Issues and Concerns Raised by Industry Regarding Universal Design of Products

This is a publication of the Trace Research and Development Center which is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research of the Department of Education under grant number H133E30012. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Education.

© Copyright 1998, Trace Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.

The following are issues and concerns that have been raised by industry in our discussions with them, or that have been gleaned from conversations with universal design consultants, and designers working in and with industry. Many of these comments are common concerns across all areas of universal design, while others are particularly addressed to issues around public information / transaction machines (ITMs).

Awareness Materials

One concern cited dealt with the availability of general information in this area. Although industry is being asked to design more universal/accessible products, there is relatively little information about how to do this. There are actually more publications available advocating that products be designed to be accessible than there are materials on actually how to do this.

The first type of information that has been requested is general awareness documents that can be used to raise the level of information within companies about this area, as well as materials that can be used at conferences and other places where companies or individuals within companies would like to address this area.

Design Tools and Procedures

The second type of information sought deals with specific information that would be useful to designers. This would start with a list of potential barriers and access issues actually faced by people with different disabilities (or combinations of disabilities). The information should also include specific design solutions and ideas for meeting these needs, as well as ways to address any guidelines or regulations in this area.

Probably the most requested form for this information is specific design examples. These serve both as a "proof-of-concept" that accessibility is possible as well as a rich source of techniques and ideas that can be adopted or adapted in their product designs.

A major concern from companies which create ITMs is the allowable reach ranges of the ADAAG. As a result of certain lobbying efforts, the proposed revision to the ADAAG suggests:

• imposing stricter limits on forward reach, namely that where reach depth is greater than 20 inches, the high point should be no more than 44 inches; and that the maximum reach depth should become 25 inches. (ref. ADAAG paragraph 4.2.5; Revision paragraph 308.2)
• dropping 'high side reach' (for wheelchair users) from 54 to 48 inches; (ref. ADAAG paragraph 4.2.6; Revision paragraph 308.3)

Changes to the dimensions of new products requires a lot of re-work by companies, in terms of redesign and re-tooling. Indeed when the ADAAG came out first in 1991 there were numerous consultations between the Access Board and Industry on this matter. For a long time industry has requested more definitive research on the reach capabilities of people with disabilities. This work has been conducted from 1997-98 on behalf of the Center for Accessible Environments, London, England. At the time of writing, the reach study is in the reporting stages. Procedures for testing products have also been requested by industry. In particular, there is a concern that there are so many different types, degrees, and combinations of disability that their standard usability testing techniques (which often involve only 4-9 subjects total) would not work. Finally, there is concern by companies that there is no consensus among the disability communities as to what constitutes "sufficient" accessible design. The movement of the Access Board has been toward more performance-based criteria (such as those used in our ITM guidelines here). As a result, a company is left with a charge like "Be sure the device is usable without vision," but no guidance as to what specifically this means or what measures would be sufficient to satisfy this goal. Companies have also had situations where they have worked closely with one disability group to create a solution only to have another disability group attack them in the newspaper on the day they announced their carefully designed product. Thereafter, they are quite shy about moving forward without some concrete criteria for success or sufficiency. In general, the more specific the solution strategies are with regard to their particular industry or product, the better, as long as they are not required to use specific techniques. That is, examples of accessible products that are of the same class and size as the product they are designing are the most useful in determining what is readily achievable. However, examples of accessible designs for related products are also welcomed.

Statistical and Market Data

Another area where information is often requested is in the area of disability demographics. In particular, industry is often asking how many people with which types of disabilities are represented in their market. In the area of public ITMs, this question should be less relevant, in that equal access for all of the constituents in a particular area should be provided. Thus, the question should be "How many communities have at least one individual with this or that disability who would like to or need to be able to use this public information / transaction machine?"

At the present time, there are not good functional demographics that can be used to match disability access features to numbers of users (or even to communities, etc., as mentioned above). It would be useful to have both individual and group/community statistics compiled along these lines.

Training and Education

Another area cited by industry is the lack of expertise on their own teams in this area. They cite the difficulty in creating truly accessible products when it is not within the expertise scope of their teams, and there are so few trainers or training programs available to bring them up to speed.

Universal Design Consultants and Experts

As a result of the lack of internal expertise, companies are increasingly looking to external universal design consultants to help them with their products. Again, there are relatively few of these available, especially with expertise in the design of public information / transaction machines. The extremely wide variety of technologies and the need to work with legacy hardware and information systems only complicates and confounds this situation.

Consumers and Advocates

Some companies cite the activism of consumers as one of their primary driving forces. However, some complain that some actions by consumers actually retard the process. In particular, there is a concern when consumers sharply criticize accessibility but provide no suggestions as to how things could be made more accessible. Also of concern are consumer groups that directly contradict each other, leaving companies afraid to move forward. There are also examples, however, of consumers and consumer groups who have worked in partnership with companies to help them understand and design their products.

Government Activities

We have been surprised by the number of industry representatives who, on a confidential level, cited the importance of legislation or regulation as a motivator for creating more accessible products. They also cited the importance of enforcement of such regulations on maintaining a level playing field among companies. A great concern by some is that they will put themselves at a disadvantage if they make the extra efforts to create more accessible products while their competitors are allowed to ignore these issues.

These same individuals, however, were quick to point out that the regulations must be general in nature, so that they allow industry to innovate and do not place any undue restrictions on the way that industry would address these issues. There does seem to be a conflict, however, between industry's need for general performance guidelines and their need for very specific criteria that they can use to determine when they have met the guidelines.

While some individuals cited the importance of regulation in providing motivation in this field, others stated that they felt that market pressure in the form of purchasing requirements was potentially the most effective mechanism that the government had for encouraging universal design in this area. They felt that if the federal (and state and local) government put accessibility requirements in their purchase requests for information / transaction machines that industry would quickly respond. Companies who had accessibility features in their products or on the drawing board would quickly jump to the fore, and accessible ITMs (at least those from public institutions) would quickly predominate.

Because public ITMs fall under the "public accommodations" provisions of the ADA, it appears that the legislative/regulatory underpinnings for the area of ITMs may already be in place.

The recent Telecommunications Act, and subsequent April 1998 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the FCC is an issue for those ITM manufacturers who are incorporating telecommunications capabilities into their product. Compliance with both the ADAAG and the FCC regulations to achieve 'ITM accessibility' could become a requirement in the near future. The two regulations need to be compatible with each other. The recent 508 legislation will also have an impact on ITM design particularly where government purchases are involved.

Fears and Concerns

Some specific fears and concerns that have been cited by industry around universal design in particular include:
• A fear that attempts at universal design will make their company a target for lawsuits or bad publicity from disability groups whose expectations are not met. Basically, it is felt that it is sometimes better to be quiet than to say anything about accessibility and focus attention on oneself.
• A fear that creating a product that is usable by people with disabilities will make their product less usable by and less attractive to other users, thus putting them at a disadvantage in a competitive selling situation.
• Concern that adding accessibility will delay their ability to bring new ideas or products to market or present them with a longer delivery timeline (which again might put them at a disadvantage in the competitive sales situation).
• Concern that adding access to a product would increase its costs.
• A fear that the whole process is just unknown and therefore likely to be a quagmire if they got into it.