explaining the approaches needed to make consumer electronics accessible to
people with disabilities. Now, 15 years on, the situation has hardly changed,
and in many cases has worsened.
During that time we have seen ATMs become
accessible; people who are blind are able to cast a secret and independent
ballot, and gain access to the internet and computers, as well as access to
many advances in mobile phone devices. But when it comes to washing machines,
cooking appliances, changing the channel on a VCR, adjusting the temperature of
house heating or cooling, setting the alarm on a clock radio or reheating a
meal, access and options have profoundly regressed for people who are blind,
and people with dexterity issues. People with diverse disabilities, either
permanent or temporary, are also being disadvantaged.
This report
examines the current situation regarding the level of accessibility of consumer
electronics and appliances for everyone, as well as for people with
disabilities and for older people. It is not just about the accessibility needs
of people with disabilities; it is about basic needs that all or nearly all of
us will have at some time in life.
This paper explains and articulates the
vast access problems daily encountered by countless people with disabilities
and older people and discusses some strategies and design approaches which can
be adopted to improve the accessibility of consumer electronics and home
appliances. It then collates and summarises work being done in this important
area including initiatives, research projects, guidelines and standards, and
concludes with recommendations to HREOC aimed at improving the situation in
Australia, and considers ways the DDA can be harnessed to further the
accessibility of consumer electronics and home appliances.
For this document, consumer electronics and
home appliances are defined as “appliances and other electronic and mechanical
devices available to the mass market for use in the home, school, office, or
for use by the general public in the community.” We have adopted this
definition, which was used for consumer products in the comprehensive Trace Center’s ‘Accessible Design of Consumer Products’ document online at
http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/consumer_product_guidelines/consumer.htm
In this discussion paper, we examine the
access issues for a wide range of consumer electronics and home appliances. It
is important to be mindful that the paper isn’t so much concerned with which
products are, or are not included, but rather, what the principles are which
currently restrict access, and what the options are to increase access to
products and devices.
The project was commissioned because it was
perceived that there was a gap in the areas of accessibility focus falling
outside high profile areas such as telecommunications, PCs, computer operating
systems and the World Wide Web, or any areas pertaining to public procurement.
It can be argued that considerable progress has occurred with the built
environment and public spaces, telecommunications and technology for business,
and those products that tie in with public procurement policies. Clearly, this
is not the case for the area of consumer electronics and home appliances, even
though there are one or two exceptions.
One factor is that the legislative
framework is less targeted in this domain, or at least has not been exercised.
Several people the author consulted reflected that if the DDA had definitive
penalties, as does the workplace safety legislation, that we would likely live
in a much more accessible country.
Similarly, education and awareness to
industry regarding consumer electronics access is not nearly as prominent as
efforts are in other technological domains. Perhaps this is because it isn’t
perceived as exciting, but also because employment and the right to an
education are arguably more valued social endeavours than are the activities of
domestic living. Everyday activities may seem mundane, however for people with
disabilities they can create stress, or even crises, due to the plethora of
products designed without their needs in mind.
What are the factors that have lead to
accessible voting, banking, finance and telecommunications, but which fall
short of addressing or even putting into the spotlight the most basic and
fundamental tasks of daily living? The answer in part would seem to be how
much, or indeed how little “noise” is being made by people with disabilities on
these issues. Online, one frequently sees petitions to organizations like
Google and Yahoo! about inaccessible online registration processes (CAPTCHAs)
yet we don’t see petitions demanding the right to have access to microwaves,
exercise equipment, or home entertainment systems. Though not explicitly in
scope for this paper, Appendix A discusses a group legal action to US phone
suppliers regarding their poor record with accessibility.
At the most fundamental level, in line with
Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Human Needs, the core of independence is being
able to care for one’s self and for one’s family, and then ensure safety and
security, so being able to be self-sufficient in basic tasks such as food
preparation, cleaning and clothes washing, and the ability to control one’s
in-home environment, such as controlling heating and cooling, are core
needs/tasks. But in contrast, technology regularly enables people with
disabilities and older people to perform all manner of professional and
academic tasks independently. These include allowing for gainful employment,
undertaking a course of study, keeping in touch with friends via mobile phones,
and generally being able to access computers and the internet. However,
technology still falls very short of enabling increased independence in the
home.
