top of page
Search

Inclusivity, Accessibility and Universal Design

Authors: Jae Kuhn, Aleister Jones, Kai Yuan, Caroline Cannistra

Editors: Jasmine Armad, Sariah Burdett, Jae Kuhn, Joe Albrecht


Accessibility and Universal Design

Something is “accessible” if it is equally usable for disabled and non-disabled users (W3C, 2021). Since disabled people have a wide variety of needs, accessibility covers many different things, from closed captions to image descriptions for online content, to ramps and elevators that make physical spaces easier to navigate for people with mobility aids. When possible, it is also preferable for the technologies used by non-disabled users to have accessibility features built-in, as forcing disabled users to use completely different products for the same function increases social separation (Tsatsou, 2020). This is the idea behind “universal design”. Universal design is the idea of designing a product to be usable for the widest possible range of people. Every user, including disabled users, should be able to access the same functions, information, etc. with a comparable amount of effort (UW DO-IT, 2021). This is in contrast to the common decision to design for a hypothetical “average user”, which often leads to the exclusion of those who differ from the assumed norm. There are seven canonical principles of universal design. These are described by the University of Washington’s DO-IT program as (UW DO-IT 2021): 1. Equitable Use. The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. For example, a website that is designed so that it is accessible to everyone, including people who are blind, employs this principle. 2. Flexibility in Use. The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. An example is a museum that allows a visitor to choose to read or listen to the description of the contents of a display case. 3. Simple and Intuitive Use. Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. Science lab equipment with control buttons that are clear and intuitive is a good example of an application of this principle. 4. Perceptible Information. The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities. An example of this principle being employed is when television programming projected in noisy public areas like academic conference exhibits includes captions. 5. Tolerance for Error. The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. An example of a product applying this principle is an educational software program that provides guidance when the user makes an inappropriate selection. 6. Low Physical Effort. The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue. Doors that are easy to open by people with a wide variety of physical characteristics demonstrate the application of this principle. 7. Size and Space for Approach and Use. Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of the user's body size, posture, or mobility. A flexible science lab work area designed for use by students with a wide variety of physical characteristics and abilities is an example of employing this principle. Universal design stands in contrast to designing spaces that follow specific criteria, such as the legislative requirements created by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). As explained in Pruett’s article “Accessible Design vs Universal Design”, “The big difference, compared to universal design, is that the ADA allows for segregation (i.e., design options for “people with disabilities” alongside options for “everyone else”)” (Pruett 2017, emphasis added). For example, while a back entrance to a building that is wheelchair accessible might be ADA compliant, it would follow the principles of universal design, since the entrance was not created to be equally accessible to all. Designing with all users in mind necessitates meeting accessibility standards for disabled people. It is for this reason that many disability activists strive for increased universal design. In addition, universally designed solutions to problems often lead to benefits for more than one group of people. The curb-cut effect is a well-known example of this--providing curb cuts makes sidewalks accessible to people who use wheelchairs, but also to people with strollers, wheeled luggage, or on bicycles. However, universal design cannot happen without input from a diversity of perspectives. It is common for designers to develop features based on the assumption that their users are all of a similar background--often white, male, able-bodied, and middle-class. In order to recognize and address the barriers that marginalized people face, design needs to be an ongoing process that includes these marginalized people, both in creation and feedback.

Current State of Online Accessibility

The internet has become a significant part of daily life for many people, and it has come with many improvements to daily life. However, access to the internet is not equal. “There are startling areas of inequality in relation to disability” (Goggin, Ellis, & Hawkins, p. 297). Most technology, from physical computers to websites, is simply not designed with disabled users in mind. Most of the internet is not usable for many disabled people. Visual content without descriptions, from video to images of text, isn’t accessible to blind people, audio without captions is not accessible to Deaf people, and people with learning disabilities like dyslexia or sensory issues can have trouble with these as well. Physically navigating a computer can be difficult or impossible without additional assistive devices to people who struggle with motor skills. The internet has become part of many aspects of life, from work to school to shopping, so equal access to technology is vital for the equality of disabled people. Technology comes with the potential for the increased accessibility and flexibility of these aspects of life, but more often than not that potential is not realized. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is one of the largest international internet standards organizations. Part of W3C is the Web Accessibility Initiative, an organization focused on increasing the accessibility of the web. Among other projects, they created the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, the most standard set of guidelines for the accessibility of online content. Content that meets their guidelines should be accessible for most disabled users (as well as many other users, since increased flexibility gives everyone more options as to how they engage with the content). The most recent version of the WCAG is the WCAG 2.2, which is in the final stages of review. The WCAG 2.2 is broken up into 4 categories, which are summarized below.

