Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Countering design exclusion: bridging the gap between usability and accessibility

  • Special issue on countering design exclusion
  • Published:
Universal Access in the Information Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is known that many people are being excluded unnecessarily from using products, services and environments that are essential for supporting independence and quality of life. Such exclusion often arises from designers taking inadequate account of the end user’s functional capabilities when making design decisions. This paper addresses how traditional usability techniques can be extended to include accessibility issues by considering the spread of user functional capabilities across the population. A series of measures for evaluating the level of design exclusion based on those capabilities is also presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. (1990) Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, US Public Law 101–336, USA

  2. Benktzon M (1993) Designing for our future selves: the Swedish experience. Appl Ergonom 24(1):19–27

    Google Scholar 

  3. British Standards Institute (1991) BS4467: guide to designing for elderly people. BSI, London, UK

  4. Bowe FG (2000) Universal design in education. Bergin & Gavey, Westport, CT

  5. Buhler C (1998) Robotics for rehabilitation – a European(?) perspective. Robotica 16(5):487–490

    Google Scholar 

  6. Card SK, Moran TP, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human-computer interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

  7. Cooper A (1999) The inmates are running the asylum. SAMS Publishing, Indianapolis, IN

  8. (1995) The Disability Discrimination Act - Ch. 50, Department for Education and Employment, UK.

  9. Dong H, Keates S, Clarkson PJ (2002) Implementing inclusive design. In: Proceedings of the 7th ERCIM workshop, Paris, pp 173–186

  10. FDA (1997) Design control guidance for medical device manufacturers. Center for devices and radiological health, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD

  11. Gardner L, Powell L, Page M (1993) An appraisal of a selection of products currently available to older consumers. Appl Ergonom 24(1):35–39

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goldsmith S (1997) Designing for the disabled: the new paradigm. Taylor and Francis, London

  13. Grundy E, Ahlburg D, Ali M, Breeze E, Sloggett A (1999) Disability in Great Britain. Department of Social Security, Research report no. 94, Corporate Document Series, London

  14. Hewer S, Kingsland C, D’hondt E, Rietsema J, Westrik H, Brouwer J, Chan S, Coleman R, Gudiksen M, Tahkokallio (1995) The DAN teaching pack: incorporating age-related issues into design courses. RSA, London

  15. ISO (1985) Wheelchairs – nomenclature, terms and definitions – ISO6440, ISO, Geneva

  16. ISO (1998) Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs), Part 11: Guidance on usability – ISO9241, ISO, Geneva

  17. ISO (2000) Quality management and quality system elements – ISO1007, ISO, Geneva

  18. Keates S, Harrison LJ, Clarkson PJ, Robinson P (2000) Towards a practical inclusive design approach. In: Proceedings of CUU 2000, ACM Press, New York, pp 45–52

  19. Keates S, Clarkson PJ (2003) Countering design exclusion: an introduction to inclusive design. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  20. Mahoney R (1997) Robotic products for rehabilitation: Status and strategy. In: Proceedings of international conference on rehabilitation robotics 1997, BIME, Bath, UK, pp 12–22

  21. Martin J, Meltzer H, Elliot D (1988) OPCS surveys of disability in Great Britain. Report 1: The prevalence of disability among adults, HMSO, London, UK

  22. Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco

  23. Peebles L, Norris B (1998) Adultdata: the handbook of adult anthropometric and strength measurements – data for design safety. Department of Trade and Industry, London

  24. Pirkl JJ (1993) Transgenerational design: products for an aging population. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York

  25. (1973) Rehabilitation Act of 1973, US Public Law 93–112

  26. Shigley JE, Mischke CR (2001) Mechanical engineering design. McGraw-Hill, New York

  27. Smith S, Norris B, Peebles L (2000) Older Adultdata: the handbook of measurements and capabilities of the older adult – data for design safety. UK Department of Trade and Industry, London

  28. Stephanidis C (1997) Editorial: disabled and elderly people in the Information Society. ERCIM News, no. 28, Special issue on information technology empowering disabled and elderly people, pp 4–5

  29. W3C (2002) Web Accessibility Initiative. Available at: http://www.w3c.org/WAI/

  30. (1988) Workforce Investment Act of 1998, US Public Law 105–220

  31. Vredenburg K, Isensee S, Righi C (2001) User-centred design: an integrated approach. Prentice-Hall, New York

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, CB2 1PZ, Cambridge, UK

    S. Keates & P.J. Clarkson

Authors
  1. S. Keates
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P.J. Clarkson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to S. Keates or P.J. Clarkson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keates, S., Clarkson, P. Countering design exclusion: bridging the gap between usability and accessibility. UAIS 2, 215–225 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-003-0059-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-003-0059-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation