HAL Id: halshs-01762291https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01762291
Submitted on 9 Apr 2018
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.
Developing a Participatory Approach to AccessibleDesign
María Inés Laitano
To cite this version:María Inés Laitano. Developing a Participatory Approach to Accessible Design. International Journalof Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 2017, 9 (4), pp.1 - 11. �10.4018/IJSKD.2017100101�.�halshs-01762291�
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 Prefacev 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 DevelopingaParticipatoryApproachtoAccessibleDesign;
María Inés Laitano, LabSic, Université Paris 13, Villetaneuse, France
12 ApplicationstoImproveQualityofLife;
Arminda Guerra Lopes, Instituto Politecnico de Castelo Branco, Castelo Branco, Portugal & Madeira Interactive Technologies Institute, Funchal, Portugal
28 FromHuman-CenteredDesigntoDisabledUser&EcosystemCenteredDesigninCaseofAssistiveInteractiveSystems;
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 AParticipatoryDesignApproachwithVisuallyImpairedPeoplefortheDesignofanArtExhibition;
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
CoPyRIGHTThe 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: 1941-6261An official publication of the Information Resources Management Association
InternationalJournalofSociotechnologyandKnowledgeDevelopment
TableofContents
DOI: 10.4018/IJSKD.2017100101
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
Copyright©2017,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.
Developing a Participatory Approach to Accessible DesignMaría Inés Laitano, LabSic, Université Paris 13, Villetaneuse, France
ABSTRACT
Thisarticledescribeshowaccessibility to ICTs isunderstoodasconformity tostandards,whichusuallyendsindesignsthatdonotconsiderthesingularitiesofpeople.Thisarticledelvesintoaparticipatoryapproachtoaccessibledesign,asanalternativetodesignguidedsimplybystandards.Itfirstdefinesarelevantnetworkofstakeholdersforaccessibleparticipatorydesign,basedontheexpertisethateachofthemcanprovide.Itthendiscussestheissueofconsensusamongstakeholders,necessarytomakedesigndecisionswhenthereareconflictingviews.Finally,itaddressesthequestionofnon-technologicaloutcomesandmethodologicalconcernsofParticipatoryDesignthatshouldinspiretheaccessibledesignagenda.
KeywoRDSAccessible Design, Accessible Participatory Design, Disability, Human-centered Design, Inclusive Design, Participatory Design, Socio-technical Systems, WCAG
INTRoDUCTIoN
AlthoughaccessibilitytoInformationandCommunicationTechnologies(ICTs)hasbeenpromotedformorethantenyearsasafundamentalhumanrightofpeoplewithdisabilities(UnitedNations,2006),asanunprecedentedopportunityforcommunicationandautonomy,manycommunitiesremainexcluded.Thereasonsforthissituationofrelegationaremanyanddiverse(economic,technical,cultural,political,geographical,etc.)butamajorcauseisthestandardizeddesignofmainstreamICTs.Standardizedornormalizeddesignimpliescertainnorms,likeyoung,white,male,heterosexual,Western,middle-class,non-disabled,andmarginalizesindividualidentities(Lewthwaite,2014).Aspostulatedbythesocialmodelofdisability(WorldHealthOrganization,2001),exclusionisgeneratedbytheenvironmentinwhichthepersonlives,bythenormalizeddesignofmainstreamtechnologies,andnotbytheirpersonalattributes.
Intheaccessibilityarenaitself,thereisageneralizedunderstandingofaccessibilitytoICTsasconformitywithnorms.SeveralcountriesgrantedlawstatustoWebContentAccessibilityGuidelines(W3C,2008),promotingwebdesignprojectsbasedexclusivelyonaccessibilitystandards.Theseguidelinesarelistsofverificationcriteria,designedmoretoevaluateexistingwebsitesthantoaddressnewdesignprojects.Itwasshownempirically,byusertest,thataccessibilityguidelinesdonotcoveralltheproblemsencounteredbypeoplewithdisabilitieswhentheybrowsetheWeb(Power,Freire,Petrie,&Swallow,2012;Rømen&Svanæs,2011).Guidelinesdefineaccessibilityasapropertyofthedigitalcontentandnotasapropertyoftherelationshipbetweentheuserandthecontentinacontextofuse(Cooper,Sloan,Kelly,&Lewthwaite,2012),asapropertyoftheuserexperience.TheW3CAccessibilityGuidelinesWorkingGroup,awareoftheselimitations,iscurrentlyworkingonanextmajorversionfor2020thathopestoexpandthescopebeyondcontentandbeyondtheWeb(Lauriat
1
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
2
&Spellman,2017).Oneofthegoalsinthiselaborationprocessistoinvolvemorestakeholdersbydoinguserresearchwithpeoplewhousethestandard.