  • Perceivable: Content, both information and the user interface, is perceivable for all users. This means audio/visual content has text alternatives, anything that cannot be directly converted to text is at least described (including the purpose), user interface elements that involve non-text elements have text versions, and decorative formatting and the like is designed not to interfere with assistive technology. Content should also be adaptable to different layouts, formats, fonts and colors, etc. without the loss of important information, and distinguishable, meaning audio is clear and volume can be adjusted, elements on the screen have high contrast to make them easier to distinguish, and other visual elements like text size are adjustable to the user’s needs (W3C, 2021).

  • Operable: the user interface is operable for all users. This means all functions of the interface are operable through a keyboard, time limits are adjustable and avoided if possible, automatic functions have options to stop or hide them, and non-emergency interruptions can be suppressed. It also means flashing and animated transitions can be turned off, and that the overall layout and coding of the page is designed to be navigated through a variety of user inputs (so people have options as to how they operate the interface) (W3C, 2021).

  • Understandable: information and the operation of the user interface is understandable for all users. This means text with a reading level higher than lower secondary education has clarification or an easier to read version, unusual words and abbreviations are defined. It also means the user interface is consistent and predictable, controls are not hidden, when user input is needed it is clearly marked/explained, and input is checked to avoid errors (W3C, 2021).

  • Robust: the content/interface must be robust enough to be compatible with a variety of technologies, particularly assistive technologies. This is primarily about the way the content is programmed (W3C, 2021).

This is only a brief summary. If you want to check the accessibility of a piece of web content, please consult the full WCAG 2.2 guidelines, which you can find in the citations at the end of this report.

Online Accessibility for Neurodivergent People

While the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines have made great progress by outlining some of the necessary steps web designers can take to create a more accessible online environment, the guidelines themselves focus primarily on physical, cognitive, and learning disabilities. In the WCAG 2.2 it states the guidelines include “accommodations for blindness and low vision, deafness and hearing loss, limited movement, speech disabilities, photosensitivity, and combinations of these, and some accommodation for learning disabilities and cognitive limitations; but will not address every user need for people with these disabilities”. One aspect this version doesn’t fully address is customizable fonts. The WCAG 2.2 describes guidelines for font size and spacing, but fails to address other accessibility barriers that might arise with fonts, such as the use of bright colors or fonts that are heavily stylized. More recent versions of the WCAG are working to focus more heavily on accessibility for individuals who identify as neurodivergent, as well as other often overlooked members of the community; however, these versions of the WCAG are still in progress. On the W3C website, specifically their “Cognitive Accessibility Guide”, there are more detailed descriptions and suggestions for improving online accessibility. In addition, they provide an accurate summary of the many forms cognitive and learning disabilities can take, including neurodiversity. In her article, “Web design for neurodiversity: Creating a more inclusive web”, Kalina Tyrkiel, a writer focused on user-centered design with a background in psychology, outlines some of the steps web designers can take to make the online space more accessible for neurodivergent individuals (Spivak, 2020). This includes modifications to typography, as mentioned above, as well as language, color, and potentially overwhelming sensory stimuli. Notably, Kalina includes resources for web designers in her article to easily check the accessibility of one’s web page using publicly available contrast checkers and plain language tools, such as Hemingway. There are many great examples of ways everyday individuals can also contribute. One primary example of this is tone indicators. Tone indicators have come into more common use in the past several years on social media platforms such as Reddit and Twitter. These indicators help combat some of the vagueness that comes with communicating online without vocal and visual cues. They can indicate mood—for example, using /lh for “light-hearted” or /srs for “serious”—as well as indicate to readers when a joke is being made or irony is at play--such as with /j for “joking” and /s for “sarcasm”. Using tone indicators at the end of a message can reduce stress and create a safer, more communicative environment for individuals by not forcing the readers to make assumptions about an author’s intentions. Overall, the internet can improve and is improving in regards to digital accessibility for neurodivergent individuals. Web designers have resources to ensure the layouts and UI they design are friendly for all users by using fonts that are easily readable, neutral color palettes, and by avoiding potential sensory overload via pop-ups and unnecessary animations. Everyday users can also engage by keeping in mind clear, concise wording and by using tone indicators to communicate meaning (Spivak, 2020). Improvements to the WCAG and W3C continue to bring new and updated suggestions for improving user accessibility. As awareness grows, these guidelines and tools will prove crucial to shaping the online experience for all members of the neurodiverse community.

