developing a participatory approach to accessible design

HAL Id: halshs-01762291https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01762291

Submitted on 9 Apr 2018

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.

Developing a Participatory Approach to AccessibleDesign

María Inés Laitano

To cite this version:María Inés Laitano. Developing a Participatory Approach to Accessible Design. International Journalof Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 2017, 9 (4), pp.1 - 11. �10.4018/IJSKD.2017100101�.�halshs-01762291�

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01762291

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr

The International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development is indexed or listed in the following: Bacon’s Media Directory; Cabell’s Directories; DBLP; GetCited; Google Scholar; INSPEC; JournalTOCs; MediaFinder; SCOPUS; The Index of Information Systems Journals; The Standard Periodical Directory; Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory

Special Issue of Embracing Diversity with Help of Technology and Participatory Design

Guest Editorial Prefacev Barbara Rita Barricelli, Department of Computer Science, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy

Ines Di Loreto, Tech-CICO, Université de Technologie de Troyes, Troyes, France

Research Articles

1 DevelopingaParticipatoryApproachtoAccessibleDesign;

María Inés Laitano, LabSic, Université Paris 13, Villetaneuse, France

12 ApplicationstoImproveQualityofLife;

Arminda Guerra Lopes, Instituto Politecnico de Castelo Branco, Castelo Branco, Portugal & Madeira Interactive Technologies Institute, Funchal, Portugal

28 FromHuman-CenteredDesigntoDisabledUser&EcosystemCenteredDesigninCaseofAssistiveInteractiveSystems;

Marine Guffroy, CREN, Le Mans University, Le Mans, France

Vigouroux Nadine, IRIT, Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France

Christophe Kolski, LAMIH, Valenciennes and Hainaut-Cambrésis University, Valenciennes, France

Frédéric Vella, IRIT, Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France

Philippe Teutsch, CREN, Le Mans Université, Le Mans, France

43 AParticipatoryDesignApproachwithVisuallyImpairedPeoplefortheDesignofanArtExhibition;

Karine Lan HingTing, UTT- Université de Technologie de Troyes, ICD (CNRS, UMR 6281), Troyes, France

Ines Di Loreto, UTT- Université de Technologie de Troyes, ICD (CNRS, UMR 6281), Troyes, France

CoPyRIGHTThe International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD) (ISSN 1941-6253; eISSN 1941-6261), Copyright © 2017 IGI Global. All rights, including translation into other languages reserved by the publisher. No part of this journal may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means without written permission from the publisher, except for noncommercial, educational use including classroom teaching purposes. Product or company names used in this journal are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark. The views expressed in this journal are those of the authors but not necessarily of IGI Global.

Volume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December-2017 • ISSN: 1941-6253 • eISSN: 1941-6261An official publication of the Information Resources Management Association

InternationalJournalofSociotechnologyandKnowledgeDevelopment

TableofContents

jtravers

Highlight

DOI: 10.4018/IJSKD.2017100101

International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017

Copyright©2017,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

Developing a Participatory Approach to Accessible DesignMaría Inés Laitano, LabSic, Université Paris 13, Villetaneuse, France

ABSTRACT

Thisarticledescribeshowaccessibility to ICTs isunderstoodasconformity tostandards,whichusuallyendsindesignsthatdonotconsiderthesingularitiesofpeople.Thisarticledelvesintoaparticipatoryapproachtoaccessibledesign,asanalternativetodesignguidedsimplybystandards.Itfirstdefinesarelevantnetworkofstakeholdersforaccessibleparticipatorydesign,basedontheexpertisethateachofthemcanprovide.Itthendiscussestheissueofconsensusamongstakeholders,necessarytomakedesigndecisionswhenthereareconflictingviews.Finally,itaddressesthequestionofnon-technologicaloutcomesandmethodologicalconcernsofParticipatoryDesignthatshouldinspiretheaccessibledesignagenda.

KeywoRDSAccessible Design, Accessible Participatory Design, Disability, Human-centered Design, Inclusive Design, Participatory Design, Socio-technical Systems, WCAG

INTRoDUCTIoN

AlthoughaccessibilitytoInformationandCommunicationTechnologies(ICTs)hasbeenpromotedformorethantenyearsasafundamentalhumanrightofpeoplewithdisabilities(UnitedNations,2006),asanunprecedentedopportunityforcommunicationandautonomy,manycommunitiesremainexcluded.Thereasonsforthissituationofrelegationaremanyanddiverse(economic,technical,cultural,political,geographical,etc.)butamajorcauseisthestandardizeddesignofmainstreamICTs.Standardizedornormalizeddesignimpliescertainnorms,likeyoung,white,male,heterosexual,Western,middle-class,non-disabled,andmarginalizesindividualidentities(Lewthwaite,2014).Aspostulatedbythesocialmodelofdisability(WorldHealthOrganization,2001),exclusionisgeneratedbytheenvironmentinwhichthepersonlives,bythenormalizeddesignofmainstreamtechnologies,andnotbytheirpersonalattributes.

