INCLUSIVE USER CENTERED DESIGN: PICKING UP WHERE
STANDARDS-BASED ACCESSIBILITY LEAVES OFF
Presenter(s)
Jennifer Bilotta
User Insight [www.userinsight.com]
Day Phone: (770) 391-1099
Fax: (770) 391-1096
Email: jbilotta@userinsight.com
Presenter #2
John Morgan
User Insight [www.userinsight.com]
Day Phone: (770) 391-1096
Fax: (770) 391-1096
Email: jmorgan@userinsight.com
This timely presentation
proposes "Case-Study" based approaches to best practices for
identifying the gaps left by standards-based development through Inclusive User
Centered Design (IUCD).
A Good Idea
Since the conceptual introduction of access to technology by people with
disabilities, many laws, guidelines, books, manuals and online resources have
been dedicated to a common goal of creating a basic and consistent standard of
access. In the
Lost in Translation
Those parties seeking 508 compliance, whether mandated by law, completely
voluntary, or instigated through judicial action, are often equipped with very
few tools and even less guidance at the product level on how to specifically
comply with Section 508. Even in the rare instance when developers, presented
with this challenge, proactively address the concept of access for all, the
implementation techniques that result from the Section 508 law vary widely from
product to product. Over implementation of the Law often becomes a problem
within development teams, actually increasing the number of access barriers
within the product. The existence of web accessibility subject matter experts
eases the translation burdens on product teams and improves the overall end
result. These individuals, however are few and far between, prohibitively expensive
for smaller companies and difficult for teams with no prior exposure to
accessibility to verify the quality of each individual consultant.
Paying for the Invisible
Hiring an expensive consultant to translate the guidelines into practical
HTML and JavaScript techniques that can be used by developers is not the only
cost issues raised when considering accessible technology. The fundamental
issue becomes finding funding to address the needs of people with disabilities
within the product’s lifecycle. Creating advocacy among the “check writers” for
such an abstract concept as technology access for persons with disabilities is
difficult to say the least, especially when there is little to no perceivable
or measurable outcome. In other words, executives spend thousands toward
accessibility efforts, but in the end cannot account for the results to others
because many times the results show no visible change in the graphical user
interface (GUI).
The First Step
Inclusive User Centered Design (IUCD) or the practice of including users
with disabilities into standard usability testing within a company is also
expensive and difficult to justify prior to the test. Though most User Centered
Design efforts promote measurable increased usability for populations without
disabilities, it still remains commonplace in industry to replace UCD practices
for people with disabilities with “standards compliance.” The conclusion by
most product teams is that replacing true IUCD with a cheaper standards-based
review and code compliance assumes identical results. The person is ultimately
replaced by a set of standards. In the rare case that products receive both a
standards-based review and user testing with people with disabilities, user
testing should follow a standards-based (or code) review. Unlike most
“standard” usability assessments, standards-based testing and review should be
the first step toward IUCD by removing major access barriers prior to user
testing to allow the users to provide useful feedback on messaging, content and
usability rather than fundamental access.
User Feedback is Key
Including end-user feedback in the accessibility effort is a critical, but
often ignored, step in identifying usability and access barriers that
standards-based review cannot identify. The key difference between the two
methods is the audience. Standards-based review is general, giving little
consideration to specific audience or goal-based information. It is, however,
highly effective in removing fundamental access barriers within the product.
Inclusive User Centered Design, on the other hand, emphasizes the
identification of the end-user population, trying to understand not only who
the users are, but any goals and desires of those users as they relate to the
use of the product being evaluated. The results of the initial site or product
analysis drive the recruit for the user sessions. Integrating real users with
real goals and experience is the only way to generate true IUCD into your
products. Feedback from actual users can go a long way to fine-tune the
accessibility of a product, creating more usable, useful and accessible
products for all.
Research Plan
In order to identify where the most common gaps between standards-based
testing and IUCD might occur, User Insight researchers will identify several
widely-used online products that claim some level of Section 508 or W3C
accessibility compliance. Products for review can range from online banking
applications to ordering books online, checking your email account or even renting
movies online. Any product that could improve the quality of life for any
individual can be considered for this study. After identifying several products
that already claim a basic level of access, User Insight researchers will
construct a thorough site analysis for each, identifying target audiences and
goals, including people with disabilities. The researchers, in conjunction with
possible respondents, will test the product’s using the primary tasks outlined
in the site analysis. The tests will occur in a lab environment. By focusing on
the experience of the product by people with disabilities, researchers will be
able to identify gaps between standards compliance and IUCD.
Results Presentation
Upon the conclusion of all the tests, User Insight researchers will
identify any patterns that may occur in the data, specifically focusing on
major gaps between the two testing methods. The researchers will attempt to
formulate practical, action-based practices that could be used at the design
and development levels to supplement standards-based coding techniques. The
desired outcome is to identify, generalize and disseminate supplemental
experience-based practices that may assist developers, designers and all
members of a product team to improve the overall end-user experience, creating
a truly inclusive design.
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2006 Table of Contents