Universal Design and Neurodiversity

While universal design is most commonly associated with accessibility for physically disabled people, as discussed previously, the principles of universal design encompass a broad sense of ability and disability. People with what one might call “non-physical” disabilities, such as people in the neurodiverse community (which commonly includes people with ADHD, autism, learning disabilities, Tourette’s syndrome, and other conditions that influence neural functioning), interface with physical spaces in non-typical ways that are influenced by designers. For example, autistic people tend to process sensory information in atypical ways that can lead to discomfort in certain physical environments (Marco et. al. 2011) (Thye et. al. 2018). As an autistic person, I often get overwhelmed in public places with lots of people talking and making noise. Usually, I can block out noises by wearing headphones, but that also blocks out any noise information that I want to hear, such as a teacher’s lecture. To accommodate this, I use the same listening devices that hard of hearing people use to pipe the teacher’s microphone input into my headphones. This lets me focus on the lecture without getting overwhelmed by other noises. The provision of devices like this is an example of universal design in practice. Listening devices, like closed captioning, are easy to use, can be used in parallel with other communication supports, and are useful to people with a range of difficulties with auditory processing. In other words, a space that provides listening devices follows the principles of universal design by allowing for simple, equitable and flexible access to a lecture or speech. We see the principles of universal design in action when neurodivergent people use the same tools to access physical spaces as other disabled people, such as hard of hearing people. We also see some physical accessibility tools that were developed by and for neurodivergent people, which have become more “mainstream” over time. Color communication badges were developed by Autism Network International in 1995, and put into practice for the first Autreat event in 1996. Steve Silberman describes the badges as follows:

By providing attendees with name-tag holders and pieces of paper that were red on one side and yellow on the other, they enabled Autistics to communicate their needs and desires without having to articulate them in the pressure of the moment. The red side facing out signified, “Nobody should try to interact with me,” while the yellow side meant, “Only people I already know should interact with me, not strangers.” (Green badges were added later to signify, “I want to interact but am having trouble initiating, so please initiate an interaction with me.”) (Silberman 2015, p. 448)

Since the Autreat in 1996, color communication badges and variations of them have been used not just in events related to autism, but at many fandom-related conventions, technology conferences, and other events (Boren 2016). According to the designers and advocates of the system, color communication badges work because of their flexibility and ease of use, which are two principles of universal design. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN)’s information sheet on color communication badges says that “Color communication badges also help all people, abled or disabled, to more easily and effectively let people know whether they want to be approached for conversations or not.” (Autistic Self Advocacy Network) On the (now defunct) blog Autieble, blogger Sam discusses color communication badges as an example of the previously described “Curb Cutter Effect”.

In this sense, these colored communication badges could serve that Curb-Cutter effect. Not only would this be perfectly acceptable for non-disabled people to use for convenience, but would also help to increase their effectiveness and convenience for those of us who need them. (Autieble, quote taken from Boren 2016)

Universal design is not a rigid set of design specifications, but an ongoing process of communication and collaboration between designers and users, and between people with different access needs. Incorporating disabled people into design teams is a key element of developing universal design. The color communication badge system was developed by and for autistic people who need social support, and is now used by a wide range of people with many different needs. This kind of collaborative and inclusive work is happening right here at UW’s DO-IT program, which provides resources on universal design for educators and employers and runs programs to support disabled students in both K-12 and higher education. For more information on the topic of universal design, DO-IT’s Center for Universal Design in Education is a fantastic resource.

Advantages of the Internet for Disabled People

The internet has many issues with accessibility, but it also has the potential to increase the accessibility of various activities/spaces by providing more options for how people engage with them. The internet can give people access to various tools for managing everyday tasks, from interactive maps to online shopping to work tools, often increasing accessibility. If going to a physical grocery store is inaccessible for someone, for instance, the internet gives them the option to shop from home and get groceries delivered to their door. The internet can also give people easy, fast access to information (Tsatsou, 2020). Community is also a significant upside of the internet. Through the internet, disabled people have more options for how they interact with other people. They can talk to people with similar disabilities/experiences, building community and finding support. They can also interact with the broader community. Online, disabled people have control over when/whether to disclose that they are disabled. Unfortunately, the stigma surrounding disability can have a significant impact on the in-person social lives of disabled people, and the internet can give disabled people an opportunity to socialize without this barrier. Internet activities can provide ways to interact with all sorts of communities that might be more accessible to some people (disabled people, but also people who may find in-person communities difficult to access for other reasons, like people who live in rural areas or have young children), so the internet also gives disabled people more ways to engage in hobbies and interests, make friends, and generally express themselves and become more confident (Tsatsou, 2020). The internet is also a platform for disability advocacy, especially self-advocacy. The online neurodivergent community is a good example of this. The internet has given the neurodivergent people to which it is accessible an easy way to share resources and experiences, both with each other and with those outside of the community. Parents of neurodivergent kids can get advice from neurodivergent adults, when before they had to rely entirely on doctors. Some people first realize that they’re neurodivergent from information shared online. Issues of accessibility are still very present, though. The voices of neurodivergent people who cannot easily access the internet are rarely present in these spaces, which leads to oversights in activism. Lack of accessibility also limits who gets access to all of the upsides of the internet, from flexible ways to manage everyday tasks to community and socialization. The internet has the potential to be both helpful and enjoyable for disabled people, to provide everyone with flexible, accessible options for engaging with all sorts of communities and activities, but for that to be possible, the web would have to be much more accessible than it currently is.

