Developing a Participatory Approach to Accessible Design

(1)

HAL Id: halshs-01762291

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

Submitted on 9 Apr 2018

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

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Design

María Inés Laitano

To cite this version:

María Inés Laitano. Developing a Participatory Approach to Accessible Design. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 2017, 9 (4), pp.1 - 11. �10.4018/IJSKD.2017100101�.

�halshs-01762291�

(2)

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 Preface

v 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 Developing a Participatory Approach to Accessible Design^; María Inés Laitano, LabSic, Université Paris 13, Villetaneuse, France 12 Applications to Improve Quality of Life^;

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

28 From Human-Centered Design to Disabled User & Ecosystem Centered Design in Case of Assistive Interactive Systems^;

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 A Participatory Design Approach with Visually Impaired People for the Design of an Art Exhibition^; 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

CoPyRIGHT

The 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: 1941-6261 An official publication of the Information Resources Management Association

International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge

Development

(3)

DOI: 10.4018/IJSKD.2017100101

Developing a Participatory

Approach to Accessible Design

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

ABSTRACT

ThisarticledescribeshowaccessibilitytoICTsisunderstoodasconformitytostandards,which

usuallyendsindesignsthatdonotconsiderthesingularitiesofpeople.Thisarticledelvesintoa

participatoryapproachtoaccessibledesign,asanalternativetodesignguidedsimplybystandards.

Itfirstdefinesarelevantnetworkofstakeholdersforaccessibleparticipatorydesign,basedonthe

expertisethateachofthemcanprovide.Itthendiscussestheissueofconsensusamongstakeholders,

necessarytomakedesigndecisionswhenthereareconflictingviews.Finally,itaddressesthequestion

ofnon-technologicaloutcomesandmethodologicalconcernsofParticipatoryDesignthatshould

inspiretheaccessibledesignagenda.

KeywoRDS

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

INTRoDUCTIoN

AlthoughaccessibilitytoInformationandCommunicationTechnologies(ICTs)hasbeenpromoted

formorethantenyearsasafundamentalhumanrightofpeoplewithdisabilities(UnitedNations,

2006),asanunprecedentedopportunityforcommunicationandautonomy,manycommunitiesremain

excluded.Thereasonsforthissituationofrelegationaremanyanddiverse(economic,technical,

cultural,political,geographical,etc.)butamajorcauseisthestandardizeddesignofmainstream

ICTs.Standardizedornormalizeddesignimpliescertainnorms,likeyoung,white,male,heterosexual,

Western,middle-class,non-disabled,andmarginalizesindividualidentities(Lewthwaite,2014).As

postulatedbythesocialmodelofdisability(WorldHealthOrganization,2001),exclusionisgenerated

bytheenvironmentinwhichthepersonlives,bythenormalizeddesignofmainstreamtechnologies,

andnotbytheirpersonalattributes.

Intheaccessibilityarenaitself,thereisageneralizedunderstandingofaccessibilitytoICTsas

conformitywithnorms.SeveralcountriesgrantedlawstatustoWebContentAccessibilityGuidelines

(W3C,2008),promotingwebdesignprojectsbasedexclusivelyonaccessibilitystandards.These

guidelinesarelistsofverificationcriteria,designedmoretoevaluateexistingwebsitesthantoaddress

newdesignprojects.Itwasshownempirically,byusertest,thataccessibilityguidelinesdonotcover

alltheproblemsencounteredbypeoplewithdisabilitieswhentheybrowsetheWeb(Power,Freire,

Petrie,&Swallow,2012;Rømen&Svanæs,2011).Guidelinesdefineaccessibilityasapropertyofthe

digitalcontentandnotasapropertyoftherelationshipbetweentheuserandthecontentinacontext

ofuse(Cooper,Sloan,Kelly,&Lewthwaite,2012),asapropertyoftheuserexperience.TheW3C

AccessibilityGuidelinesWorkingGroup,awareoftheselimitations,iscurrentlyworkingonanext

majorversionfor2020thathopestoexpandthescopebeyondcontentandbeyondtheWeb(Lauriat

(4)

&Spellman,2017).Oneofthegoalsinthiselaborationprocessistoinvolvemorestakeholdersby

doinguserresearchwithpeoplewhousethestandard.

Thispaperdelvesintoaparticipatoryapproachtoaccessibledesign,asanalternativetodesign

guidedsimplybystandards.Participatorydesigncallsfordemocratizationandstakeholderinvolvement

inthedesignprocess,forempowerrelevantstakeholdersratherthanbeingrestrictthemtoaprescribed

wayofinteracting(Fischer,2002),foremancipatespecially“groupsofpeoplewhoseviews,opinions

andneedsmightbethemostignoredbymainstreamsociety.”(Vines,Clarke,Wright,McCarthy,&

Olivier,2013).Atleasttworationales,onemoralandonepragmatic,supportparticipatorydesign.

Thefirstisthatthepeoplemostdirectlyaffectedbythedesignresulthavetherighttojudgethat

result.Thepragmaticreasonisthatdirectlyincludinguserswillincreasethechancesofasuccessful

designresultbecausetheyaretheoneswhowillneedtoadoptandtoadapttothedesignresult

(Carroll&Rosson,2007).

Thethreemaingoalsoftheparticipatorydesignphilosophy—sharingexpertise,sharingcontrol

andinspiringchange(Vinesetal.,2013)—areexploredinthecontextofaccessibledesign.Theauthor

outlinesopinionsdevelopedthroughexperienceandlooselyguidedbythesethreegoals.Shetookpart

asaresearcher/designerinaseriesoftechnologydesignprojectsforsocialinclusioncarriedoutin

thecityofRosario(Argentina),themajorityofthemwithinapublicprogramofaccessibletourism.

Thus,theobjectivesofthearticlearethree.First,toidentifywhoaretherelevantstakeholders,

basedontheexpertiseneededtodesignanaccessibleartifact.Second,todiscusstheissueofconsensus

amongstakeholders,necessarytomakedesigndecisionswhenthereareconflictingviews.Thirdly,

toaddressthequestionoftheoutcomeofanaccessibleparticipatorydesignprojectandtheoutcome

aspectsthatshouldconcerntheaccessibilityresearchagenda.