Intheaccessibilityarenaitself,thereisageneralizedunderstandingofaccessibilitytoICTsasconformitywithnorms.SeveralcountriesgrantedlawstatustoWebContentAccessibilityGuidelines(W3C,2008),promotingwebdesignprojectsbasedexclusivelyonaccessibilitystandards.Theseguidelinesarelistsofverificationcriteria,designedmoretoevaluateexistingwebsitesthantoaddressnewdesignprojects.Itwasshownempirically,byusertest,thataccessibilityguidelinesdonotcoveralltheproblemsencounteredbypeoplewithdisabilitieswhentheybrowsetheWeb(Power,Freire,Petrie,&Swallow,2012;Rømen&Svanæs,2011).Guidelinesdefineaccessibilityasapropertyofthedigitalcontentandnotasapropertyoftherelationshipbetweentheuserandthecontentinacontextofuse(Cooper,Sloan,Kelly,&Lewthwaite,2012),asapropertyoftheuserexperience.TheW3CAccessibilityGuidelinesWorkingGroup,awareoftheselimitations,iscurrentlyworkingonanextmajorversionfor2020thathopestoexpandthescopebeyondcontentandbeyondtheWeb(Lauriat

1


2

&Spellman,2017).Oneofthegoalsinthiselaborationprocessistoinvolvemorestakeholdersbydoinguserresearchwithpeoplewhousethestandard.

Thispaperdelvesintoaparticipatoryapproachtoaccessibledesign,asanalternativetodesignguidedsimplybystandards.Participatorydesigncallsfordemocratizationandstakeholderinvolvementinthedesignprocess,forempowerrelevantstakeholdersratherthanbeingrestrictthemtoaprescribedwayofinteracting(Fischer,2002),foremancipatespecially“groupsofpeoplewhoseviews,opinionsandneedsmightbethemostignoredbymainstreamsociety.”(Vines,Clarke,Wright,McCarthy,&Olivier,2013).Atleasttworationales,onemoralandonepragmatic,supportparticipatorydesign.Thefirstisthatthepeoplemostdirectlyaffectedbythedesignresulthavetherighttojudgethatresult.Thepragmaticreasonisthatdirectlyincludinguserswillincreasethechancesofasuccessfuldesignresultbecause theyare theoneswhowillneed toadoptand toadapt to thedesignresult(Carroll&Rosson,2007).

Thethreemaingoalsoftheparticipatorydesignphilosophy—sharingexpertise,sharingcontrolandinspiringchange(Vinesetal.,2013)—areexploredinthecontextofaccessibledesign.Theauthoroutlinesopinionsdevelopedthroughexperienceandlooselyguidedbythesethreegoals.Shetookpartasaresearcher/designerinaseriesoftechnologydesignprojectsforsocialinclusioncarriedoutinthecityofRosario(Argentina),themajorityofthemwithinapublicprogramofaccessibletourism.

Thus,theobjectivesofthearticlearethree.First,toidentifywhoaretherelevantstakeholders,basedontheexpertiseneededtodesignanaccessibleartifact.Second,todiscusstheissueofconsensusamongstakeholders,necessarytomakedesigndecisionswhenthereareconflictingviews.Thirdly,toaddressthequestionoftheoutcomeofanaccessibleparticipatorydesignprojectandtheoutcomeaspectsthatshouldconcerntheaccessibilityresearchagenda.

ThecontributionsarenotintendedtobeaformalorreproduciblemethodologyfortheaccessibledesignofICTs.Thesocio-technicalsystems“involvinghumansandtechnologycontainfartoomuchvariability tobe reproducible inanystraightforwardway” (Brown,Reeves,&Sherwood,2011).Theproposedsuggestionsareonlyintendedtomotivateandinspiremorereflectionsonaccessibleparticipatorydesign.Itisuptoeachdesignerorresearchertoadapt,viare-significationandnon-mechanicaldissemination(Thomas,Juarez,&Picabea,2015),theseproposalstootherlocalcontexts.