Thispaperdelvesintoaparticipatoryapproachtoaccessibledesign,asanalternativetodesignguidedsimplybystandards.Participatorydesigncallsfordemocratizationandstakeholderinvolvementinthedesignprocess,forempowerrelevantstakeholdersratherthanbeingrestrictthemtoaprescribedwayofinteracting(Fischer,2002),foremancipatespecially“groupsofpeoplewhoseviews,opinionsandneedsmightbethemostignoredbymainstreamsociety.”(Vines,Clarke,Wright,McCarthy,&Olivier,2013).Atleasttworationales,onemoralandonepragmatic,supportparticipatorydesign.Thefirstisthatthepeoplemostdirectlyaffectedbythedesignresulthavetherighttojudgethatresult.Thepragmaticreasonisthatdirectlyincludinguserswillincreasethechancesofasuccessfuldesignresultbecause theyare theoneswhowillneed toadoptand toadapt to thedesignresult(Carroll&Rosson,2007).
Thethreemaingoalsoftheparticipatorydesignphilosophy—sharingexpertise,sharingcontrolandinspiringchange(Vinesetal.,2013)—areexploredinthecontextofaccessibledesign.Theauthoroutlinesopinionsdevelopedthroughexperienceandlooselyguidedbythesethreegoals.Shetookpartasaresearcher/designerinaseriesoftechnologydesignprojectsforsocialinclusioncarriedoutinthecityofRosario(Argentina),themajorityofthemwithinapublicprogramofaccessibletourism.
Thus,theobjectivesofthearticlearethree.First,toidentifywhoaretherelevantstakeholders,basedontheexpertiseneededtodesignanaccessibleartifact.Second,todiscusstheissueofconsensusamongstakeholders,necessarytomakedesigndecisionswhenthereareconflictingviews.Thirdly,toaddressthequestionoftheoutcomeofanaccessibleparticipatorydesignprojectandtheoutcomeaspectsthatshouldconcerntheaccessibilityresearchagenda.
ThecontributionsarenotintendedtobeaformalorreproduciblemethodologyfortheaccessibledesignofICTs.Thesocio-technicalsystems“involvinghumansandtechnologycontainfartoomuchvariability tobe reproducible inanystraightforwardway” (Brown,Reeves,&Sherwood,2011).Theproposedsuggestionsareonlyintendedtomotivateandinspiremorereflectionsonaccessibleparticipatorydesign.Itisuptoeachdesignerorresearchertoadapt,viare-significationandnon-mechanicaldissemination(Thomas,Juarez,&Picabea,2015),theseproposalstootherlocalcontexts.
SHARING VIewS oN ACCeSSIBLe DeSIGN
Participatorydesignconceivesdesignasaprocessofinscribingknowledgeinmaterialforms(Karasti,2014).Thisknowledgeisnotownedbyasinglepersonbutpossessedbydifferentstakeholdersinanasymmetricandoftencontroversialway (Fischer,2000).Relevant stakeholders foraccessibleparticipatorydesignareall thosepeoplewithsomeknowledgeofaccessibility,capableof sharetheirpointsofviewandproducenewideasandartifacts.Thisdefinitionextendstheclassictriaddevelopers-content-users of the W3C’s Web Accessibility Initiative (Chisholm & Henry, 2005)toawidernetworkconformedby:ICTsprofessionals,sponsors,ownersandexternalsuppliersontheproductionside;peoplewithdisabilitiesandattendantsontheuseside;aswellasresearchers.Figure1synthesizesthestakeholders’networkproposedforaccessibleparticipatorydesignandtheexpertisecontributedbyeachofthem.Namesinuppercasedefinethestakeholders.Expertiseofeachstakeholderappearinbullets.Thelightbluebackgroundidentifiestheproductionsidewhiletheorangebackgroundidentifiestheuseside.