Thecontributionsarenotintendedtobeaformalorreproduciblemethodologyfortheaccessible

designofICTs.Thesocio-technicalsystems“involvinghumansandtechnologycontainfartoomuch

variabilitytobereproducibleinanystraightforwardway”(Brown,Reeves,&Sherwood,2011).

Theproposedsuggestionsareonlyintendedtomotivateandinspiremorereflectionsonaccessible

participatorydesign.Itisuptoeachdesignerorresearchertoadapt,viare-significationandnon- mechanicaldissemination(Thomas,Juarez,&Picabea,2015),theseproposalstootherlocalcontexts.

SHARING VIewS oN ACCeSSIBLe DeSIGN

Participatorydesignconceivesdesignasaprocessofinscribingknowledgeinmaterialforms(Karasti,

2014).Thisknowledgeisnotownedbyasinglepersonbutpossessedbydifferentstakeholdersin

anasymmetricandoftencontroversialway(Fischer,2000).Relevantstakeholdersforaccessible

participatorydesignareallthosepeoplewithsomeknowledgeofaccessibility,capableofshare

theirpointsofviewandproducenewideasandartifacts.Thisdefinitionextendstheclassictriad

developers-content-usersoftheW3C’sWebAccessibilityInitiative(Chisholm&Henry,2005)

toawidernetworkconformedby:ICTsprofessionals,sponsors,ownersandexternalsupplierson

theproductionside;peoplewithdisabilitiesandattendantsontheuseside;aswellasresearchers.

Figure1synthesizesthestakeholders’networkproposedforaccessibleparticipatorydesignandthe

expertisecontributedbyeachofthem.Namesinuppercasedefinethestakeholders.Expertiseof

eachstakeholderappearinbullets.Thelightbluebackgroundidentifiestheproductionsidewhile

theorangebackgroundidentifiestheuseside.

Peoplewithdisabilities–orendusers–consultandinteractwiththecontentthroughuseragents:

webbrowsers,mediaplayersandassistivetechnologies

¹

.Theyhavedifferentlevelsofcompetence

intheuseofuseragentsandconfiguretheminverydifferentways.Forexample,anexpertscreen

readeruserknowsmultiplekeyboardshortcutsthatanoviceusermaynotknow.Butuseragents

representonlyone–thetechnologicalone–ofthemultipledimensionsthatmakeupthedisabled

experience(Frauenberger,2015)andfromwhichpeoplewithdisabilitiescangivetestimony.There

isknowledgederivedfrombiologicalcondition.Forinstance,withinthecollectiveofpeoplewith

(5)

visualimpairments,blindnessisnotthesameaslowvisionnorblinddeafness,birthblindnessisnot

thesameasacquiredblindness.Thereisknowledgeintrinsicallycultural.Forexample,signlanguage

isthelanguageofadeafculture.Contemporaryconceptualizationsofdisability,whichgobeyondthe

dichotomybetweenthebiologicalmodelandthesocialmodel,givethepatternofmultipleknowledge

thatpeoplewithdisabilitiescancontributetoaccessibledesign(Frauenberger,2015).

Attendantsofpeoplewithdisabilities(family,colleagues,teachers,caregiversandothers)are

alsokeyinformantsinaccessibleparticipatorydesign.Asoutlinedinthe“Supportandrelationships”

chapteroftheInternationalClassificationofFunctioning,DisabilityandHealth(WorldHealth

Organization,2001),peoplewithdisabilitiesreceivepracticalphysicalandemotionalsupportfrom

theirattendantsaswellassupportinvariousaspectsoftheirdailyactivities.Becauseofthis,their

attendantshaveadeepknowledgeaboutthedisabledexperience,abouttheirneeds,theirhabitsand

theirpreferences.Attendantsarenotonlyinformantsbutcanalsoplaytheroleofmediators.As

mediatorstheycan,forexample,takepartasinterpretersofdeafpeoplewhosenativelanguageis

thesignlanguage.

Bydelvingintothecommondefinitionofcontent

²

,itcanbeseenastheconjunctionofthree

elementsbelongingtodifferentstakeholder’sexpertiseoftheproductionside:interfacecomponents,

content(inthestrictsense)andobjectsofinterest.Thedifferencebetweeninterfaceandcontentisa

classicdistinctionincomputerscience:aninterfacecomponentisapartoftheartifactthatisperceived

byusersasasinglecontrolforadistinctfunctionwhileacontentisaninformationorasensory

experiencecommunicatedtouserswithacertainstructureandpresentationformat(W3C,2008).

ParticipatoryDesignhasalreadypointedoutthatthedesignofinterfacecomponentsandthedesign

ofthecontentareintertwined.(Fischer&Herrmann,2011)andthisisespeciallytrueinaccessible

designwhereabarrierineitherofthetwomakesinaccessiblethewhole.Whetherabuttondoesnot

supportoperationbykeyboard(interface)asifimportantinformationisonlyinnon-textualformat

(content)theentireartifactisinaccessible.

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

(6)

TheobjectofinterestisaconceptthatderivesfromtheActivityTheoryappliedtotheHuman

ComputerInteraction.Theinteractionbetweenpeopleandtechnologicalartifactsoccursinthe

broadercontextofahumanactivity(Rabardel,1995).Peopledoesnotinteractwithtechnological

artifactsbutwithanobjectoftheworldthroughtechnology.Thetechnologicalartifactonlymediates

therelationshipbetweenthehumanandthisobjectoftheworldthatinterestshim(Bødker,2011).

Forexample,whensomeonelooksupanaccessiblesightseeingtourontheWeb,hisattentionisnot

placedontheformatofthecontentbutonthetoursightsanditsaccessibilityfeatures.So,iftour

sightsarenotaccessibleorifnothingissaidaboutaccessibilityfeatures,eveniftheinterfaceand

thecontentareaccessible,thetechnologicalartifactdoesnotfulfillitsmission,theexperienceasa

wholeisinaccessible.

Developers–whocanbenamedmoregenerallyasICTprofessionalsbecausetheyinclude

designers,QAprofessionalsandothers–areexpertsinthedesignofinterfacecomponentsandcontent

inthestrictsense.Theyuse–andareexpertsintheuseof–authoringtoolssuchasdevelopment

environments,contentmanagementsystems,blogapplications,etc.andevaluationtoolstocheckthe

contentsyntaxandaccessibility.