SHARING VIewS oN ACCeSSIBLe DeSIGN

Participatorydesignconceivesdesignasaprocessofinscribingknowledgeinmaterialforms(Karasti,2014).Thisknowledgeisnotownedbyasinglepersonbutpossessedbydifferentstakeholdersinanasymmetricandoftencontroversialway (Fischer,2000).Relevant stakeholders foraccessibleparticipatorydesignareall thosepeoplewithsomeknowledgeofaccessibility,capableof sharetheirpointsofviewandproducenewideasandartifacts.Thisdefinitionextendstheclassictriaddevelopers-content-users of the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative (Chisholm & Henry, 2005)toawidernetworkconformedby:ICTsprofessionals,sponsors,ownersandexternalsuppliersontheproductionside;peoplewithdisabilitiesandattendantsontheuseside;aswellasresearchers.Figure1synthesizesthestakeholders’networkproposedforaccessibleparticipatorydesignandtheexpertisecontributedbyeachofthem.Namesinuppercasedefinethestakeholders.Expertiseofeachstakeholderappearinbullets.Thelightbluebackgroundidentifiestheproductionsidewhiletheorangebackgroundidentifiestheuseside.

Peoplewithdisabilities–orendusers–consultandinteractwiththecontentthroughuseragents:webbrowsers,mediaplayersandassistivetechnologies1.Theyhavedifferentlevelsofcompetenceintheuseofuseragentsandconfiguretheminverydifferentways.Forexample,anexpertscreenreaderuserknowsmultiplekeyboardshortcutsthatanoviceusermaynotknow.Butuseragentsrepresentonlyone–thetechnologicalone–ofthemultipledimensionsthatmakeupthedisabledexperience(Frauenberger,2015)andfromwhichpeoplewithdisabilitiescangivetestimony.Thereisknowledgederivedfrombiologicalcondition.Forinstance,withinthecollectiveofpeoplewith


3

visualimpairments,blindnessisnotthesameaslowvisionnorblinddeafness,birthblindnessisnotthesameasacquiredblindness.Thereisknowledgeintrinsicallycultural.Forexample,signlanguageisthelanguageofadeafculture.Contemporaryconceptualizationsofdisability,whichgobeyondthedichotomybetweenthebiologicalmodelandthesocialmodel,givethepatternofmultipleknowledgethatpeoplewithdisabilitiescancontributetoaccessibledesign(Frauenberger,2015).

Attendantsofpeoplewithdisabilities(family,colleagues,teachers,caregiversandothers)arealsokeyinformantsinaccessibleparticipatorydesign.Asoutlinedinthe“Supportandrelationships”chapter of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (World HealthOrganization,2001),peoplewithdisabilitiesreceivepracticalphysicalandemotionalsupportfromtheirattendantsaswellassupportinvariousaspectsoftheirdailyactivities.Becauseofthis,theirattendantshaveadeepknowledgeaboutthedisabledexperience,abouttheirneeds,theirhabitsandtheirpreferences.Attendantsarenotonly informantsbutcanalsoplaytheroleofmediators.Asmediatorstheycan,forexample,takepartasinterpretersofdeafpeoplewhosenativelanguageisthesignlanguage.

Bydelvingintothecommondefinitionofcontent2,itcanbeseenastheconjunctionofthreeelementsbelongingtodifferentstakeholder’sexpertiseoftheproductionside:interfacecomponents,content(inthestrictsense)andobjectsofinterest.Thedifferencebetweeninterfaceandcontentisaclassicdistinctionincomputerscience:aninterfacecomponentisapartoftheartifactthatisperceivedbyusersasasinglecontrolforadistinctfunctionwhileacontentisaninformationorasensoryexperiencecommunicatedtouserswithacertainstructureandpresentationformat(W3C,2008).ParticipatoryDesignhasalreadypointedoutthatthedesignofinterfacecomponentsandthedesignofthecontentareintertwined.(Fischer&Herrmann,2011)andthisisespeciallytrueinaccessibledesignwhereabarrierineitherofthetwomakesinaccessiblethewhole.Whetherabuttondoesnotsupportoperationbykeyboard(interface)asifimportantinformationisonlyinnon-textualformat(content)theentireartifactisinaccessible.

Figure 1. Stakeholders and their expertise for accessible participatory design (Source: Laitano, 2017)


4

TheobjectofinterestisaconceptthatderivesfromtheActivityTheoryappliedtotheHumanComputer Interaction. The interaction between people and technological artifacts occurs in thebroadercontextofahumanactivity(Rabardel,1995).Peopledoesnotinteractwithtechnologicalartifactsbutwithanobjectoftheworldthroughtechnology.Thetechnologicalartifactonlymediatestherelationshipbetweenthehumanandthisobjectoftheworldthatinterestshim(Bødker,2011).Forexample,whensomeonelooksupanaccessiblesightseeingtourontheWeb,hisattentionisnotplacedontheformatofthecontentbutonthetoursightsanditsaccessibilityfeatures.So,iftoursightsarenotaccessibleorifnothingissaidaboutaccessibilityfeatures,eveniftheinterfaceandthecontentareaccessible,thetechnologicalartifactdoesnotfulfillitsmission,theexperienceasawholeisinaccessible.