The following scenarios capture some of the
problems daily encountered by various people with disabilities, in relation to
consumer electronics and home appliances. The scenarios primarily focus on
blindness and dexterity, but similar examples abound for other disability
groups and other situations, such as having a broken arm, an eye infection,
children screaming in the background, and so on.
Finally, John is getting married. He is
blind and Dianne his wife-to-be, has restricted dexterity due to quadriplegia.
They are discussing the dilemma of wedding
presents – they don’t want people wasting money on gifts that they will be
unable to use, but they also feel uncomfortable requesting cash. Family
members are already asking how they can find appliances, etc. that will be
usable by the couple.
Dianne has memories of the MP3 player she
got for Christmas, which she can’t use because the buttons are too tiny and are
either too hard to press or are too sensitive. She could have given it to John,
but he couldn’t use it either, because he would have to be able to look at the
screen.
They heard horror stories of friends who
went house-hunting, only to find that they would need to re-equip the major
kitchen appliances - oven, stove and dishwasher in the new house, because all
the appliances when pre-installed were not accessible by people with either
limited vision or limited dexterity. Modern ceramic cooktops make it very
difficult for blind people to centre the pan over the heat source; ovens with
strong door springs and hinges are difficult to open for people with limited
strength, and range hoods which had control switches hidden inside a small
concealed cavity, are impossible to operate for people with dexterity or fine
motor limitations.
Jane has finished studying, has a new job
and has decided to move out and live ‘independently’. Jane is nearly totally
blind and plans to live on her own.
She enlists a couple of friends to go
shopping with her to buy appliances, and all that’s required to set up house.
They walk into a department store and ask the staff person to show them washing
machines and clothes dryers that can be used by someone without sight. The
staff members stare vacantly at the shoppers, as if to say ‘what on earth are
you talking about’. Jane asks if they could plug in one of the clothes dryers
to try and work out if it might be usable, and is told ‘sorry, that is against
store policy’.
Eventually they locate a store specializing
in whitegoods and find a staff person who understands the problems (kind of),
who explains that she only has one older washing machine model, which still has
rotary dials and switches, but has a poorer energy rating. Jane, somewhat
disappointed, decides to buy this washer, but wishes she had the choice to buy
a more modern model.
Jane was very lucky to have mentioned her
frustrations to a friend who then told her that he had purchased a Fisher and
Paykel clothes dryer, which had quite good tactile symbols, and made different
tones for different settings. With some braille labelling, it was reasonably
easy to use, but one still had to remember the sequence of the different
settings.
The Fridge and Freezer were easier for Jane
to choose. Finally, Jane could choose the product based on features and how it
felt and looked, rather than being restricted by too many access
considerations. She particularly liked the feature that beeped annoyingly if
the door was not properly closed. The freezer she selected had several drawers,
which she realized would help her logically categorize frozen food (a great
help when one can’t read the packaging).
Jane also decides to get a sound system and
DVD player, only to find that it is almost impossible to know in advance
whether or not she will be able to use the equipment without help from friends
or neighbours when she gets it home. She looks at three or four systems, but
the staff can only tell her how many ‘watts’ each item is boasting, or how many
radio presets it has. They have absolutely no idea if she would be able to use
it or not. “Can’t you ask your family to help you”, was the recurring theme of
their service.
She has gone away and done some ‘Googling’
for reviews, but none mention access issues. She has noted two sound systems
she would be interested in, based on reviews of audio quality. However, when
she goes to a store to look at the two recommended models, she is disappointed
to find they appear to be among the least accessible because of complex menus
that wrap; a remote control incorporating a touch screen, and a continuous
volume control knob which gives no tactile indication about what level the
volume is set to.
Having concluded her shopping, Jane has
finally started to memorise the series of steps required to adjust her sound
system to play CDs, and to turn on her set top box to get TV channels. All is
fine, until she pushes the wrong button and everything goes silent. If only
she could read the displays, or if she could read the manuals (which are only
available in print, and are full of icons and pictures) she might get some
clues as to trouble-shooting. Now Jane will have to ask her brother to visit
(again), to help her get things running. But he is busy with his new baby and
long work hours, and won’t be available for at least a week. “One day” she
mutters “all my appliances will talk to me and guide me through the steps of
their operation … one day”.
Appendix B contains email to the author
that further expands on access challenges with Hi-Fi equipment.