Inaddition,thereare“owners”ofthedesignsolution,i.e.thosewhoinitiate,promote,editand

keepalivethedesignsolutionovertime(Laitano,2016).Toillustrate,iftheTouristOfficeturnedto

theUniversitytodesignatourismsolutionaccessibletotouristswithdisabilities,theTouristOffice

fulfillstheroleoftheownersofthedesignsolutionandtheUniversityfulfillstheroleoftheICT

professionals.Ownersareexpertsinthepurposeormainserviceofthedesignedartifactthatinthe

examplewouldbethetouristofferofthecityandthatcanbenamedasmainobjectofinterest.

Therearealsothosestakeholderswhoarereferredtointhecontentbutwhoarenotowners,

theirroleisratherthatofexternalsuppliersofcontent.Localhoteliersandgastronomesareexternal

suppliersinthecaseofatourismdesignsolution.Externalprovidershaveknowledgeaboutthe

specificservicestheyprovide(specificobjectsofinterest)andareresponsiblefortheiraccessibility.

Alsoontheproductionsidetherearesponsors,stakeholderswhounderstandthefinancialaspect

oftheprojectandnormallycontroltheproject’sagenda.Sponsorsmayormaynotcoincidewith

owners.Inthecaseofatourismdesignsolution,themunicipalgovernmentorthetourismministry

canbethesponsorsoftheproject.

Allproductionstakeholdershave–orshouldhave–knowledgeaboutthestandardsthatan

accessibledesignsolutionwillhavetorespect.AsproposedbyKellyetal.(2009),theextenttowhich

artifactsareaccessiblewillbeinfluencedbyhowalltheproductionstakeholdersrespondtothese

externaldriversforaccessibilitywhicharethestandards.Developersknowtechnicalstandardson

digitalaccessibility,standardsthatestablishhowtoshowaudiovisualcontent,amongothers.Owners

andexternalprovidersknowthelegislationonaccessibilityanddisabilitythatappliestotheirown

serviceordomainofexpertise.

Researchersarealsorelevantstakeholdersforanaccessibleparticipatorydesignproject,located

inameta-positionthatencompassesbothproductionanduse(seeFigure1).Thisdoesnotmean

thattheycontroltheprocessfromoutsidebut‘insidetheloop’(Brownetal.,2011).Theknowledge

providedbytheresearchersisaboveallmethodologicalandepistemological.Methodologicalbecause

researchersestablishwaysforshared,communicatedandembodiedthestakeholders’knowledge

(Vinesetal.,2013).Epistemologicalbecausetheyobserve,analyzeandtransformaprocessinwhich

theythemselvestakepart.Recognizingtheresearcheraspartofthedesignprocessisrecognizing

thatthedesignedartifactisalsolinkedtotheresearcher’sculture

³

. LooKING FoR CoNSeNSUS AMoNG STAKeHoLDeRS

Co-designasocio-technologicalsolutionisacomplexchallengeinwhichmultiplepointsofviewcan

takeplace.Stakeholdersarenothomogeneousandtheparticularcharacteristicsandsingularityof

participantscanleadtoverydifferentdesignprocess.Differentprocess,runindifferentways,canend

(7)

upwithverydifferentoutcomesevenifthetechnologicalartifactthatisbeingbuiltisexactlythesame

(Brownetal.,2011).Moreover,thissuggeststhattheideaofrecruitingrepresentativestakeholders

(Newell,Gregor,Morgan,Pullin,&Macaulay,2011)isquiteawhileidealistic.Findingthepointof

consensusisthereforeatopicofinterestintheParticipatoryDesignliterature.Someauthorspropose

aparticipatoryresult“asonethatshowsevidenceofdemocraticidealsbyincreasingtheagencyof

itsusersandgivingthemavoiceinmatterstheydidnothavebefore.”(Bratteteig&Wagner,2016).

Participatorydesigninsistsonthetoleranceofdifferentperspectives,onthepassionatecommitment

thatbringstogetherthestakeholders,ontransformconflictbetweenenemiesintoconstructive

controversiesamongadversarieswhohaveopposinginterestsbutarecapableoflegitimizingvisions

differentfromtheirown(Björgvinsson,Ehn,&Hillgren,2010).

Inthecaseofaccessibledesign,controversiesappearatmultiplelevels.Justtomentionafew:

• Withinthesamecollectiveofusers:essentialfeaturesforoneuserwithlowvisionmaynotbe

importantforanother.ManyofthemusethebrowserzoomtoreadtheWebwhileothersnavigate

withscreenreadertoavoidvisualfatigue.Fortheformer,agoodcolorcontrastisessential,while

forthelatter,awell-writtenHTMLismoreimportant.

• Betweendifferentcollectivesofusers:Peopleinthedeafcommunitypreferthatthesizeof

thesignlanguageinterpreterinavideobeverylargewhilepeoplewhodonotunderstandsign

languagewilltendtopreferasmallsize.

• BetweenICTsprofessionalsandusers:Insurveystoscreenreaderusers(WebAIM,2009),when

usersareconsultedaboutwebimagesthatseektogeneratesomeemotionorsensation,most

indicatethattheypreferimagesdescribedbytheirscreenreader.Thisresultisclearlyopposed

totheaccessibilityguidelinethatrecommendsnotdescribingdecorativeimagesandtherefore

opposedtowhatanyICTsprofessionalwouldtendtodo.

Howtodealwiththeseconflictingpreferencesisasubjectstilllittleexploredinthefieldof

accessibledesign.Accessibilitystandardsarenotnormativeintermsofparticipationandinvolvement

ofstakeholders,althoughtheWebsiteAccessibilityConformanceEvaluationMethodology(W3C,

2014)indicatestheinterventionofpeoplewithdisabilitiesasanoptionalrequirement.Scientific

worksonParticipatoryDesignwithpeoplewithdisabilitiesdevelopedsofar(Brocketal.,2010;

Metatla,Bryan-Kinns,Stockman,&Martin,2015)aremorefocusedontheformsofcommunication

betweenproducersandusers(accessiblescenarios,accessibleprototypes,etc.)andlessintheforms

ofagreement.Thereis,ontheotherhand,awidespreadideaofdesignforalloruniversaldesignthat

hasimplieddangerousimplicationssuchasthinkingthatadesigncouldsatisfythepreferencesor

viewsofanyindividual.Ifitisalreadydifficultenoughtofindconsensusamongthemembersofa

participatorydesignproject,“itcanbecomeimpossibleifthecharacteristicsforwhichoneisdesigning,

intermsofphysical,sensory,motorandcognitiveabilities,tosaynothingofculture,knowledgeand

motivation,aresuggestedtoincludethoseofthewholepopulation”(Newelletal.,2011).