Peoplewithdisabilities–orendusers–consultandinteractwiththecontentthroughuseragents:webbrowsers,mediaplayersandassistivetechnologies1.Theyhavedifferentlevelsofcompetenceintheuseofuseragentsandconfiguretheminverydifferentways.Forexample,anexpertscreenreaderuserknowsmultiplekeyboardshortcutsthatanoviceusermaynotknow.Butuseragentsrepresentonlyone–thetechnologicalone–ofthemultipledimensionsthatmakeupthedisabledexperience(Frauenberger,2015)andfromwhichpeoplewithdisabilitiescangivetestimony.Thereisknowledgederivedfrombiologicalcondition.Forinstance,withinthecollectiveofpeoplewith
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
3
visualimpairments,blindnessisnotthesameaslowvisionnorblinddeafness,birthblindnessisnotthesameasacquiredblindness.Thereisknowledgeintrinsicallycultural.Forexample,signlanguageisthelanguageofadeafculture.Contemporaryconceptualizationsofdisability,whichgobeyondthedichotomybetweenthebiologicalmodelandthesocialmodel,givethepatternofmultipleknowledgethatpeoplewithdisabilitiescancontributetoaccessibledesign(Frauenberger,2015).
Attendantsofpeoplewithdisabilities(family,colleagues,teachers,caregiversandothers)arealsokeyinformantsinaccessibleparticipatorydesign.Asoutlinedinthe“Supportandrelationships”chapter of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (World HealthOrganization,2001),peoplewithdisabilitiesreceivepracticalphysicalandemotionalsupportfromtheirattendantsaswellassupportinvariousaspectsoftheirdailyactivities.Becauseofthis,theirattendantshaveadeepknowledgeaboutthedisabledexperience,abouttheirneeds,theirhabitsandtheirpreferences.Attendantsarenotonly informantsbutcanalsoplaytheroleofmediators.Asmediatorstheycan,forexample,takepartasinterpretersofdeafpeoplewhosenativelanguageisthesignlanguage.
Bydelvingintothecommondefinitionofcontent2,itcanbeseenastheconjunctionofthreeelementsbelongingtodifferentstakeholder’sexpertiseoftheproductionside:interfacecomponents,content(inthestrictsense)andobjectsofinterest.Thedifferencebetweeninterfaceandcontentisaclassicdistinctionincomputerscience:aninterfacecomponentisapartoftheartifactthatisperceivedbyusersasasinglecontrolforadistinctfunctionwhileacontentisaninformationorasensoryexperiencecommunicatedtouserswithacertainstructureandpresentationformat(W3C,2008).ParticipatoryDesignhasalreadypointedoutthatthedesignofinterfacecomponentsandthedesignofthecontentareintertwined.(Fischer&Herrmann,2011)andthisisespeciallytrueinaccessibledesignwhereabarrierineitherofthetwomakesinaccessiblethewhole.Whetherabuttondoesnotsupportoperationbykeyboard(interface)asifimportantinformationisonlyinnon-textualformat(content)theentireartifactisinaccessible.
Figure 1. Stakeholders and their expertise for accessible participatory design (Source: Laitano, 2017)
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
4
TheobjectofinterestisaconceptthatderivesfromtheActivityTheoryappliedtotheHumanComputer Interaction. The interaction between people and technological artifacts occurs in thebroadercontextofahumanactivity(Rabardel,1995).Peopledoesnotinteractwithtechnologicalartifactsbutwithanobjectoftheworldthroughtechnology.Thetechnologicalartifactonlymediatestherelationshipbetweenthehumanandthisobjectoftheworldthatinterestshim(Bødker,2011).Forexample,whensomeonelooksupanaccessiblesightseeingtourontheWeb,hisattentionisnotplacedontheformatofthecontentbutonthetoursightsanditsaccessibilityfeatures.So,iftoursightsarenotaccessibleorifnothingissaidaboutaccessibilityfeatures,eveniftheinterfaceandthecontentareaccessible,thetechnologicalartifactdoesnotfulfillitsmission,theexperienceasawholeisinaccessible.