Developers –who can be named more generally as ICT professionals because they includedesigners,QAprofessionalsandothers–areexpertsinthedesignofinterfacecomponentsandcontentinthestrictsense.Theyuse–andareexpertsintheuseof–authoringtoolssuchasdevelopmentenvironments,contentmanagementsystems,blogapplications,etc.andevaluationtoolstocheckthecontentsyntaxandaccessibility.

Inaddition,thereare“owners”ofthedesignsolution,i.e.thosewhoinitiate,promote,editandkeepalivethedesignsolutionovertime(Laitano,2016).Toillustrate,iftheTouristOfficeturnedtotheUniversitytodesignatourismsolutionaccessibletotouristswithdisabilities,theTouristOfficefulfillstheroleoftheownersofthedesignsolutionandtheUniversityfulfillstheroleoftheICTprofessionals.Ownersareexpertsinthepurposeormainserviceofthedesignedartifactthatintheexamplewouldbethetouristofferofthecityandthatcanbenamedasmainobjectofinterest.

Therearealsothosestakeholderswhoarereferredtointhecontentbutwhoarenotowners,theirroleisratherthatofexternalsuppliersofcontent.Localhoteliersandgastronomesareexternalsuppliers in thecaseofa tourismdesign solution.Externalprovidershaveknowledgeabout thespecificservicestheyprovide(specificobjectsofinterest)andareresponsiblefortheiraccessibility.Alsoontheproductionsidetherearesponsors,stakeholderswhounderstandthefinancialaspectoftheprojectandnormallycontroltheproject’sagenda.Sponsorsmayormaynotcoincidewithowners.Inthecaseofatourismdesignsolution,themunicipalgovernmentorthetourismministrycanbethesponsorsoftheproject.

All production stakeholders have –or should have– knowledge about the standards that anaccessibledesignsolutionwillhavetorespect.AsproposedbyKellyetal.(2009),theextenttowhichartifactsareaccessiblewillbeinfluencedbyhowalltheproductionstakeholdersrespondtotheseexternaldriversforaccessibilitywhicharethestandards.Developersknowtechnicalstandardsondigitalaccessibility,standardsthatestablishhowtoshowaudiovisualcontent,amongothers.Ownersandexternalprovidersknowthelegislationonaccessibilityanddisabilitythatappliestotheirownserviceordomainofexpertise.

Researchersarealsorelevantstakeholdersforanaccessibleparticipatorydesignproject,locatedinameta-positionthatencompassesbothproductionanduse(seeFigure1).Thisdoesnotmeanthattheycontroltheprocessfromoutsidebut‘insidetheloop’(Brownetal.,2011).Theknowledgeprovidedbytheresearchersisaboveallmethodologicalandepistemological.Methodologicalbecauseresearchersestablishways forshared,communicatedandembodied thestakeholders’knowledge(Vinesetal.,2013).Epistemologicalbecausetheyobserve,analyzeandtransformaprocessinwhichtheythemselvestakepart.Recognizingtheresearcheraspartofthedesignprocessisrecognizingthatthedesignedartifactisalsolinkedtotheresearcher’sculture3.

LooKING FoR CoNSeNSUS AMoNG STAKeHoLDeRS

Co-designasocio-technologicalsolutionisacomplexchallengeinwhichmultiplepointsofviewcantakeplace.Stakeholdersarenothomogeneousandtheparticularcharacteristicsandsingularityofparticipantscanleadtoverydifferentdesignprocess.Differentprocess,runindifferentways,canend


5

upwithverydifferentoutcomesevenifthetechnologicalartifactthatisbeingbuiltisexactlythesame(Brownetal.,2011).Moreover,thissuggeststhattheideaofrecruitingrepresentativestakeholders(Newell,Gregor,Morgan,Pullin,&Macaulay,2011)isquiteawhileidealistic.FindingthepointofconsensusisthereforeatopicofinterestintheParticipatoryDesignliterature.Someauthorsproposeaparticipatoryresult“asonethatshowsevidenceofdemocraticidealsbyincreasingtheagencyofitsusersandgivingthemavoiceinmatterstheydidnothavebefore.”(Bratteteig&Wagner,2016).Participatorydesigninsistsonthetoleranceofdifferentperspectives,onthepassionatecommitmentthat brings together the stakeholders, on transform conflict between enemies into constructivecontroversiesamongadversarieswhohaveopposinginterestsbutarecapableoflegitimizingvisionsdifferentfromtheirown(Björgvinsson,Ehn,&Hillgren,2010).

Inthecaseofaccessibledesign,controversiesappearatmultiplelevels.Justtomentionafew:

• Withinthesamecollectiveofusers:essentialfeaturesforoneuserwithlowvisionmaynotbeimportantforanother.ManyofthemusethebrowserzoomtoreadtheWebwhileothersnavigatewithscreenreadertoavoidvisualfatigue.Fortheformer,agoodcolorcontrastisessential,whileforthelatter,awell-writtenHTMLismoreimportant.