Ifthedisadvantagesofthestandards-guideddesignexposedatthebeginningofthispaperare

considered,apathofpossibleagreementforanaccessibleparticipatorydesignwouldbetoprioritize

thevoicesthatcomefromtheexperienceofstakeholdersoverthevoicesthatarebasedonthe

accessibilitystandards.Inthisway,singularitiesofthepeopledirectlyinvolvedwillbeprioritized

overthenorm,whichisultimatelyestablishedbypeopleunconnectedtotheproject.Likewise,apath

ofpossibleagreementistotakeadvantageofthecreativepotentialthathasbringingdifferentpoints

ofviewtogetherandtryingtocreateasharedunderstandingamongallstakeholders(Fischer,2000)

toimaginesolutionsthatsolveapparentlyoppositeneeds.ThislastideaapproachesthatofBødker

andZander(2015)forwhomitisaboutidentifyingwin-winsituations.Thatis,insteadofsimply

respectingthevoiceofthemajority,redoublethecreativeefforttoarriveatsolutionsthatrespond

toheterogeneousneeds.

(8)

INSPIRING THe ACCeSSIBLe DeSIGN AGeNDA

Thebalancebetweenthetechnologicalconcernandthemethodologicalconcernisanotherpointof

discussioninthefieldofParticipatoryDesign.ParticipatoryDesignmainlyfocusesitseffortson

identifying“novelwaysofdeployingexistingtechnologiesinwaysthatareusefultousers”(Dunckley,

Camara,Abdelnour-Nocera,&Waema,2009)andindesigning“improvementsoverexisting

technologiesastheyaremoresensitivetotheneedsanddesiresofspecificusergroups”(Vineset

al.,2013).Thesereusesandadaptationsofexistingtechnologiesputthefocusondesignprocesses

andmethods,andareusuallyaccompaniedbyalackofinterestinthetechnologicalresearchconcern.

Korsgaard,KlokmoseandBødker(2016)considerthatthecauseofthistechnologicalconservatism

isthestabilityofmainstreamtechnologiesanddrawattentiontotheriskforParticipatoryDesign.

TheperpetuationofoperatingsystemslikeWindows,Mac,iOSorAndroid,andapplicationsthat

hasmaturedfordecades(MicrosoftWord,Excel,etc.)hasledtoastandardizationofboththedesign

ofuserinterfacesandthetrainingofresearchersandpractitionersinthefieldofsoftwaredesign.“If

technologiesarechosenbasedontheresearchers’(andusers’)taken-for-grantedness,familiarityand/

orconvenience,andlaterresultinrecommendationsfor,or,afinishedsystem,itmustbeimplicitly

assumedthatourcurrenttechnologiesareadequateforlocalpractices.”(Korsgaard,Klokmoseand

Bødker,2016,p.73).

TheoppositeseemstohappeninthefieldofAccessibility.Thescientificcommunityhasa

predilectionforthetechnologicalresearchconcern,asillustratedbytheprominentsubjectsinthe

AccessibilityandComputingliterature(Figure2):whileonlytwothemesmakereferencetodesign

processesandmethods–usercentereddesign,HCIdesignandevaluationmethods–,severaltopics

arerelatedtotechnologies–assistivetechnologies,interactiondevices,interactionparadigms,

soundbasedI/O,touchscreens,etc.Followingthesamereasoningasbefore,theinclinationforthe

technologicalconcernmaybeaconsequenceofacertainplatforminstability,oftheexistenceof

manyandheterogeneoustoolkitsandplatforms.Assistivetechnologiesvarycompletelyfromone

disabilitysituationtotheotheraswellaswithinthesamedisabilitysituation.Forinstance,assistive

technologyforvisuallyimpairmentincludescreenreaders,screenmagnifiers,Brailleembossers,voice

recognition,navigationassistance,wearabletechnology,amongmanyothers.Butaddressingonly

thetechnologicalaspectalsoinvolvesarisk,alreadymentionedabove:assumingthatatechnology

canbeauniversalsolution,whichcansatisfyanysubjectwithacertaindisability.

IntegratingthemethodologicalconcernsofParticipatoryDesignintotheaccessibledesign

agendacouldthenleadtoabetterbalancebetweenmethodologicalandtechnologicalaspects,toa

socio-technicalapproachofaccessibledesignandtoarealsocio-technicaloutcome.Integratingthe

methodologicalconcernsmeansstartingfromthelocalknowledgeofpeoplewithdisabilitiesandother

stakeholdersforquestioningtheconditionsunderwhichtechnologiesaredesignedandintroduced.

Finally,thetechnologicalartifactisnottheonlyoutcomeinaparticipatorydesignproject.New

knowledgeandcompetencies,newcollaborationsandnetworksareotherpossibleoutcomesofthe

collaborativeworkamongstakeholders(Bratteteig&Wagner,2016).Theknowledgeaboutthe

disabilityexperienceisusuallyveryasymmetricinanaccessibledesignproject,verylimitedinthe

caseoftheproductionstakeholders.Producersareprobablytheoneswhotakethemostintermsof

newknowledgeandcompetencies.Fortheirpart,peoplewithdisabilitiesencounterdailysomany

barriersinICTsthattheyareparticularlymotivatedtoexchangeindesignprocesses.Theyacceptthe

challengebecausetheproblemsaddressedarepersonallymeaningfulproblems(Fischer,2002)for

them.Mutuallearning,exchangeandjointworktoproducesomethingnewgeneratetrustandbonds

betweenstakeholdersthatendureovertime.Accessibledesignresearchshouldvaluethisknowledge

asscientificknowledge,shouldtransmittheskillsacquiredandcantakeadvantageofcollaborations

andnetworksinfutureprojects.

(9)

CoNCLUSIoN

Thispaperdelvesintoaparticipatoryapproachtoaccessibledesign,asanalternativetodesign

guidedsimplybystandards.Itanalyzesthreeessentialissuesofparticipatorydesigninrelationto

accessibility:sharingexpertise,sharingpowerandinspiringchangeintheaccessibledesignagenda.