Developers –who can be named more generally as ICT professionals because they includedesigners,QAprofessionalsandothers–areexpertsinthedesignofinterfacecomponentsandcontentinthestrictsense.Theyuse–andareexpertsintheuseof–authoringtoolssuchasdevelopmentenvironments,contentmanagementsystems,blogapplications,etc.andevaluationtoolstocheckthecontentsyntaxandaccessibility.
Inaddition,thereare“owners”ofthedesignsolution,i.e.thosewhoinitiate,promote,editandkeepalivethedesignsolutionovertime(Laitano,2016).Toillustrate,iftheTouristOfficeturnedtotheUniversitytodesignatourismsolutionaccessibletotouristswithdisabilities,theTouristOfficefulfillstheroleoftheownersofthedesignsolutionandtheUniversityfulfillstheroleoftheICTprofessionals.Ownersareexpertsinthepurposeormainserviceofthedesignedartifactthatintheexamplewouldbethetouristofferofthecityandthatcanbenamedasmainobjectofinterest.
Therearealsothosestakeholderswhoarereferredtointhecontentbutwhoarenotowners,theirroleisratherthatofexternalsuppliersofcontent.Localhoteliersandgastronomesareexternalsuppliers in thecaseofa tourismdesign solution.Externalprovidershaveknowledgeabout thespecificservicestheyprovide(specificobjectsofinterest)andareresponsiblefortheiraccessibility.Alsoontheproductionsidetherearesponsors,stakeholderswhounderstandthefinancialaspectoftheprojectandnormallycontroltheproject’sagenda.Sponsorsmayormaynotcoincidewithowners.Inthecaseofatourismdesignsolution,themunicipalgovernmentorthetourismministrycanbethesponsorsoftheproject.
All production stakeholders have –or should have– knowledge about the standards that anaccessibledesignsolutionwillhavetorespect.AsproposedbyKellyetal.(2009),theextenttowhichartifactsareaccessiblewillbeinfluencedbyhowalltheproductionstakeholdersrespondtotheseexternaldriversforaccessibilitywhicharethestandards.Developersknowtechnicalstandardsondigitalaccessibility,standardsthatestablishhowtoshowaudiovisualcontent,amongothers.Ownersandexternalprovidersknowthelegislationonaccessibilityanddisabilitythatappliestotheirownserviceordomainofexpertise.
Researchersarealsorelevantstakeholdersforanaccessibleparticipatorydesignproject,locatedinameta-positionthatencompassesbothproductionanduse(seeFigure1).Thisdoesnotmeanthattheycontroltheprocessfromoutsidebut‘insidetheloop’(Brownetal.,2011).Theknowledgeprovidedbytheresearchersisaboveallmethodologicalandepistemological.Methodologicalbecauseresearchersestablishways forshared,communicatedandembodied thestakeholders’knowledge(Vinesetal.,2013).Epistemologicalbecausetheyobserve,analyzeandtransformaprocessinwhichtheythemselvestakepart.Recognizingtheresearcheraspartofthedesignprocessisrecognizingthatthedesignedartifactisalsolinkedtotheresearcher’sculture3.
LooKING FoR CoNSeNSUS AMoNG STAKeHoLDeRS
Co-designasocio-technologicalsolutionisacomplexchallengeinwhichmultiplepointsofviewcantakeplace.Stakeholdersarenothomogeneousandtheparticularcharacteristicsandsingularityofparticipantscanleadtoverydifferentdesignprocess.Differentprocess,runindifferentways,canend
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
5
upwithverydifferentoutcomesevenifthetechnologicalartifactthatisbeingbuiltisexactlythesame(Brownetal.,2011).Moreover,thissuggeststhattheideaofrecruitingrepresentativestakeholders(Newell,Gregor,Morgan,Pullin,&Macaulay,2011)isquiteawhileidealistic.FindingthepointofconsensusisthereforeatopicofinterestintheParticipatoryDesignliterature.Someauthorsproposeaparticipatoryresult“asonethatshowsevidenceofdemocraticidealsbyincreasingtheagencyofitsusersandgivingthemavoiceinmatterstheydidnothavebefore.”(Bratteteig&Wagner,2016).Participatorydesigninsistsonthetoleranceofdifferentperspectives,onthepassionatecommitmentthat brings together the stakeholders, on transform conflict between enemies into constructivecontroversiesamongadversarieswhohaveopposinginterestsbutarecapableoflegitimizingvisionsdifferentfromtheirown(Björgvinsson,Ehn,&Hillgren,2010).