Online Learning

During the recent COVID-19 pandemic, schools across the country, including the University of Washington (UW), shifted to online learning. This shift came with a wide variety of changes to the accessibility of education, both positive and negative. Staying at home meant students were learning in a familiar environment. Students who might find a traditional school setting overwhelming or distracting, like autistic people, people with ADHD, or people with sensory processing differences, gained more control over their learning environment. Classrooms can come with all sorts of sensory distractions, from fluorescent lighting to temperature to the sounds of other students. Reducing these distractions made it easier for some neurodivergent people to focus on their schoolwork (Ingram, 2021). Online learning also makes it easier to implement some strategies for accessibility. Video lectures can be captioned, making them more accessible to Deaf students and students with auditory processing difficulties. Slides and ‘whiteboards’ from lectures can be shared for easy reference, so students don’t have to rely on notes. Digital course materials (if uploaded with the proper file types) can be transferred into different fonts or read aloud by a screen reader, making them more accessible to students with dyslexia or other disabilities that impact reading. It also gives students more control over how they use/schedule their time (Peng, 2020). In each of these cases, the digital format increases the flexibility of the course materials, so students can access the materials in ways that work well for them. Although online learning increased accessibility in some aspects, it also came with new accessibility problems. While some neurodivergent students found their home environment less distracting than the classroom, for instance, others found it much more so, and had difficulty focusing online. Without the shift in the physical environment that signals that it’s time to switch tasks/start class, it can be difficult to move from ‘home mode’ to ‘school mode’, and working from home comes with its own set of distractions, like computers and other people. Remote learning also changed the social aspect of school, and for students with social difficulties like autism, reading social cues can be more difficult on zoom than in person (Peng, 2020). Using computers in general can also be difficult, as they are not generally designed with disabled people in mind. Computers are physically inaccessible to many people with motor difficulties, like those with apraxia, as using a computer relies on fine motor skills. Sitting at a computer for long periods of time can be difficult, both for people with physical disabilities that make doing so painful and for people who need to move around to stay focused, and often online school entails sitting at a computer for most of the day. Navigating computers and websites can be confusing, and remote learning often leaves students to figure out any technical problems on their own, at the risk of missing class completely (Peng 2020). UW has its own set of guidelines for online accessibility, including an ‘accessibility checklist’ based on the WCAG 2.0, which lists different aspects of online accessibility and links to many short explanations of how to make specific website features accessible. The website states that it will be updated based on the WCAG 2.1, but this has not been done yet (UW Accessible Technology, 2021). The list is relatively easy to navigate, and intended towards teachers preparing online materials. However, these guidelines are not enforced, and it is generally up to disabled students to request specific accommodations through DRS (Disability Resources for Students). UW students experienced the same changes to accessibility during the pandemic listed above, but UW also had some unique accessibility problems. For instance, while UW is in-person, DRS generally proctors tests for students who have testing accommodations like extra time or a quiet work environment, but during the pandemic they stopped doing so (UW Disability Resources for Students, 2021). Teachers had to work out how to meet their students’ accommodation needs on their own on top of running online classes. Many teachers recorded lectures, added auto-captions, and posted class materials in accessible formats, but these things were not standardized, so the accessibility of classes varied wildly.