Inthefirstplace,itdefinesarelevantnetworkofstakeholdersforaccessibleparticipatorydesignbased

ontheexpertisethateachofthemcanprovide.OntheproductionsidearetheICTsprofessionals,

theowners,thesponsorsandtheexternalsuppliersofthedesignsolution.Ontheusesidearethe

peoplewithdisabilitiesandtheirattendants.Inameta-positionbetweenproductionandusearethe

researchers.Thearticlethenraisestheissueofconsensusamongstakeholdersandproposestwo

possiblescenariosforresolvingcontroversies.Thefirstistoprioritizethevoicesthatcomefromthe

experienceofstakeholdersoverthevoicesthatarebasedontheaccessibilitystandards.Thesecond

scenarioconsistsintransformingcontroversiesintocreativepotential,inredoublingthecreativeeffort

toarriveatsolutionsthatrespondtoheterogeneousneeds.Finally,theauthorexposestwoqualitiesof

ParticipatoryDesignofwhichtheaccessibledesignagendacouldbeinspired:toprobemoredeeply

intothemethodologicalconcernsandtotakeadvantageofthenon-technologicaloutcomesofthe

process,suchasnewknowledge,newcompetenciesandnewstakeholders’networks.

Bringingtogethertherightstakeholders,prioritizingtheirknowledgeoveraccessibilitystandards,

attendingtothemethodologyandtothenon-technologicaloutcomesoftheprocessaresomeof

thechallengesforaccessibledesign.Morereflectionsandmoredesignsinthissenseremaintobe

carriedouttotakeadvantageofthecommunicativeandemancipatorypotentialofICTsforpeople

withdisabilities.

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)

(10)

ACKNowLeDGMeNT

Theauthor’sresearchwasfundedbytheUniversitéParis13(France)andtheConsejoNacionalde

InvestigacionesCientíficasyTécnicas(Argentina).Thedesignprojectsthatinspiredthisarticle

werefundedbyMinisteriodeCiencia,TecnologíaeInnovaciónproductiva,UniversidadNacionalde

Rosario,UniversidadAbiertaInteramericana,EntedeTurismoRosario,SecretaríadeTurismodela

MunicipalidaddeRosario,andsupportedbymanystakeholdersfromServiciodeLecturaAccesible

delaBibliotecaMunicipalArgentina“JuanÁlvarez”,AsociaciónRosarinadeDeportesparaCiegos,

CentrodeRehabilitaciónparaPersonasconDiscapacidadVisual“LuisBraille”Nº2014,Escuela

EspecialparaIntegraciónenSecundariaNº2139,EscueladeEnseñanzaMediaNº338andInstituto

SuperiordelProfesoradoNº16“BernardoHoussey”.

(11)

ReFeReNCeS

W3C.(2008).WebContentAccessibilityGuidelines(WCAG)2.0.RetrievedMarch10,2014,fromhttp://www.

w3.org/TR/WCAG20/

W3C.(2014).WebsiteAccessibilityConformanceEvaluationMethodology(WCAG-EM)1.0.Retrieved

November19,2014,fromhttp://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/

Björgvinsson,E.,Ehn,P.,&Hillgren,P.-A.(2010).ParticipatoryDesignand“DemocratizingInnovation.”

InProceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference(pp.41–50).NewYork,NY:ACM.

doi:10.1145/1900441.1900448

Bødker,S.(2011).UseisEverywhereandChanging:AnalysisandDesignwiththeHuman-artifactModel.In

Proceedings 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).Méthodesetoutilsde

conceptionparticipativeavecdesutilisateursnon-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).New

York,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).AChallengetoWebAccessibilityMetricsand

Guidelines: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-TechnicalIssuesof

ParticipatoryDesignintheDevelopingWorld.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:ACM

Press.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

(12)

Kelly,B.,Sloan,D.,Brown,S.,Seale,J.,Lauke,P.,Ball,S.,&Smith,S.(2009).Accessibility2.0:NextSteps

forWebAccessibility.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).Designingwithandforpeoplelivingwith

visualimpairments:Audio-tactilemock-ups,audiodiariesandparticipatoryprototyping.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).Guidelinesareonlyhalfofthestory:accessibility

problemsencounteredbyblindusersontheWeb.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).ValidatingWCAGversions1.0and2.0throughusabilitytestingwithdisabled

users.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.Retrievedfromhttp://www.

un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=12&pid=150

Vines,J.,Clarke,R.,Wright,P.,McCarthy,J.,&Olivier,P.(2013).ConfiguringParticipation:OnHowWe

InvolvePeopleinDesign.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 Assistivetechnologiesarespecificprogramsorperipheralsthatpeoplewithdisabilitiesusetoimprove

theirinteractionwiththeWeb.Forexample,screenreadersnormallyusedbypeoplewithblindnessare

assistivetechnology.

2 TheWebAccessibilityInitiativedefinesthecontentas“theinformationthatformsWebsitesandWeb

applications:thecodeandmarkupthatdefinethestructure,presentation,andinteraction,aswellastext,

images,andsoundsthatconveyinformationtotheend-user.”(Chisholm&Henry,2005,p.32)

3 Itisalsotoinscribeparticipatorydesignasapracticeofcomplexthinkingandasasecond-order

epistemology.Theconceptofthemeta-pointofviewofMorin(2005)isrelevanttodeepenthisaspect.

(13)

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

HAL Id: halshs-01762291

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

Submitted on 9 Apr 2018

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

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

Design

María Inés Laitano

To cite this version:

María Inés Laitano. Developing a Participatory Approach to Accessible Design. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 2017, 9 (4), pp.1 - 11. �10.4018/IJSKD.2017100101�.

