The topic of standards for accessible systems is nothing new. However, in the past, these discussions were often quite narrow in scope, usually focusing exclusively on access software rather than on the accessibility of complete systems. The degree to which a computer system is accessible, however, depends upon the hardware platform, the applications being run and the type of adaptive system being used to provide access to the system. As the computing community moves increasingly toward graphical systems, access for people who are blind is becoming more dependent on the total design of computer systems.
The U.S. government purchases computer systems which are intended to perform very specific tasks. When an agency, such as the Social Security Agency or IRS, wants to purchase new equipment, it distributes a request for proposals (RFP) and contractors propose various systems to meet the requirements set forth therein. Often, RFPs contain references to accessibility by people with disabilities. To meet these requirements, large contractors often collaborate with smaller accessibility vendors. In the past, problems have arisen due to the fact that many contracts are awarded without the accessibility of a system being tested or proven. As a result, agencies often purchase systems which are inaccessible and fail to live up to expectations. Both the agency's administration and the disabled employee suffer when this occurs.
The lack of testing is the main motivation for the Center for Information Technology Accommodations at the General Services Administration to begin spearheading performance benchmarking that can be tested for all government purchases. This proposal was presented at the GUI conference. Below is a summary of the Center's approach and reactions at the conference.
Hardware Considerations--When a computer system is equipped with hardware or software to make it useful for people with disabilities, it always involves the addition of either input or output devices that must operate concurrently with all other computer functions while remaining "transparent" to those functions. For this reason, adaptive technologies operate most efficiently on systems that "tolerate" a wide variety of add-ons. Because adaptive systems replace or enhance either the basic input or output schemes of the computer, they therefore utilize computing resources such as hardware interrupts, I/O addresses, and extra memory. The resources utilized by the normal operations of the computer and those used by an adaptive system often conflict, leaving the system either inoperative or inaccessible. For these reasons, a system's hardware can be tested and judged as to its accessibility on a wide range of hardware considerations ranging from the number of ISA slots to the use of proprietary plugs and connectors.
Also, an application's accessibility for people who have a visual disability depends on how well the programmers of that application have used alternative methods from the graphical interface to present information in a fashion that can be accessed by a screen reading software package. Currently, both Microsoft Inc. and companies working on the X-Windows applications are working to develop accessibility guidelines for others to follow. These guidelines will be used as a measure of systems' accessibility.
A distinction should be drawn between evaluating an access package's ability to provide access and its user interface. User interfaces are often very subjective in their appeal. While some users may prefer an approach that allows all functions to be initiated from the keyboard, other users may prefer separate keypads or other devices so there is no chance for keyboard conflicts between the access program and the applications being accessed. When evaluating an access product's performance, emphasis should be on what information the product can provide rather than on how it provides that information.
Who is going to establish the accessibility standards for adaptive equipment?
How will testing of systems be carried out, i.e., will real users be involved?
Is there any mechanism that can ensure either vendors or agencies will insist that benchmark testing to be done?
How do you take the subjective aspects of access out of the testing process?
Finally, who'll pay for the testing - the purchaser or seller?
The Center for IT Accommodations is moving ahead on this project with assistance from conference attendees. The National Software Testing Laboratory is one source for continued discussion on this issue. This laboratory already conducts similar performance benchmarks, exclusive of accessibility, for the Canadian government. Discussion with Canadian counterparts to CITA regarding enhancing this existing program to address access is likely.
What benefit will all this have for the non-government employee? The government is the single largest purchaser of computing systems in the country. Government buyers today, at all levels, are easily persuaded to the requirements and benefits of technology that accommodates all users. No one wants to be responsible for a failure in this area. They are looking for ways to buy technology with greater confidence that their investments will be accessible to all users. If developers know that the accessibility performance of their products will be published in BYTE magazine and readily available worldwide on the Web to all buyers, including Federal, state, and local government buyers, then it should raise the overall level of accessibility awareness among all companies, and all consumers will benefit.
Return to itdv02n3 Contents Page
Return to Journal Volumes Page