Inthecaseofaccessibledesign,controversiesappearatmultiplelevels.Justtomentionafew:
• Withinthesamecollectiveofusers:essentialfeaturesforoneuserwithlowvisionmaynotbeimportantforanother.ManyofthemusethebrowserzoomtoreadtheWebwhileothersnavigatewithscreenreadertoavoidvisualfatigue.Fortheformer,agoodcolorcontrastisessential,whileforthelatter,awell-writtenHTMLismoreimportant.
• Betweendifferentcollectivesofusers:People in thedeafcommunityprefer that the sizeofthesignlanguageinterpreterinavideobeverylargewhilepeoplewhodonotunderstandsignlanguagewilltendtopreferasmallsize.
• BetweenICTsprofessionalsandusers:Insurveystoscreenreaderusers(WebAIM,2009),whenusersareconsultedaboutwebimagesthatseektogeneratesomeemotionorsensation,mostindicatethattheypreferimagesdescribedbytheirscreenreader.ThisresultisclearlyopposedtotheaccessibilityguidelinethatrecommendsnotdescribingdecorativeimagesandthereforeopposedtowhatanyICTsprofessionalwouldtendtodo.
Howtodealwiththeseconflictingpreferencesisasubjectstilllittleexploredinthefieldofaccessibledesign.Accessibilitystandardsarenotnormativeintermsofparticipationandinvolvementofstakeholders,althoughtheWebsiteAccessibilityConformanceEvaluationMethodology(W3C,2014)indicatestheinterventionofpeoplewithdisabilitiesasanoptionalrequirement.ScientificworksonParticipatoryDesignwithpeoplewithdisabilitiesdevelopedsofar(Brocketal.,2010;Metatla,Bryan-Kinns,Stockman,&Martin,2015)aremorefocusedontheformsofcommunicationbetweenproducersandusers(accessiblescenarios,accessibleprototypes,etc.)andlessintheformsofagreement.Thereis,ontheotherhand,awidespreadideaofdesignforalloruniversaldesignthathasimplieddangerousimplicationssuchasthinkingthatadesigncouldsatisfythepreferencesorviewsofanyindividual.Ifitisalreadydifficultenoughtofindconsensusamongthemembersofaparticipatorydesignproject,“itcanbecomeimpossibleifthecharacteristicsforwhichoneisdesigning,intermsofphysical,sensory,motorandcognitiveabilities,tosaynothingofculture,knowledgeandmotivation,aresuggestedtoincludethoseofthewholepopulation”(Newelletal.,2011).
Ifthedisadvantagesofthestandards-guideddesignexposedatthebeginningofthispaperareconsidered,apathofpossibleagreementforanaccessibleparticipatorydesignwouldbetoprioritizethe voices that come from the experience of stakeholders over the voices that are based on theaccessibilitystandards.Inthisway,singularitiesofthepeopledirectlyinvolvedwillbeprioritizedoverthenorm,whichisultimatelyestablishedbypeopleunconnectedtotheproject.Likewise,apathofpossibleagreementistotakeadvantageofthecreativepotentialthathasbringingdifferentpointsofviewtogetherandtryingtocreateasharedunderstandingamongallstakeholders(Fischer,2000)toimaginesolutionsthatsolveapparentlyoppositeneeds.ThislastideaapproachesthatofBødkerandZander(2015)forwhomitisaboutidentifyingwin-winsituations.Thatis,insteadofsimplyrespectingthevoiceofthemajority,redoublethecreativeefforttoarriveatsolutionsthatrespondtoheterogeneousneeds.