�halshs-01762291�

International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge

Development

Developing a Participatory

Approach to Accessible Design

ABSTRACT

This﻿article﻿describes﻿how﻿accessibility﻿to﻿ICTs﻿is﻿understood﻿as﻿conformity﻿to﻿standards,﻿which﻿

usually﻿ends﻿in﻿designs﻿that﻿do﻿not﻿consider﻿the﻿singularities﻿of﻿people.﻿This﻿article﻿delves﻿into﻿a﻿

participatory﻿approach﻿to﻿accessible﻿design,﻿as﻿an﻿alternative﻿to﻿design﻿guided﻿simply﻿by﻿standards.﻿

It﻿first﻿defines﻿a﻿relevant﻿network﻿of﻿stakeholders﻿for﻿accessible﻿participatory﻿design,﻿based﻿on﻿the﻿

expertise﻿that﻿each﻿of﻿them﻿can﻿provide.﻿It﻿then﻿discusses﻿the﻿issue﻿of﻿consensus﻿among﻿stakeholders,﻿

necessary﻿to﻿make﻿design﻿decisions﻿when﻿there﻿are﻿conflicting﻿views.﻿Finally,﻿it﻿addresses﻿the﻿question﻿

of﻿non-technological﻿outcomes﻿and﻿methodological﻿concerns﻿of﻿Participatory﻿Design﻿that﻿should﻿

inspire﻿the﻿accessible﻿design﻿agenda.

INTRoDUCTIoN

Although﻿accessibility﻿to﻿Information﻿and﻿Communication﻿Technologies﻿(ICTs)﻿has﻿been﻿promoted﻿

for﻿more﻿than﻿ten﻿years﻿as﻿a﻿fundamental﻿human﻿right﻿of﻿people﻿with﻿disabilities﻿(United﻿Nations,﻿

2006),﻿as﻿an﻿unprecedented﻿opportunity﻿for﻿communication﻿and﻿autonomy,﻿many﻿communities﻿remain﻿

excluded.﻿The﻿reasons﻿for﻿this﻿situation﻿of﻿relegation﻿are﻿many﻿and﻿diverse﻿(economic,﻿technical,﻿

cultural,﻿political,﻿geographical,﻿etc.)﻿but﻿a﻿major﻿cause﻿is﻿the﻿standardized﻿design﻿of﻿mainstream﻿

ICTs.﻿Standardized﻿or﻿normalized﻿design﻿implies﻿certain﻿norms,﻿like﻿young,﻿white,﻿male,﻿heterosexual,﻿

Western,﻿middle-class,﻿non-disabled,﻿and﻿marginalizes﻿individual﻿identities﻿(Lewthwaite,﻿2014).﻿As﻿

postulated﻿by﻿the﻿social﻿model﻿of﻿disability﻿(World﻿Health﻿Organization,﻿2001),﻿exclusion﻿is﻿generated﻿

by﻿the﻿environment﻿in﻿which﻿the﻿person﻿lives,﻿by﻿the﻿normalized﻿design﻿of﻿mainstream﻿technologies,﻿

and﻿not﻿by﻿their﻿personal﻿attributes.

In﻿the﻿accessibility﻿arena﻿itself,﻿there﻿is﻿a﻿generalized﻿understanding﻿of﻿accessibility﻿to﻿ICTs﻿as﻿

conformity﻿with﻿norms.﻿Several﻿countries﻿granted﻿law﻿status﻿to﻿Web﻿Content﻿Accessibility﻿Guidelines﻿

(W3C,﻿2008),﻿promoting﻿web﻿design﻿projects﻿based﻿exclusively﻿on﻿accessibility﻿standards.﻿These﻿

guidelines﻿are﻿lists﻿of﻿verification﻿criteria,﻿designed﻿more﻿to﻿evaluate﻿existing﻿websites﻿than﻿to﻿address﻿

new﻿design﻿projects.﻿It﻿was﻿shown﻿empirically,﻿by﻿user﻿test,﻿that﻿accessibility﻿guidelines﻿do﻿not﻿cover﻿

all﻿the﻿problems﻿encountered﻿by﻿people﻿with﻿disabilities﻿when﻿they﻿browse﻿the﻿Web﻿(Power,﻿Freire,﻿

Petrie,﻿&﻿Swallow,﻿2012;﻿Rømen﻿&﻿Svanæs,﻿2011).﻿Guidelines﻿define﻿accessibility﻿as﻿a﻿property﻿of﻿the﻿

digital﻿content﻿and﻿not﻿as﻿a﻿property﻿of﻿the﻿relationship﻿between﻿the﻿user﻿and﻿the﻿content﻿in﻿a﻿context﻿

of﻿use﻿(Cooper,﻿Sloan,﻿Kelly,﻿&﻿Lewthwaite,﻿2012),﻿as﻿a﻿property﻿of﻿the﻿user﻿experience.﻿The﻿W3C﻿

Accessibility﻿Guidelines﻿Working﻿Group,﻿aware﻿of﻿these﻿limitations,﻿is﻿currently﻿working﻿on﻿a﻿next﻿

major﻿version﻿for﻿2020﻿that﻿hopes﻿to﻿expand﻿the﻿scope﻿beyond﻿content﻿and﻿beyond﻿the﻿Web﻿(Lauriat﻿

&﻿Spellman,﻿2017).﻿One﻿of﻿the﻿goals﻿in﻿this﻿elaboration﻿process﻿is﻿to﻿involve﻿more﻿stakeholders﻿by﻿

doing﻿user﻿research﻿with﻿people﻿who﻿use﻿the﻿standard.

This﻿paper﻿delves﻿into﻿a﻿participatory﻿approach﻿to﻿accessible﻿design,﻿as﻿an﻿alternative﻿to﻿design﻿

guided﻿simply﻿by﻿standards.﻿Participatory﻿design﻿calls﻿for﻿democratization﻿and﻿stakeholder﻿involvement﻿

in﻿the﻿design﻿process,﻿for﻿empower﻿relevant﻿stakeholders﻿rather﻿than﻿being﻿restrict﻿them﻿to﻿a﻿prescribed﻿

way﻿of﻿interacting﻿(Fischer,﻿2002),﻿for﻿emancipate﻿specially﻿“groups﻿of﻿people﻿whose﻿views,﻿opinions﻿

and﻿needs﻿might﻿be﻿the﻿most﻿ignored﻿by﻿mainstream﻿society.”﻿(Vines,﻿Clarke,﻿Wright,﻿McCarthy,﻿&﻿

Olivier,﻿2013).﻿At﻿least﻿two﻿rationales,﻿one﻿moral﻿and﻿one﻿pragmatic,﻿support﻿participatory﻿design.﻿

The﻿first﻿is﻿that﻿the﻿people﻿most﻿directly﻿affected﻿by﻿the﻿design﻿result﻿have﻿the﻿right﻿to﻿judge﻿that﻿

result.﻿The﻿pragmatic﻿reason﻿is﻿that﻿directly﻿including﻿users﻿will﻿increase﻿the﻿chances﻿of﻿a﻿successful﻿

design﻿result﻿because﻿they﻿are﻿the﻿ones﻿who﻿will﻿need﻿to﻿adopt﻿and﻿to﻿adapt﻿to﻿the﻿design﻿result﻿

(Carroll﻿&﻿Rosson,﻿2007).