Just as Jane starts to feel on top of some
of her access challenges with the appliances in her apartment, she is asked to
work interstate, and is being put up in a company-owned apartment in Melbourne. The problem is that the dishwasher, microwave, cooktop and washing machine are
all unusable by a person without sight. Being out of her environment, Jane
doesn’t have friends she can call on for help.
Solution - Home deliveries and laundry
services.
Chris has recently retired from work
because of health issues - increasing arthritis and a tremor in his hands. He
is starting to notice more and more that activities are harder, or no longer
possible, but he doesn’t want his children to know he is struggling.
Every week it seems more difficult to start
the lawn-mower; he will have to shop and see if there is one that is
key-operated, which doesn’t require strength to pull a cord. Commonplace
tasks like replacing the bag from his vacuum cleaner are getting difficult and
painful, requiring twisting and pulling, which further inflames his arthritis.
His daughter bought him a new Panasonic
telephone two Christmas’s ago, but he just doesn’t have the strength or the
fine motor control to push the miniature rubber buttons reliably.
At the end of the day he decides to sit
down and watch the news and a movie, but his grandchildren visited on the
weekend, and changed settings and modes, and now he can’t switch his television
to the channel he wants, because the technology is too complex and involved.
Below are some examples of things
considered in scope, and therefore the focus of this document:
TVs
Set-top-boxes
CD players and Sound systems
Video, DVD and hard disk Recorders
Stoves/cooktops
Ovens/grillers
Toasters
Kettles & Coffee Makers
Dishwashers
Refrigerators
Washing machines and Clothes dryers
Vacuum Cleaners
Heaters and Air conditioners
Thermostats
Lighting
Security intercoms
Domestic security alarms
Smoke Alarms
Cameras
Digital recorders and voice recorders
Clocks, watches and timers
Calculators and scales
Portable music players
Clock radios
Exercise equipment
Electric shaver
Electric toothbrush
This report makes occasional reference to
other classes of devices (mobile phones) or non-electronic items (kitchen
utensils), because research in such areas shed some light on the forces at play
in manufacture, design and marketing of consumer electronics, or positive
success stories which may be transferable to this area.
Every day, one in five Australians
experiences difficulties or frustrations in performing everyday tasks with
everyday things, such as consumer electronics and appliances. As technology
marches forward, an increasing proportion of products are unusable by people
with a range of different disabilities - the ‘overlooked consumers’.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports
people with disabilities make up 19% of the Australian population. These
figures are largely based on self-reporting. Interestingly, estimates of
people with some kind of hearing impairment are nearly one in five, and the
same again for Australians with some level of arthritis. This suggests that
the official figure could well be understating the size of the population with
some kind of disability. But, in fact, the situation is worse than that. For
all of us, whether we consider ourselves disabled or not, we will, at some time
in our life – whether through age, illness or accidents, have a short or
longer-term disability.
It is well documented that designers are
prone to design environments and devices best suited to their own capabilities,
architecturally and technologically. Even in 2007, manufacturers, marketers
and designers still create devices which are suited to their own cerebral
capabilities; full vision, hearing and dexterity. It is quite amazing and
disappointing that the younger designers of today persist in designing a world
and things in it, which in many cases cannot be used by the generations that
came before them. This is the heart of the problem. Too often, when designing
products, attention is given to a narrow notion of who will use the products,
with little thought given to the numerous groups of people which the product
design will exclude.
More progressive design approaches, such as
User Centred Design, which are described later in this paper, are a path
towards the design of more inclusive products. However, this can only happen
if people with diverse capabilities and limitations, are included in product
and user research. For example, even with modern market research, the people
who are selected usually represent people who have no disabilities. Market
Research participants firstly need to get to an external location, then they
need to be able to read information, complete survey forms, respond to visual
mock-ups of products and services etc. If a blind person asks for assistance
in reading and completing the participation form, members of staff often say
they are unable to assist as it may influence the participant’s responses.
At times, some organizations have been in
contact with manufacturers to explain the needs, eg. of blind people’s use of
whitegoods, and there has been some interest. The author was told about such
contact with Electrolux by the Royal Society for the Blind in Adelaide.
Although both interest and understanding were initially shown, eventually off-shore
manufacture and changes in the manufacturing organization meant that results
never came to fruition.