• Betweendifferentcollectivesofusers:People in thedeafcommunityprefer that the sizeofthesignlanguageinterpreterinavideobeverylargewhilepeoplewhodonotunderstandsignlanguagewilltendtopreferasmallsize.

• BetweenICTsprofessionalsandusers:Insurveystoscreenreaderusers(WebAIM,2009),whenusersareconsultedaboutwebimagesthatseektogeneratesomeemotionorsensation,mostindicatethattheypreferimagesdescribedbytheirscreenreader.ThisresultisclearlyopposedtotheaccessibilityguidelinethatrecommendsnotdescribingdecorativeimagesandthereforeopposedtowhatanyICTsprofessionalwouldtendtodo.

Howtodealwiththeseconflictingpreferencesisasubjectstilllittleexploredinthefieldofaccessibledesign.Accessibilitystandardsarenotnormativeintermsofparticipationandinvolvementofstakeholders,althoughtheWebsiteAccessibilityConformanceEvaluationMethodology(W3C,2014)indicatestheinterventionofpeoplewithdisabilitiesasanoptionalrequirement.ScientificworksonParticipatoryDesignwithpeoplewithdisabilitiesdevelopedsofar(Brocketal.,2010;Metatla,Bryan-Kinns,Stockman,&Martin,2015)aremorefocusedontheformsofcommunicationbetweenproducersandusers(accessiblescenarios,accessibleprototypes,etc.)andlessintheformsofagreement.Thereis,ontheotherhand,awidespreadideaofdesignforalloruniversaldesignthathasimplieddangerousimplicationssuchasthinkingthatadesigncouldsatisfythepreferencesorviewsofanyindividual.Ifitisalreadydifficultenoughtofindconsensusamongthemembersofaparticipatorydesignproject,“itcanbecomeimpossibleifthecharacteristicsforwhichoneisdesigning,intermsofphysical,sensory,motorandcognitiveabilities,tosaynothingofculture,knowledgeandmotivation,aresuggestedtoincludethoseofthewholepopulation”(Newelletal.,2011).

Ifthedisadvantagesofthestandards-guideddesignexposedatthebeginningofthispaperareconsidered,apathofpossibleagreementforanaccessibleparticipatorydesignwouldbetoprioritizethe voices that come from the experience of stakeholders over the voices that are based on theaccessibilitystandards.Inthisway,singularitiesofthepeopledirectlyinvolvedwillbeprioritizedoverthenorm,whichisultimatelyestablishedbypeopleunconnectedtotheproject.Likewise,apathofpossibleagreementistotakeadvantageofthecreativepotentialthathasbringingdifferentpointsofviewtogetherandtryingtocreateasharedunderstandingamongallstakeholders(Fischer,2000)toimaginesolutionsthatsolveapparentlyoppositeneeds.ThislastideaapproachesthatofBødkerandZander(2015)forwhomitisaboutidentifyingwin-winsituations.Thatis,insteadofsimplyrespectingthevoiceofthemajority,redoublethecreativeefforttoarriveatsolutionsthatrespondtoheterogeneousneeds.


6

INSPIRING THe ACCeSSIBLe DeSIGN AGeNDA

ThebalancebetweenthetechnologicalconcernandthemethodologicalconcernisanotherpointofdiscussioninthefieldofParticipatoryDesign.ParticipatoryDesignmainlyfocusesitseffortsonidentifying“novelwaysofdeployingexistingtechnologiesinwaysthatareusefultousers”(Dunckley,Camara, Abdelnour-Nocera, & Waema, 2009) and in designing “improvements over existingtechnologiesastheyaremoresensitivetotheneedsanddesiresofspecificusergroups”(Vinesetal.,2013).Thesereusesandadaptationsofexistingtechnologiesputthefocusondesignprocessesandmethods,andareusuallyaccompaniedbyalackofinterestinthetechnologicalresearchconcern.Korsgaard,KlokmoseandBødker(2016)considerthatthecauseofthistechnologicalconservatismisthestabilityofmainstreamtechnologiesanddrawattentiontotheriskforParticipatoryDesign.TheperpetuationofoperatingsystemslikeWindows,Mac,iOSorAndroid,andapplicationsthathasmaturedfordecades(MicrosoftWord,Excel,etc.)hasledtoastandardizationofboththedesignofuserinterfacesandthetrainingofresearchersandpractitionersinthefieldofsoftwaredesign.“Iftechnologiesarechosenbasedontheresearchers’(andusers’)taken-for-grantedness,familiarityand/orconvenience,andlaterresultinrecommendationsfor,or,afinishedsystem,itmustbeimplicitlyassumedthatourcurrenttechnologiesareadequateforlocalpractices.”(Korsgaard,KlokmoseandBødker,2016,p.73).