The﻿three﻿main﻿goals﻿of﻿the﻿participatory﻿design﻿philosophy—sharing﻿expertise,﻿sharing﻿control﻿

and﻿inspiring﻿change﻿(Vines﻿et﻿al.,﻿2013)—are﻿explored﻿in﻿the﻿context﻿of﻿accessible﻿design.﻿The﻿author﻿

outlines﻿opinions﻿developed﻿through﻿experience﻿and﻿loosely﻿guided﻿by﻿these﻿three﻿goals.﻿She﻿took﻿part﻿

as﻿a﻿researcher/designer﻿in﻿a﻿series﻿of﻿technology﻿design﻿projects﻿for﻿social﻿inclusion﻿carried﻿out﻿in﻿

the﻿city﻿of﻿Rosario﻿(Argentina),﻿the﻿majority﻿of﻿them﻿within﻿a﻿public﻿program﻿of﻿accessible﻿tourism.

Thus,﻿the﻿objectives﻿of﻿the﻿article﻿are﻿three.﻿First,﻿to﻿identify﻿who﻿are﻿the﻿relevant﻿stakeholders,﻿

based﻿on﻿the﻿expertise﻿needed﻿to﻿design﻿an﻿accessible﻿artifact.﻿Second,﻿to﻿discuss﻿the﻿issue﻿of﻿consensus﻿

among﻿stakeholders,﻿necessary﻿to﻿make﻿design﻿decisions﻿when﻿there﻿are﻿conflicting﻿views.﻿Thirdly,﻿

to﻿address﻿the﻿question﻿of﻿the﻿outcome﻿of﻿an﻿accessible﻿participatory﻿design﻿project﻿and﻿the﻿outcome﻿

aspects﻿that﻿should﻿concern﻿the﻿accessibility﻿research﻿agenda.

The﻿contributions﻿are﻿not﻿intended﻿to﻿be﻿a﻿formal﻿or﻿reproducible﻿methodology﻿for﻿the﻿accessible﻿

design﻿of﻿ICTs.﻿The﻿socio-technical﻿systems﻿“involving﻿humans﻿and﻿technology﻿contain﻿far﻿too﻿much﻿

variability﻿to﻿be﻿reproducible﻿in﻿any﻿straightforward﻿way”﻿(Brown,﻿Reeves,﻿&﻿Sherwood,﻿2011).﻿

The﻿proposed﻿suggestions﻿are﻿only﻿intended﻿to﻿motivate﻿and﻿inspire﻿more﻿reflections﻿on﻿accessible﻿

participatory﻿design.﻿It﻿is﻿up﻿to﻿each﻿designer﻿or﻿researcher﻿to﻿adapt,﻿via﻿re-signification﻿and﻿non- mechanical﻿dissemination﻿(Thomas,﻿Juarez,﻿&﻿Picabea,﻿2015),﻿these﻿proposals﻿to﻿other﻿local﻿contexts.

SHARING VIewS oN ACCeSSIBLe DeSIGN

Participatory﻿design﻿conceives﻿design﻿as﻿a﻿process﻿of﻿inscribing﻿knowledge﻿in﻿material﻿forms﻿(Karasti,﻿

2014).﻿This﻿knowledge﻿is﻿not﻿owned﻿by﻿a﻿single﻿person﻿but﻿possessed﻿by﻿different﻿stakeholders﻿in﻿

an﻿asymmetric﻿and﻿often﻿controversial﻿way﻿(Fischer,﻿2000).﻿Relevant﻿stakeholders﻿for﻿accessible﻿

participatory﻿design﻿are﻿all﻿those﻿people﻿with﻿some﻿knowledge﻿of﻿accessibility,﻿capable﻿of﻿share﻿

their﻿points﻿of﻿view﻿and﻿produce﻿new﻿ideas﻿and﻿artifacts.﻿This﻿definition﻿extends﻿the﻿classic﻿triad﻿

developers-content-users﻿of﻿the﻿W3C’s﻿Web﻿Accessibility﻿Initiative﻿(Chisholm﻿&﻿Henry,﻿2005)﻿

ThisarticledescribeshowaccessibilitytoICTsisunderstoodasconformitytostandards,which

usuallyendsindesignsthatdonotconsiderthesingularitiesofpeople.Thisarticledelvesintoa

participatoryapproachtoaccessibledesign,asanalternativetodesignguidedsimplybystandards.

Itfirstdefinesarelevantnetworkofstakeholdersforaccessibleparticipatorydesign,basedonthe

expertisethateachofthemcanprovide.Itthendiscussestheissueofconsensusamongstakeholders,

necessarytomakedesigndecisionswhenthereareconflictingviews.Finally,itaddressesthequestion

ofnon-technologicaloutcomesandmethodologicalconcernsofParticipatoryDesignthatshould

inspiretheaccessibledesignagenda.

AlthoughaccessibilitytoInformationandCommunicationTechnologies(ICTs)hasbeenpromoted

formorethantenyearsasafundamentalhumanrightofpeoplewithdisabilities(UnitedNations,

2006),asanunprecedentedopportunityforcommunicationandautonomy,manycommunitiesremain

excluded.Thereasonsforthissituationofrelegationaremanyanddiverse(economic,technical,

cultural,political,geographical,etc.)butamajorcauseisthestandardizeddesignofmainstream

ICTs.Standardizedornormalizeddesignimpliescertainnorms,likeyoung,white,male,heterosexual,

Western,middle-class,non-disabled,andmarginalizesindividualidentities(Lewthwaite,2014).As

postulatedbythesocialmodelofdisability(WorldHealthOrganization,2001),exclusionisgenerated

bytheenvironmentinwhichthepersonlives,bythenormalizeddesignofmainstreamtechnologies,

andnotbytheirpersonalattributes.