As discussed below, some change in
corporate culture appears to be underway in the US with WhirlPool, although to
date this is only reflected in a few products. For several years now, Fisher
and Paykel have been developing clothes dryers and some other whitegoods which
lean towards more accessible use by people who are blind, with raised arrows on
their touch-pad controls, use of tone confirmation of button-presses, and (in
some models) menus which don’t wrap, i.e. when you move to the first or the
last menu choice, the pointer doesn’t automatically wrap back to the beginning.
Research at WhirlPool found that adding
tone feedback to the controls on washers and dryers was also helpful to, and
appreciated by customers with full vision, as it gave extra confirmation of
their instruction. LG is also known for its use of audible tones, to provide
information about washing machine settings and modes.
In order for real change to occur, the
manufacturer needs to change its processes and its values, so that pressure to
create products that are more accessible is top-down, and not just from a few
interested employees.
Different people are negatively impacted in
different ways by the inaccessible design of consumer electronics and home
appliances. This discussion paper gives particular attention to dexterity and
vision issues, however the problem is even more widespread and impacts on a huge
number of potential customers and consumers of products.
Some of the reasons for inaccessible design
include:
Poor designs are perpetuated in new designs, so the problem doesn’t
get better – ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ – but ironically we don’t
realize and we don’t question that it might be broken, and often it is.
Industry appears to have low awareness of the access needs that have
high incidence in potential users of their products.
As computing power has increased and miniaturized, visually
aesthetic user interfaces are the key design element in many products (this is
an increasing concern for people who are blind or vision impaired, and for many
people with cognitive disabilities).
In many cases, manufacturers don’t seem to know or believe that
there are strategies and solutions for expanding the usability and reach of
their products, or if they do, they put these problems in the ‘too hard basket’
or say they will look at them down the track. Sometimes the smallest efforts
can have a positive impact on the situation. For example, simply by adding
some basic tones to provide audible feedback on operations of a device, can
make the difference between people who are blind having access or being
excluded from using the device.
Most people with disabilities probably don’t realize that the kind
of technology that enables computers and automated telephone information
services to ‘talk’, can now be employed in consumer electronics devices, in a
cost-effective manner. This lack of awareness may be one of the key reasons
why people with disabilities have not been more vocal about their need to have
more accessible options.
In the following paragraphs we briefly
explore different faculties and impairments and how design decisions in
products will affect each of these groups.
Some of this content, in particular the
examples of how everyone is at times affected by their environment, come from
James Mueller’s excellent Universal Design webpage.
http://home.earthlink.net/~jlminc/whatis.html
Seeing
Everyone is unique in their abilities to see colours, judge
distances, and see things up close and far away. These abilities can be
affected by the demands of everyday tasks such as inserting a key into a door
lock in the dark, reading a book under the glare of bright sun, or driving in
heavy rain. Additionally some people have difficulty seeing due to
disabilities like colour blindness, glaucoma and cataracts, through to total
blindness.
In modern products, the use of touch screens and menus in
place of mechanical interfaces can make them completely unusable by people
without sufficient vision, whereas in the past, whilst it was helpful to have
vision to use the product, the process could be learned or memorised. This is
described in detail in a conference Article from the National Federation of the
Blind. http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/2006/proceedings/2774.htm.
Also Articles in the American Foundation for the Blind’s
Access World Journal. http://www.afb.org/afbpress/pub.asp?DocID=aw080303
Modern designs frequently minimise colour contrast with
silver buttons on silver backgrounds, etc. making it difficult for people with
low vision to easily operate products.
Hearing
Everyone is unique in their abilities to carry on a
conversation, detect the direction a sound is coming from, and hear high- or
low-pitched sounds. These abilities can be affected by the demands of everyday
tasks like hearing normal sounds with a head cold, using a mobile phone on a
noisy street corner, or operating noisy machinery. In addition, some people
have difficulty hearing due to disabilities like tinnitus.
People with significant hearing loss, or who are Deaf, are
mainly impacted by products which don’t provide visual alerts for alarms, etc.
So smoke alarms, door bells, intercoms, which only produce audio, can be
ineffective.
Reaching and Handling
Everyone is unique in their abilities to reach, lift, carry,
and manipulate objects. These abilities can be affected by the demands of
twisting a door knob with wet or oily hands, writing with your non-dominant
hand or unlocking a door while carrying groceries. In addition, some people
have difficulty using their arms and hands due to disabilities like arthritis,
bursitis and tendonitis, or loss of one arm.