Theopposite seems tohappen in the fieldofAccessibility.The scientific communityhasapredilectionforthetechnologicalresearchconcern,asillustratedbytheprominentsubjectsintheAccessibilityandComputingliterature(Figure2):whileonlytwothemesmakereferencetodesignprocessesandmethods–usercentereddesign,HCIdesignandevaluationmethods–,severaltopicsare related to technologies –assistive technologies, interaction devices, interaction paradigms,soundbasedI/O,touchscreens,etc.Followingthesamereasoningasbefore,theinclinationforthetechnologicalconcernmaybeaconsequenceofacertainplatforminstability,oftheexistenceofmanyandheterogeneoustoolkitsandplatforms.Assistivetechnologiesvarycompletelyfromonedisabilitysituationtotheotheraswellaswithinthesamedisabilitysituation.Forinstance,assistivetechnologyforvisuallyimpairmentincludescreenreaders,screenmagnifiers,Brailleembossers,voicerecognition,navigationassistance,wearabletechnology,amongmanyothers.Butaddressingonlythetechnologicalaspectalsoinvolvesarisk,alreadymentionedabove:assumingthatatechnologycanbeauniversalsolution,whichcansatisfyanysubjectwithacertaindisability.

Integrating the methodological concerns of Participatory Design into the accessible designagendacouldthenleadtoabetterbalancebetweenmethodologicalandtechnologicalaspects,toasocio-technicalapproachofaccessibledesignandtoarealsocio-technicaloutcome.Integratingthemethodologicalconcernsmeansstartingfromthelocalknowledgeofpeoplewithdisabilitiesandotherstakeholdersforquestioningtheconditionsunderwhichtechnologiesaredesignedandintroduced.

Finally,thetechnologicalartifactisnottheonlyoutcomeinaparticipatorydesignproject.Newknowledgeandcompetencies,newcollaborationsandnetworksareotherpossibleoutcomesofthecollaborative work among stakeholders (Bratteteig & Wagner, 2016). The knowledge about thedisabilityexperienceisusuallyveryasymmetricinanaccessibledesignproject,verylimitedinthecaseoftheproductionstakeholders.Producersareprobablytheoneswhotakethemostintermsofnewknowledgeandcompetencies.Fortheirpart,peoplewithdisabilitiesencounterdailysomanybarriersinICTsthattheyareparticularlymotivatedtoexchangeindesignprocesses.Theyacceptthechallengebecausetheproblemsaddressedarepersonallymeaningfulproblems(Fischer,2002)forthem.Mutuallearning,exchangeandjointworktoproducesomethingnewgeneratetrustandbondsbetweenstakeholdersthatendureovertime.Accessibledesignresearchshouldvaluethisknowledgeasscientificknowledge,shouldtransmittheskillsacquiredandcantakeadvantageofcollaborationsandnetworksinfutureprojects.


7

CoNCLUSIoN

Thispaperdelves into a participatory approach to accessibledesign, as an alternative todesignguidedsimplybystandards.Itanalyzesthreeessentialissuesofparticipatorydesigninrelationtoaccessibility:sharingexpertise,sharingpowerandinspiringchangeintheaccessibledesignagenda.Inthefirstplace,itdefinesarelevantnetworkofstakeholdersforaccessibleparticipatorydesignbasedontheexpertisethateachofthemcanprovide.OntheproductionsidearetheICTsprofessionals,theowners,thesponsorsandtheexternalsuppliersofthedesignsolution.Ontheusesidearethepeoplewithdisabilitiesandtheirattendants.Inameta-positionbetweenproductionandusearetheresearchers.Thearticle thenraises the issueofconsensusamongstakeholdersandproposes twopossiblescenariosforresolvingcontroversies.Thefirstistoprioritizethevoicesthatcomefromtheexperienceofstakeholdersoverthevoicesthatarebasedontheaccessibilitystandards.Thesecondscenarioconsistsintransformingcontroversiesintocreativepotential,inredoublingthecreativeefforttoarriveatsolutionsthatrespondtoheterogeneousneeds.Finally,theauthorexposestwoqualitiesofParticipatoryDesignofwhichtheaccessibledesignagendacouldbeinspired:toprobemoredeeplyintothemethodologicalconcernsandtotakeadvantageofthenon-technologicaloutcomesoftheprocess,suchasnewknowledge,newcompetenciesandnewstakeholders’networks.