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
6
INSPIRING THe ACCeSSIBLe DeSIGN AGeNDA
ThebalancebetweenthetechnologicalconcernandthemethodologicalconcernisanotherpointofdiscussioninthefieldofParticipatoryDesign.ParticipatoryDesignmainlyfocusesitseffortsonidentifying“novelwaysofdeployingexistingtechnologiesinwaysthatareusefultousers”(Dunckley,Camara, Abdelnour-Nocera, & Waema, 2009) and in designing “improvements over existingtechnologiesastheyaremoresensitivetotheneedsanddesiresofspecificusergroups”(Vinesetal.,2013).Thesereusesandadaptationsofexistingtechnologiesputthefocusondesignprocessesandmethods,andareusuallyaccompaniedbyalackofinterestinthetechnologicalresearchconcern.Korsgaard,KlokmoseandBødker(2016)considerthatthecauseofthistechnologicalconservatismisthestabilityofmainstreamtechnologiesanddrawattentiontotheriskforParticipatoryDesign.TheperpetuationofoperatingsystemslikeWindows,Mac,iOSorAndroid,andapplicationsthathasmaturedfordecades(MicrosoftWord,Excel,etc.)hasledtoastandardizationofboththedesignofuserinterfacesandthetrainingofresearchersandpractitionersinthefieldofsoftwaredesign.“Iftechnologiesarechosenbasedontheresearchers’(andusers’)taken-for-grantedness,familiarityand/orconvenience,andlaterresultinrecommendationsfor,or,afinishedsystem,itmustbeimplicitlyassumedthatourcurrenttechnologiesareadequateforlocalpractices.”(Korsgaard,KlokmoseandBødker,2016,p.73).
Theopposite seems tohappen in the fieldofAccessibility.The scientific communityhasapredilectionforthetechnologicalresearchconcern,asillustratedbytheprominentsubjectsintheAccessibilityandComputingliterature(Figure2):whileonlytwothemesmakereferencetodesignprocessesandmethods–usercentereddesign,HCIdesignandevaluationmethods–,severaltopicsare related to technologies –assistive technologies, interaction devices, interaction paradigms,soundbasedI/O,touchscreens,etc.Followingthesamereasoningasbefore,theinclinationforthetechnologicalconcernmaybeaconsequenceofacertainplatforminstability,oftheexistenceofmanyandheterogeneoustoolkitsandplatforms.Assistivetechnologiesvarycompletelyfromonedisabilitysituationtotheotheraswellaswithinthesamedisabilitysituation.Forinstance,assistivetechnologyforvisuallyimpairmentincludescreenreaders,screenmagnifiers,Brailleembossers,voicerecognition,navigationassistance,wearabletechnology,amongmanyothers.Butaddressingonlythetechnologicalaspectalsoinvolvesarisk,alreadymentionedabove:assumingthatatechnologycanbeauniversalsolution,whichcansatisfyanysubjectwithacertaindisability.
Integrating the methodological concerns of Participatory Design into the accessible designagendacouldthenleadtoabetterbalancebetweenmethodologicalandtechnologicalaspects,toasocio-technicalapproachofaccessibledesignandtoarealsocio-technicaloutcome.Integratingthemethodologicalconcernsmeansstartingfromthelocalknowledgeofpeoplewithdisabilitiesandotherstakeholdersforquestioningtheconditionsunderwhichtechnologiesaredesignedandintroduced.
Finally,thetechnologicalartifactisnottheonlyoutcomeinaparticipatorydesignproject.Newknowledgeandcompetencies,newcollaborationsandnetworksareotherpossibleoutcomesofthecollaborative work among stakeholders (Bratteteig & Wagner, 2016). The knowledge about thedisabilityexperienceisusuallyveryasymmetricinanaccessibledesignproject,verylimitedinthecaseoftheproductionstakeholders.Producersareprobablytheoneswhotakethemostintermsofnewknowledgeandcompetencies.Fortheirpart,peoplewithdisabilitiesencounterdailysomanybarriersinICTsthattheyareparticularlymotivatedtoexchangeindesignprocesses.Theyacceptthechallengebecausetheproblemsaddressedarepersonallymeaningfulproblems(Fischer,2002)forthem.Mutuallearning,exchangeandjointworktoproducesomethingnewgeneratetrustandbondsbetweenstakeholdersthatendureovertime.Accessibledesignresearchshouldvaluethisknowledgeasscientificknowledge,shouldtransmittheskillsacquiredandcantakeadvantageofcollaborationsandnetworksinfutureprojects.