The trend towards miniaturisation for electronic products
maybe cool, but can obviously make them very difficult to use for people with
fine motor control problems, tremors, etc. “Many modern
remote controls are very lightweight, narrow width and with the underside
curved on the sides making it very difficult for somebody like myself who
cannot physically hold the remote control in one hand and press the buttons
with either the fingers on the same hand or with your fingers on the other
hand. With the remote control lying on a flat surface, with the underside
curved at the edges, pressing one of the buttons located on the left or right
edges of the remote control makes the remote control tip. Also, like with
mobile phones, the buttons are becoming smaller and placed close to each
other.” … Greg.
Thinking
Everyone is unique in their abilities to receive,
understand, remember and act on information. These abilities can be affected
by everyday tasks like driving safely while having a conversation,
concentrating while under the influence of medication and trying to follow
confusing road signs.
The trend towards ever-increasing lists of features, complex
menu structures, buttons and settings on devices has challenged everyone, but
particularly for people who have more difficulty comprehending, remembering or
making decisions. For people with significant cognitive disabilities, adding
one extra step in a process can be the difference between whether the device
can be used by them or not. For example, when a television set only had a
volume control, a channel selector nob and a control for vertical hold, almost
anyone could work it. But with multi-media home entertainment systems, it is
often the eight-year old who has the best understanding of the complex
interactions between different components of the system.
One of the strategies that people who are blind adopt in
order to use consumer electronics is to memorise the complex set of steps
needed to perform a task. This is challenging because they are unable to see
the feedback of their actions. This makes it particularly challenging for a
person, who in addition to being vision impaired, has a memory or cognitive
impairment.
Why are things this bad?
In the simplest terms, a product is
designed in the context of a likely user or group of users. If the designer’s
idea of that user is narrow, then the design will be accordingly narrow and
will lock out access for those outside the narrow framing of the designer.
Part of the problem is due to lack of
awareness by industry, limited consolidation and collaboration between
manufacturers, a highly competitive market, and rapid rates of technological
development.
Most home electronics standards tend only
to apply to protocols for device inter-connection, media formats and other
non-user interface domains, if indeed they conform to any industry standards at
all. Unlike technology developed for business, government and industry, there
is no consolidated pressure for conformance or interconnectivity, or
accessibility with regard to consumer electronics.
There is currently little awareness by
industry of the need for accessible design in mainstream products, and the
problems that poor design creates for people with disabilities and for older
people. The problem is also contributed to by the dichotomy between ‘regular’
products designed for regular people and ‘special’ products designed for
specific groups of people with disabilities. This concept is discussed below
in the section titled “The Disability Dichotomy”.
This section briefly discusses some classical
and contemporary design methodologies that either restrict or could have the
potential to lead to the increase of accessibility and usability of products.
It then explores some current design trends that have some promise for the
future.
Very occasionally, we see examples of
incidental or accidental product designs which are well suited to some groups
of people with disabilities. However, it doesn’t happen often enough.
Incidental access tends to occur at later iterations in the product development
life cycle. It tends to happen as a positive side-effect of product refinement
where more emphasis is placed on simple and elegant designs which diminish
complexity and omit unnecessary actions for the user.
An example is a pod-based coffee maker,
which, as it happens, is very easy and reliable for use by people who are blind
or who have low vision. This is because all the hot parts, steamer etc, are
enclosed, because the coffee is pre-packaged in a ‘pod’ which can only be
inserted one way into the machine, because it measures the amount of water
being expressed into the cup, and because it automatically times the process.
If you put it together the correct way, and place the cup in the correct
position, you reliably get a hot cup of coffee.
Vision Australia was contacted by two
manufacturers of such automatic coffee makers, who now offer free delivery for
vision-impaired purchasers.
Another example
is a digital radio scanner, which though definitely not a consumer product, has
interesting accessibility features. It probably wasn’t specifically designed
with accessibility in mind, but nevertheless the features provide greater
access. Firstly, it has a speech synthesizer that will announce the current frequency
during scanning operations, as well as when a button is pressed. Secondly, it
has a serial communications port allowing the radio to be controlled and
programmed from a computer. The computer control includes all of the
configuration settings as well as frequency, mode etc., and programming of
memory channels. These features are found in the
Icom IC-R8500
communications receiver, aimed squarely at the government, commercial and radio
enthusiast end of the market.
