INCREASING ACCESS TO
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES: RESULTS OF A POLICY
Presenter(s)
Paul
Baker
Wireless
RERC/Georgia Institute of Technology
Day Phone: 404-385-4618
Email:
paul.baker@cacp.gatech.edu SEP29 2005
PRESENTER
#2
Nathan Moon
Wireless
RERC/Georgia Institute of Technology
INTRODUCTION
The ongoing innovation and development of wireless technologies has made a wide
array of devices and services increasingly available in the United States;
however, significant policy, economic and technological barriers to access of
those technologies still exist for many people with disabilities (Baker and
Bellordre, 2003). More than 49.7 million people, constituting about 20 percent
of the population, have some kind of long term or conditional disability,
suggesting that barriers to the adoption of wireless technologies affect a
significant constituency (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). To some extent,
equal access to technology—related services and devices, and wireless
accessibility issues can be addressed by the enforcement of existing
legislation and regulations, augmented by new initiatives in disability and
telecommunications policy and research to support increased access to wireless
technologies that address the needs of the disability community.
Subsequent
to identification of key issues surrounding wireless technology adoption by people
with disabilities (Wireless RERC, 2003), the Rehabilitation Engineering
Research Center on Mobile Wireless Technologies for People with Disabilities
(Wireless RERC) conducted a policy Delphi poll to probe key stakeholders’
opinions of what constitutes the most significant issues surrounding the adoption
and use of technologies by people with disabilities, as a precursor to the
development of new policy approaches.
Participants
in the
POLICY
ISSUES
The following issues were confirmed as being highly important to 1) increasing access
to wireless technologies and services by people with disabilities, and 2)
increasing the awareness of designers and manufacturers to the needs of this
population:
* Inadequacy/insufficiency of consumer information — A lack of consumer
awareness of wireless technologies was related to a lack of information
disseminated to the general population, an inability or unwillingness on the
part of manufacturers to highlight accessibility features, failure of retailers
to provide information to customers, and a lack of advertising or information
in general.
* Objective review of assistive technology (AT) products - Many comments
emphasized the importance of independent reviews to help consumers with
disabilities develop a greater knowledge in the selection and use of devices
and services.
* Lack of manufacturer awareness — “Manufacturers who may believe that the
market for wireless devices designed for people with disabilities is too small
and specialized to target” was identified (95 percent) as a crucial issue to be
addressed.l
* Devices affordability — Participants suggested that devices that could help
people with disabilities overcome economic disadvantages are often
unaffordable, and suggested that integration of accessibility features into
mainstream products for the creation of economies of scale might be a feasible
solution.2
* Inadequacy of legislation/regulatory requirements - Respondents (95 percent),
supported as important that “wireless devices are currently subject to few
accessibility requirements.” The participation of Congress and other key
stakeholders in crafting alternative policy initiatives to increase access to
wireless technologies” was recognized as important (87 percent). Frequently
noted was the need for the federal government to address the full accessibility
of telecommunications equipment, including an expansion of Section 255 of
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
* Device incompatibility or poor interoperability” - Participants identified
three incompatibility/interoperability issues in particular: 1) TTY to Internet
protocol text conversion, 2) hearing aid compatibility, and the different
operating systems, languages, and 3) standards which exist between mobile and
fixed devices.
POLICY
GOALS
Participants polled on the desirability of key goals related to
awareness/access to wireless technologies by people with disabilities strongly
identified two goals in particular: 1) “development of programs to encourage
manufacturers of wireless devices to include people with disabilities in the
review and evaluation of assistive or universally designed products and
technologies (97 percent); arid 2) an “increased emphasis on universal design
principles in place of an emphasis on assistive technology” (96 percent) Other
responses included:
* Increased “awareness of accessible technologies and features among retailers
and other
• intermediaries between manufacturers/designers and consumers/users.”
* “Tax incentives for employers to hire persons with disabilities” — was
indicated as a desirable goal, receiving support from a majority of the poll’s
participants, though not without significant opposition from within the group.
* Other programs and goals received support but to a less decisive degree
including:
“emphasis on more affordable assistive technologies”, “support for
telecommuting”, “educational and training programs for people with
disabilities”, “anti-discrimination training and information”, “research on
employees with disabilities in the workplace, and the provision of universal
health care coverage”.