Bringingtogethertherightstakeholders,prioritizingtheirknowledgeoveraccessibilitystandards,attending to themethodologyand to thenon-technologicaloutcomesof theprocessaresomeofthechallengesforaccessibledesign.MorereflectionsandmoredesignsinthissenseremaintobecarriedouttotakeadvantageofthecommunicativeandemancipatorypotentialofICTsforpeoplewithdisabilities.

Figure 2. Prominent subjects in the Accessibility and Computing literature (Source: Special Interest Group on Accessibility and Computing https://dl.acm.org/sig.cfm?id=SP1530)


8

ACKNowLeDGMeNT

Theauthor’sresearchwasfundedbytheUniversitéParis13(France)andtheConsejoNacionaldeInvestigaciones Científicas yTécnicas (Argentina). The design projects that inspired this articlewerefundedbyMinisteriodeCiencia,TecnologíaeInnovaciónproductiva,UniversidadNacionaldeRosario,UniversidadAbiertaInteramericana,EntedeTurismoRosario,SecretaríadeTurismodelaMunicipalidaddeRosario,andsupportedbymanystakeholdersfromServiciodeLecturaAccesibledelaBibliotecaMunicipalArgentina“JuanÁlvarez”,AsociaciónRosarinadeDeportesparaCiegos,CentrodeRehabilitaciónparaPersonasconDiscapacidadVisual“LuisBraille”Nº2014,EscuelaEspecialparaIntegraciónenSecundariaNº2139,EscueladeEnseñanzaMediaNº338andInstitutoSuperiordelProfesoradoNº16“BernardoHoussey”.


9

ReFeReNCeS

W3C.(2008).WebContentAccessibilityGuidelines(WCAG)2.0.RetrievedMarch10,2014,fromhttp://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

W3C. (2014). Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0. RetrievedNovember19,2014,fromhttp://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/

Björgvinsson,E.,Ehn,P.,&Hillgren,P.-A. (2010).ParticipatoryDesignand“Democratizing Innovation.”In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (pp. 41–50). New York, NY: ACM.doi:10.1145/1900441.1900448

Bødker,S.(2011).UseisEverywhereandChanging:AnalysisandDesignwiththeHuman-artifactModel.InProceedings of the 29th Annual European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics(pp.3–10).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/2074712.2074714

Bødker,S.,&Zander,P.-O.(2015).ParticipationinDesignBetweenPublicSectorandLocalCommunities.InProceedings of the 7th International Conference on Communities and Technologies(pp.49–58).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/2768545.2768546

Bratteteig,T.,&Wagner,I.(2016).WhatisaParticipatoryDesignResult?InProceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers(Vol.1pp.141–150).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/2940299.2940316

Brock,A.,Vinot,J.-L.,Oriola,B.,Kammoun,S.,Truillet,P.,&Jouffrais,C.(2010).Méthodesetoutilsdeconceptionparticipativeavecdesutilisateursnon-voyants.InProceedings of the 22nd Conference on l’Interaction Homme-Machine(pp.65–72).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/1941007.1941017

Brown,B.,Reeves,S.,&Sherwood,S.(2011).Intothewild:challengesandopportunitiesforfieldtrialmethods.InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp.1657–1666).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/1978942.1979185

Carroll,J.M.,&Rosson,M.B.(2007).Participatorydesignincommunityinformatics.Design Studies,28(3),243–261.doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.007

Chisholm,W.A.,&Henry,S.L.(2005).Interdependentcomponentsofwebaccessibility.InProceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility (W4A)(pp.31–37).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/1061811.1061818

Cooper,M.,Sloan,D.,Kelly,B.,&Lewthwaite,S. (2012).AChallenge toWebAccessibilityMetricsandGuidelines:PuttingPeopleandProcessesFirst.InProceedings of the International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility(pp.201–204).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/2207016.2207028

Dunckley, L., Camara, S. B., Abdelnour-Nocera, J., & Waema, T. M. (2009). Socio-Technical Issues ofParticipatory Design in the Developing World. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development,1(3),1–14.doi:10.4018/jskd.2009070101

Fischer,G.(2000).Symmetryofignorance,socialcreativity,andmeta-design.Knowledge-Based Systems,13(7),527–537.doi:10.1016/S0950-7051(00)00065-4

Fischer,G.(2002).Beyond“CouchPotatoes”:FromConsumerstoDesignersandActiveContributors.First Monday,7(12).doi:10.5210/fm.v7i12.1010

Fischer,G.,&Herrmann,T.(2011).Socio-TechnicalSystems:AMeta-DesignPerspective.International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development,3(1).doi:10.4018/jskd.2011010101

Frauenberger,C.(2015).DisabilityandTechnology:ACriticalRealistPerspective.InProceedings of the 17th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers & Accessibility(pp.89–96).NewYork,NY:ACMPress.doi:10.1145/2700648.2809851

A.Hurst,L.Findlater,&M.R.Morris(Eds.).(2017).ASSETS ’17: Proceedings of the 19th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility.NewYork,NY:ACM.