Practical Suggestions for Improving Accessibility

While there are resources available online for web designers, organizers, and even everyday users, many of the barriers outlined have yet to be removed. COVID-19 highlighted many of these problems both inside and outside the virtual classroom. For students and faculty at the University of Washington, the internet is a necessity regardless of the classroom format. Individuals are expected to navigate emails, course information, and UI such as Canvas to ensure they keep up with all of the requirements that come with their roles, but this is made difficult for some. Improved readability, well-designed layouts, and more opportunities for online learning are just a few of the methods in which accessibility can be improved. As mentioned previously, font and language both play a crucial role in readability for neurodiverse individuals. Small, crowded fonts or fonts using bright, high-contrast colors can be overwhelming due to their lack of simplicity. Instead fonts that are sans serif, such as Arial or Comic Sans, can help distinguish between different letters that look similar such as ‘p’ and ‘q’. Long blocks of text, colloquial metaphors, and vague instructions can all limit a text’s readability. Instead one should focus on using short blocks of concise, direct information with clear instructions for ease of understanding. Designing a layout is also difficult in many regards, and designing for neurodiversity is no exception. As Kalina Tyrkiel stated, “keeping the right balance” between a layout that is both engaging and not overstimulating can be hard, but it is possible (Spivak, 2020). There are many color palettes available online to get started when constructing a new layout, many of them tending towards softer colors. Using careful organization and visual indicators can also help keep readers engaged and prevent users from misinterpreting information. Three words to keep in mind when designing a layout are: friendly, organized, and consistent. Finally, when considering accessibility, one should always take into account overstimulation. Sudden noises, flashing colors, and tools that take away control, such as autoplay, all can contribute to anxiety and distress in users. For many individuals, too much stimulation can have serious effects on health, so this suggestion is one of the most crucial when it comes to improving accessibility. By avoiding sudden stimuli and providing visual and literary aids, like captions and subtitles, an online environment becomes safer and more accessible for all individuals. There are many other ways in which accessibility can be improved, and more information regarding these can be found in citations included below. Raising awareness of the necessity of such improvements will also aid in improving accessibility for all individuals, both inside and outside of the neurodiverse community. By focusing on both awareness and accessibility simultaneously, we can work towards a safer, friendlier, and more accessible online space for every user.

References

Adams, C., Campbell, A., Montgomery, R., Cooper, M., & Kirkpatrick, A. (Eds.). (2021, May 21). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. World Wide Web Consortium. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/. Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Color communication badges. Retrieved from https://autisticadvocacy.org/resources/accessibility.

Boren, R. (2016, December 29). Interaction badges: opportunity but not pressure. Retrieved from https://boren.blog/2016/12/29/interaction-badges/.

Chadli, F. E., Gretete, D., & Moumen, A. (2021). Digital Accessibility: A systematic literature review. SHS Web of Conferences, 119, 06005. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202111906005 Goggin, G., Ellis, K., & Hawkins, W. (2019). Disability at the centre of Digital Inclusion: Assessing a new moment in technology and rights. Communication Research and Practice, 5(3), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2019.1641061Ingram, N. (2021, August 4). The Unexpected Benefits of Remote Learning for Neurodivergent Students. EdSurge. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-08-04-the-unexpected-benefits-of-remote-learning-for-neurodivergent-students. Kulkarni, M. (2019). Digital Accessibility: Challenges and opportunities. IIMB Management Review, 31(1), 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2018.05.009

Marco, E. J., Hinkley, L. B., Hill, S. S., & Nagarajan, S. S. (2011). Sensory processing in autism: a review of neurophysiologic findings. Pediatric research, 69(8), 48-54. Peng, A. (2020, November 10). Neurodiverse Students Face Special Challenges Online. The College VOICE. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://www.mcccvoice.org/online-for-neurodiverse-students/. Pruett, S. (2017, May 19). Accessible design vs. universal design (& more). The Universal Design Project. https://universaldesign.org/accessible-vs-universal-design

Silberman, S. (2015). Neurotribes: The legacy of autism and the future of neurodiversity. Penguin. Spivak, E. (2021, February 15). What is Neurodiversity and How It Applies to Web Design. Shaping Design Blog. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://www.editorx.com/shaping-design/article/what-is-neurodiversity-in-web-design. Thye, M. D., Bednarz, H. M., Herringshaw, A. J., Sartin, E. B., & Kana, R. K. (2018). The impact of atypical sensory processing on social impairments in autism spectrum disorder. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 29, 151-167. Tsatsou, P. (2020). Is Digital Inclusion Fighting Disability Stigma? opportunities, barriers, and recommendations. Disability & Society, 36(5), 702–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1749563University of Washington. (2021).


Alternative Testing Guidelines. Disability Resources for Students. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://depts.washington.edu/uwdrs/alternative-testing-guidelines/. University of Washington. (2021). IT Accessibility Checklist. Accessible Technology. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://www.washington.edu/accessibility/checklist/. University of Washington. (2021, September 4). What is the Difference Between Accessible, Usable, and Universal Design? DO-IT. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://www.washington.edu/doit/what-difference-between-accessible-usable-and-universal-design. University of Washington. (2021). What Is Universal Design? DO-IT. Retrieved November 10, 2021, fromhttps://www.washington.edu/doit/what-universal-design-0


Comments


bottom of page