The
increasingly popular Roomba robot Vacuum Cleaner available in the US, is another example where the innovative design of the product has benefits for people
with disabilities. For blind people, it scours the house for dirt, you don’t
need to see it; for people with physical disabilities, it moves itself, so you
don’t need to sweep or push the unit, or carry the vacuum cleaner from room to
room.
In 1992 the Trace Center published an
extensive document examining consumer electronics accessibility. The following
discussion and term “Accessible Design” is largely derived from that document,
which is online at:
http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/consumer_product_guidelines/consumer.htm
"Accessible Design" is the term
used for the process of extending mass market product design to include people
who, because of personal characteristics or environmental conditions, find
themselves on the low end of some dimension of performance (e.g., thinking, seeing,
hearing, reaching, manipulating).”
Accessible Design does not need to be
separate from standard mass market design, but all too often manufacturers and
the general population think of the two as mutually exclusive.
Thus Accessible Design is a subset of what
is termed Universal Design. Where Universal Design covers the design of
products for all people and encompasses all design principles, Accessible
Design focuses on principles that extend the standard design process to those
people with some type of performance limitation. According to Trace,
Accessible Design is a balancing act. To begin with, we must acknowledge that
it is not possible to design everything so it can be used by everyone. There
will always be someone with a combination of severe physical, sensory and
cognitive impairments who will be unable to use it. Also, it is equally
unreasonable to rely on the existence or development of special designs for
each major product to accommodate each one of the vast variety of disabilities
and combinations of disabilities.
This makes it necessary to look toward a
combination of approaches for meeting the needs of people with disabilities,
ranging from the incorporation of features into products that will make them
directly usable ("from the box") by more people with disabilities to
the inclusion of features that make them easier to modify for accessibility.
In the words of James Mueller of J. L.
Mueller, Inc., “Universal Design means design for people of all ages and
abilities, but not necessarily one design for everyone”. He goes on to say
that Universal Design is a goal that can be approached creatively from many
directions.
The designed world doesn't fit anyone
perfectly all the time - not even the mythical person of "average"
age and ability. At some time during our lives, we all have problems with the
spaces where we live or work, or the products we use. Age, illness, or
accidents can make these problems more difficult. Universal Design is the
practice of considering these factors in designing as inclusively and equitably
as possible - for people of any age or ability. "Design for all",
"inclusive design", and "kyoyo-hin" are essentially
identical concepts. Throughout our lives, we are different from each other in
our ability to think, see, hear, reach and handle things, and move about”.
Source: http://home.earthlink.net/~jlminc/whatis.html
According to the Centre for Universal
Design at NC State University, the seven stated principles underpinning
Universal Design are:
Equitable use: The design is useful and
marketable to people with diverse abilities.
Flexibility in use: The design accommodates a
wide range of individual preferences and abilities.
Simple and Intuitive: Use of the design is easy
to understand, regardless of the user’s experience, knowledge, language skills
or current concentration level.
Perceptible information: The design communicates
necessary information effectively to the user regardless of ambient conditions
or the user’s sensory abilities.
Tolerance for error: The design minimises
hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.
Low physical effort: The design can be used
efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue.
Size and space for approach and use:
Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation and
use regardless of user’s body size, posture, or mobility.
Source: http://home.earthlink.net/~jlminc/tools_principles.html
The concept of Universal Design (UD) is
gaining significant coverage and application in different domains, particularly
in the built environment. The “Designing for the 21st Century”
conference held in 2003 had numerous papers about UD projects, but few, if any,
relating directly to consumer electronics. The homepage and conference
proceedings are available online at: http://www.designfor21st.org/proceedings/index.html
A well documented application of UD
principles is the story of the OXO Good Grips range, which was developed for
people with arthritis or limited motor skills. This development turned OXO
around from a failing company to one of the largest makers of kitchen utilities
today:
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/inclusivedesign/index.php?section=introduction&page=ex-oxo:
Universal Design is a principle, but it
still isn’t applied extensively in practice. Research by a range of
universities is looking into ways of ensuring UD is applicable in business, and
to translate its concepts into processes which can be implemented and
measured.
One of these studies “UDiP: Universal
Design in Practice” is a three year project being conducted by Georgia Tech.
researching the practical use of UD print and web resources by stakeholders.
Source: http://www.hsi.gatech.edu/cise/udip/
Chris Law, who has been working in the area
of technology access for over a decade, is examining business decision-making
in Universal Design, for his ongoing PhD project at RMIT University. His PhD
is titled “Understanding business decision-making in the development of
environments, standard products and services for use by people with
disabilities”.