* “Increased coordination between private and public research and development”
received the strongest support. Other desirable research and development goals:
“national funding for research and development of accessible wireless devices
and communication tools,” and “increased interagency coordination in
disability—related research and development;” research programs on interoperability
and standards setting”, “exploring design approaches to determine best
practices,” and “involving consumers through publicly-shown prototypes.”
* Development of “compatible platforms between wireless and other mobile
devices used by people with disabilities was viewed as desirable. Respondents
observed that the greatest impediments to the development of compatible
platforms between wireless devices and those mobile technologies used by people
with disabilities were due to a lack of standards, either mandatory or
voluntary; or that economic or market reasons fostered an attitude that such
compatibility was not required.
* Development of a national policy coordinating emergency communications
devices and services for people with disabilities,” was also strongly
supported.
POLICY
OPTIONS AND INITIATIVES
The various stakeholders tended to agree on issues and goals, but often
differed on their implementation. Drawing on early policy assessment work
(including Wireless RERC, 2003) the poll results were used to develop
preliminary policy options/incentives that offer the potential to increase
accessibility to these technologies. Final policy option will be developed
following completion of the final phase of the research. Potential options exist
in all four areas issues areas previously identified, but the following areas
generated the greatest level of support:
* Access/awareness related options - public sector interventions might include
an expanded dissemination program of fact sheets and supporting material
developed in association with key stakeholders. These include those companies
designated as “Section 255 Manufacturers of Equipment” by the Disability Rights
Office (DRO) of the FCC, as well as members of the disability community. Increased
awareness/participation could be generated by holding of expanded/additional
sets of public hearings by DRO to encourage increased stakeholder input into
the regulatory process.
* Access/awareness related options — private sector initiatives could include
training and education programs developed by manufacturers of wireless
technologies for people with disabilities in conjunction with trade
associations, such as the Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA), the
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), or American
Electronics Association (AEA) as well as initiatives such as iCan!
(www.ican.com) to provide consumer information and marketing services based on
consumer polls, which are critical to understanding the market potential for
new device development.
* Awareness/education options an option combining education and awareness
includes educational outreach to manufacturers and designers of wireless
products about the economic viability of universally-designed products or
mainstream products which incorporate accessibility features, emphasizing
untapped markets consisting of people with disabilities and aging, focusing on
benefits to be gained by large numbers of users by incorporating such
features.3
* Economic related options — expansion of existing equipment distribution
programs at the state level to include wireless and other communications
devices. In particular, manufacturer trade associations and disability advocacy
stakeholders might work with the Telecommunications Equipment Distribution
Program Association (TEDPA), to develop links
• between equipment manufacturers and state equipment distribution programs;
Additionally, tax related incentives could be developed to support manufacturer
related research into universally designed products; and educational
outreach/usability efforts.
* Technology related options — expanded sets of voluntary, but mutually agreed
upon product standards could serve to address interoperability concerns for
users with disabilities.
Finally
in regard to future empirical research agendas, it might be useful to conduct a
study of the enforcement efficacy of Section 255 of the 1996 Telecommunications
Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and whether these pieces
of legislation have resulted in greater access to and accessibility of wireless
technologies for people with disabilities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is a publication of The Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on
Mobile Wireless Technologies for Persons with Disabilities sponsored by the
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the
U.S. Department of Education under grant number Hl33EOlO804. The opinions
contained in this publication are those of the grantee and do not necessarily
reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education.
REFERENCES
Baker, Paul M.A., and Bellordre, Christine. (2003). “Factors Influencing
Adoption of
Wireless Technologies — Key Policy Issues, Barriers and Opportunities for
People with
Disabilities” Information Technology and Disabilities. Vol. IX No. 2, December
2003.
Wireless
RERC. (2003). Policy and Regulatory Assessment: Factors influencing Adoption of
Wireless Technologies: Key Issues, Barriers and Opportunities for People with Disabilities.
Office of Policy and Programs, GCATT,
1
Note: Participants agreed on the importance of focusing on manufacturers and
product
designers who may be unaware of accessibility issues, such as difficulties
faced by people
with sensory impairments in navigating multi—level interfaces.
2 Note: Others suggested that the merger of disability and aging markets,
government
purchases for bulk discounts, or provision of tax incentives or vouchers might
be the best means for making wireless technologies more affordable to people
with disabilities.
3 Note: Here, industry groups such as TDI, Infinitec, and RESNA, might develop an internal promotional campaign aimed at mass—market manufacturers and other non—niche marketers of wireless technologies.
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2006 Table of Contents