Intheaccessibilityarenaitself,thereisageneralizedunderstandingofaccessibilitytoICTsas

conformitywithnorms.SeveralcountriesgrantedlawstatustoWebContentAccessibilityGuidelines

(W3C,2008),promotingwebdesignprojectsbasedexclusivelyonaccessibilitystandards.These

guidelinesarelistsofverificationcriteria,designedmoretoevaluateexistingwebsitesthantoaddress

newdesignprojects.Itwasshownempirically,byusertest,thataccessibilityguidelinesdonotcover

alltheproblemsencounteredbypeoplewithdisabilitieswhentheybrowsetheWeb(Power,Freire,

Petrie,&Swallow,2012;Rømen&Svanæs,2011).Guidelinesdefineaccessibilityasapropertyofthe

digitalcontentandnotasapropertyoftherelationshipbetweentheuserandthecontentinacontext

ofuse(Cooper,Sloan,Kelly,&Lewthwaite,2012),asapropertyoftheuserexperience.TheW3C

AccessibilityGuidelinesWorkingGroup,awareoftheselimitations,iscurrentlyworkingonanext

majorversionfor2020thathopestoexpandthescopebeyondcontentandbeyondtheWeb(Lauriat

&Spellman,2017).Oneofthegoalsinthiselaborationprocessistoinvolvemorestakeholdersby

doinguserresearchwithpeoplewhousethestandard.

Thispaperdelvesintoaparticipatoryapproachtoaccessibledesign,asanalternativetodesign

guidedsimplybystandards.Participatorydesigncallsfordemocratizationandstakeholderinvolvement

inthedesignprocess,forempowerrelevantstakeholdersratherthanbeingrestrictthemtoaprescribed

wayofinteracting(Fischer,2002),foremancipatespecially“groupsofpeoplewhoseviews,opinions

andneedsmightbethemostignoredbymainstreamsociety.”(Vines,Clarke,Wright,McCarthy,&

Olivier,2013).Atleasttworationales,onemoralandonepragmatic,supportparticipatorydesign.

Thefirstisthatthepeoplemostdirectlyaffectedbythedesignresulthavetherighttojudgethat

result.Thepragmaticreasonisthatdirectlyincludinguserswillincreasethechancesofasuccessful

designresultbecausetheyaretheoneswhowillneedtoadoptandtoadapttothedesignresult

(Carroll&Rosson,2007).

Thethreemaingoalsoftheparticipatorydesignphilosophy—sharingexpertise,sharingcontrol

andinspiringchange(Vinesetal.,2013)—areexploredinthecontextofaccessibledesign.Theauthor

outlinesopinionsdevelopedthroughexperienceandlooselyguidedbythesethreegoals.Shetookpart

asaresearcher/designerinaseriesoftechnologydesignprojectsforsocialinclusioncarriedoutin

thecityofRosario(Argentina),themajorityofthemwithinapublicprogramofaccessibletourism.

Thus,theobjectivesofthearticlearethree.First,toidentifywhoaretherelevantstakeholders,

basedontheexpertiseneededtodesignanaccessibleartifact.Second,todiscusstheissueofconsensus

amongstakeholders,necessarytomakedesigndecisionswhenthereareconflictingviews.Thirdly,

toaddressthequestionoftheoutcomeofanaccessibleparticipatorydesignprojectandtheoutcome

aspectsthatshouldconcerntheaccessibilityresearchagenda.

Thecontributionsarenotintendedtobeaformalorreproduciblemethodologyfortheaccessible

designofICTs.Thesocio-technicalsystems“involvinghumansandtechnologycontainfartoomuch

variabilitytobereproducibleinanystraightforwardway”(Brown,Reeves,&Sherwood,2011).

Theproposedsuggestionsareonlyintendedtomotivateandinspiremorereflectionsonaccessible

participatorydesign.Itisuptoeachdesignerorresearchertoadapt,viare-significationandnon- mechanicaldissemination(Thomas,Juarez,&Picabea,2015),theseproposalstootherlocalcontexts.

Participatorydesignconceivesdesignasaprocessofinscribingknowledgeinmaterialforms(Karasti,

2014).Thisknowledgeisnotownedbyasinglepersonbutpossessedbydifferentstakeholdersin

anasymmetricandoftencontroversialway(Fischer,2000).Relevantstakeholdersforaccessible

participatorydesignareallthosepeoplewithsomeknowledgeofaccessibility,capableofshare

theirpointsofviewandproducenewideasandartifacts.Thisdefinitionextendstheclassictriad

developers-content-usersoftheW3C’sWebAccessibilityInitiative(Chisholm&Henry,2005)

toawidernetworkconformedby:ICTsprofessionals,sponsors,ownersandexternalsupplierson

theproductionside;peoplewithdisabilitiesandattendantsontheuseside;aswellasresearchers.

Figure1synthesizesthestakeholders’networkproposedforaccessibleparticipatorydesignandthe

expertisecontributedbyeachofthem.Namesinuppercasedefinethestakeholders.Expertiseof

eachstakeholderappearinbullets.Thelightbluebackgroundidentifiestheproductionsidewhile

theorangebackgroundidentifiestheuseside.

Peoplewithdisabilities–orendusers–consultandinteractwiththecontentthroughuseragents:

webbrowsers,mediaplayersandassistivetechnologies

.Theyhavedifferentlevelsofcompetence

intheuseofuseragentsandconfiguretheminverydifferentways.Forexample,anexpertscreen

readeruserknowsmultiplekeyboardshortcutsthatanoviceusermaynotknow.Butuseragents

representonlyone–thetechnologicalone–ofthemultipledimensionsthatmakeupthedisabled

experience(Frauenberger,2015)andfromwhichpeoplewithdisabilitiescangivetestimony.There

isknowledgederivedfrombiologicalcondition.Forinstance,withinthecollectiveofpeoplewith

visualimpairments,blindnessisnotthesameaslowvisionnorblinddeafness,birthblindnessisnot

thesameasacquiredblindness.Thereisknowledgeintrinsicallycultural.Forexample,signlanguage

isthelanguageofadeafculture.Contemporaryconceptualizationsofdisability,whichgobeyondthe

dichotomybetweenthebiologicalmodelandthesocialmodel,givethepatternofmultipleknowledge