Source: http://users.bigpond.net.au/chrislaw/bdm.html
In broad terms, user-centred design (UCD)
is a design philosophy and a process in which the needs, wants, and limitations
of the end user of an interface or document are given extensive attention at
each stage of the design process. User-centred design can be characterized as
a multi-stage problem solving process that not only requires designers to
analyse and foresee how users are likely to use an interface, but to test the
validity of their assumptions with regards to user behaviour in real world
tests with actual users. Such testing is necessary as it is often very
difficult for the designers of an interface to understand intuitively what a
first-time user of their design experiences, and what each user's learning
curve may look like.
The chief difference from other interface
design philosophies is that user-centred design tries to optimise the user
interface around how people can, want, or need to work, rather than forcing the
users to change how they work to accommodate the system or function.
An increasingly common design approach is
to create several personas – different representative users who are likely to
use the product. Usage scenarios are then created for those personas, to test
the features and convenience of the product. In selecting the personas, if
they don’t contain people with diverse capabilities and limitations, then the
product will most likely not be that useable by people who aren’t included in
the profile of the selected personas.
Cooperative design involves designers and
users on an equal footing based on the Scandinavian tradition of design of IT
artefacts since 1970. Participatory design (PD) is a North American term for
the same concept inspired by Cooperative Design, focused on participation of
users since 1990.
All these approaches follow the ISO
standard Human-centred design processes for interactive systems (ISO 13407
Model, 1999).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-centered_design
A good starting point is to conceptually
separate a device into -
what the product does (or can do), its functions/features; from
what the user needs to do with the product in order to get it to do
its thing, its user interface.
Example 1, MP3 Player
Functions: plays music or recorded audio
UI: read screen, select tracks through
touch or by pressing buttons,
Example 2: Dish Washer
Function: cleans cutlery, plates and pans;
UI: Open door, slide out racks, Place items
in racks, add dishwashing product, set washing mode with buttons or touch pad,
and look at lights or display to confirm settings, close door.
With the development of computers, the term
user interface has become the common term for the approach that a user needs to
adopt to interact with and control the computer. The term previously used for
operation of physical devices such as cars and machines was “Man machine
interface” or now “human machine interface”. However, now that computers are
embedded in almost all devices and equipment, the term “user interface” can be
used universally.
“The user interface is the aggregate of
means by which people (the users) interact with a particular machine, device,
computer program or other complex tool (the system). The user interface
provides means of:
Input, allowing the users to manipulate a
system
Output, allowing the system to produce the
effects of the users' manipulation”. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface
Building on this principle of separating
function and user interface is the URC project described in the section
below.
Over the last 8 or so years, the term
“Digital Divide” has often been discussed with respect to people with
disabilities, as it is with those who are financially disadvantaged. Another
divide which continues is what the author terms the Disability Dichotomy.
In simple terms the disability dichotomy is
the distinction between designs for people (everyone who appears not to have
disabilities) and designs specifically for people with disabilities. While on
one hand we have Universal Design, on the other we have Assistive or Adaptive
technologies and designs. These are products and software specifically
developed for people with disabilities (niche markets for development, sale and
use by people with disabilities).
The disability dichotomy is a mindset that
holds that there are “people”, and those people use standard products - and
there are “disabled people”, and those people need and should use special devices
(assistive technology).
It is indeed true that there are occasions
where special designs, assistive technologies and products have their place for
people with disabilities to participate more fully in employment, study and the
information society. At the same time, the presence of these special, and
often very expensive solutions, sends out a confusing message to mainstream
designers and manufacturers that there isn’t a great need for them to adopt
more inclusive design approaches. So the challenge is to promote people with
disabilities from being a special and different group, to being considered
equal consumers in the general market place.
The author is not suggesting that there
isn’t a place for such specially designed products and software, but it is
disappointing that more mainstream products are not more access aware, and that
they aren’t designed with a wider range of possible users in mind.
It is not appropriate, nor is it the case,
that special whitegoods be developed for use by people with disabilities.
Economies of scale, and the range of brands and features of such devices makes
such an approach impractical and uneconomic, and such an approach would be of
no help for people, when travelling or staying with friends.
For these types of products, there is a
desperate need for designers to take into greater account the wide range of
people,