Karasti,H.(2014).InfrastructuringinParticipatoryDesign.InProceedings of the 13th Participatory Design Conference(Vol.1,pp.141–150).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/2661435.2661450


10

Kelly,B.,Sloan,D.,Brown,S.,Seale,J.,Lauke,P.,Ball,S.,&Smith,S.(2009).Accessibility2.0:NextStepsforWebAccessibility.Journal of Access Services,6(1–2),265–294.doi:10.1080/15367960802301028

Korsgaard,H.,Klokmose,C.N.,&Bødker,S.(2016).ComputationalAlternativesinParticipatoryDesign:PuttingtheTBackinSocio-technicalResearch.InProceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference(Vol.1,pp.71–79).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/2940299.2940314

Laitano,M.I.(2016).e-Accesibilidad:delenfoquecentradoenelcontenidoalenfoquecomunicacional.Scire: representación y organización del conocimiento, 22(1),79–85.

Lauriat,S.,&Spellman, J. (2017).WhatComesAfterWCAG2.1?Presented at theCSUN 2017 Assistive Technology Conference.Retrievedfromgoo.gl/3SK8T9

Lewthwaite,S.(2014).Webaccessibilitystandardsanddisability:Developingcriticalperspectivesonaccessibility.Disability and Rehabilitation,36(16),1375–1383.doi:10.3109/09638288.2014.938178PMID:25009950

Metatla,O.,Bryan-Kinns,N.,Stockman,T.,&Martin,F.(2015).Designingwithandforpeoplelivingwithvisual impairments: Audio-tactile mock-ups, audio diaries and participatory prototyping. CoDesign, 11(1),35–48.doi:10.1080/15710882.2015.1007877

Morin,E.(2005).Introduction à la pensée complexe.Paris:ÉditionsduSeuil.

Newell,A.F.,Gregor,P.,Morgan,M.,Pullin,G.,&Macaulay,C.(2011).User-SensitiveInclusiveDesign.Universal Access in the Information Society,10(3),235–243.doi:10.1007/s10209-010-0203-y

Power,C.,Freire,A.,Petrie,H.,&Swallow,D. (2012).Guidelinesareonlyhalfof thestory:accessibilityproblemsencounteredbyblindusersontheWeb.InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp.433–442).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/2207676.2207736

Rabardel,P.(1995).Les hommes et les technologies: approche cognitive des instruments contemporains.Paris:ArmandColin.Retrievedfromhttps://hal-univ-paris8.archives-ouvertes.fr/file/index/docid/1017462/filename/Hommes_et_technologie_Rabardel1995.pdf

Rømen,D.,&Svanæs,D.(2011).ValidatingWCAGversions1.0and2.0throughusabilitytestingwithdisabledusers.Universal Access in the Information Society,11(4),375–385.doi:10.1007/s10209-011-0259-3

Thomas,H.,Juarez,P.,&Picabea,F.(Eds.).(2015).Qué son las tecnologías para la inclusión social?(1sted.).Bernal,Argentina:UniversidadNacionaldeQuilmes.

UnitedNations. (2006).Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.Retrieved fromhttp://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=12&pid=150

Vines,J.,Clarke,R.,Wright,P.,McCarthy,J.,&Olivier,P.(2013).ConfiguringParticipation:OnHowWeInvolvePeopleinDesign.InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp.429–438).NewYork,NY:ACM.doi:10.1145/2470654.2470716

WebAIM.(2009).SurveyofPreferencesofScreenReadersUsers.RetrievedMarch6,2015,fromhttp://webaim.org/projects/screenreadersurvey/

WorldHealthOrganization.(2001).International classification of functioning, disability, and health: ICF short version.

eNDNoTeS

1 AssistivetechnologiesarespecificprogramsorperipheralsthatpeoplewithdisabilitiesusetoimprovetheirinteractionwiththeWeb.Forexample,screenreadersnormallyusedbypeoplewithblindnessareassistivetechnology.

2 TheWebAccessibilityInitiativedefinesthecontentas“theinformationthatformsWebsitesandWebapplications:thecodeandmarkupthatdefinethestructure,presentation,andinteraction,aswellastext,images,andsoundsthatconveyinformationtotheend-user.”(Chisholm&Henry,2005,p.32)

3 It is also to inscribe participatory design as a practice of complex thinking and as a second-orderepistemology.Theconceptofthemeta-pointofviewofMorin(2005)isrelevanttodeepenthisaspect.


11

María Inés Laitano is associate professor in Information and Communication Sciences at Université Paris 13, researcher at LabSic and head of the Master 1 Multimedia and Internet Interface Design.

developing a participatory approach to accessible design

Documents