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
7
CoNCLUSIoN
Thispaperdelves into a participatory approach to accessibledesign, as an alternative todesignguidedsimplybystandards.Itanalyzesthreeessentialissuesofparticipatorydesigninrelationtoaccessibility:sharingexpertise,sharingpowerandinspiringchangeintheaccessibledesignagenda.Inthefirstplace,itdefinesarelevantnetworkofstakeholdersforaccessibleparticipatorydesignbasedontheexpertisethateachofthemcanprovide.OntheproductionsidearetheICTsprofessionals,theowners,thesponsorsandtheexternalsuppliersofthedesignsolution.Ontheusesidearethepeoplewithdisabilitiesandtheirattendants.Inameta-positionbetweenproductionandusearetheresearchers.Thearticle thenraises the issueofconsensusamongstakeholdersandproposes twopossiblescenariosforresolvingcontroversies.Thefirstistoprioritizethevoicesthatcomefromtheexperienceofstakeholdersoverthevoicesthatarebasedontheaccessibilitystandards.Thesecondscenarioconsistsintransformingcontroversiesintocreativepotential,inredoublingthecreativeefforttoarriveatsolutionsthatrespondtoheterogeneousneeds.Finally,theauthorexposestwoqualitiesofParticipatoryDesignofwhichtheaccessibledesignagendacouldbeinspired:toprobemoredeeplyintothemethodologicalconcernsandtotakeadvantageofthenon-technologicaloutcomesoftheprocess,suchasnewknowledge,newcompetenciesandnewstakeholders’networks.
Bringingtogethertherightstakeholders,prioritizingtheirknowledgeoveraccessibilitystandards,attending to themethodologyand to thenon-technologicaloutcomesof theprocessaresomeofthechallengesforaccessibledesign.MorereflectionsandmoredesignsinthissenseremaintobecarriedouttotakeadvantageofthecommunicativeandemancipatorypotentialofICTsforpeoplewithdisabilities.
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)
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
8
ACKNowLeDGMeNT
Theauthor’sresearchwasfundedbytheUniversitéParis13(France)andtheConsejoNacionaldeInvestigaciones Científicas yTécnicas (Argentina). The design projects that inspired this articlewerefundedbyMinisteriodeCiencia,TecnologíaeInnovaciónproductiva,UniversidadNacionaldeRosario,UniversidadAbiertaInteramericana,EntedeTurismoRosario,SecretaríadeTurismodelaMunicipalidaddeRosario,andsupportedbymanystakeholdersfromServiciodeLecturaAccesibledelaBibliotecaMunicipalArgentina“JuanÁlvarez”,AsociaciónRosarinadeDeportesparaCiegos,CentrodeRehabilitaciónparaPersonasconDiscapacidadVisual“LuisBraille”Nº2014,EscuelaEspecialparaIntegraciónenSecundariaNº2139,EscueladeEnseñanzaMediaNº338andInstitutoSuperiordelProfesoradoNº16“BernardoHoussey”.
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
9
ReFeReNCeS
W3C.(2008).WebContentAccessibilityGuidelines(WCAG)2.0.RetrievedMarch10,2014,fromhttp://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
W3C. (2014). Website Accessibility Conformance Evaluation Methodology (WCAG-EM) 1.0. RetrievedNovember19,2014,fromhttp://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG-EM/
Björgvinsson,E.,Ehn,P.,&Hillgren,P.-A. (2010).ParticipatoryDesignand“Democratizing Innovation.”In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference (pp. 41–50). New York, NY: ACM.doi:10.1145/1900441.1900448
Bødker,S.(2011).UseisEverywhereandChanging:AnalysisandDesignwiththeHuman-artifactModel.InProceedings 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).Méthodesetoutilsdeconceptionparticipativeavecdesutilisateursnon-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).NewYork,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).AChallenge toWebAccessibilityMetricsandGuidelines: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-Technical Issues ofParticipatory Design in the Developing World. 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:ACMPress.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
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
10
Kelly,B.,Sloan,D.,Brown,S.,Seale,J.,Lauke,P.,Ball,S.,&Smith,S.(2009).Accessibility2.0:NextStepsforWebAccessibility.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).Designingwithandforpeoplelivingwithvisual impairments: Audio-tactile mock-ups, audio diaries and participatory prototyping. 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).Guidelinesareonlyhalfof thestory:accessibilityproblemsencounteredbyblindusersontheWeb.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).ValidatingWCAGversions1.0and2.0throughusabilitytestingwithdisabledusers.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.Retrieved fromhttp://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=12&pid=150
Vines,J.,Clarke,R.,Wright,P.,McCarthy,J.,&Olivier,P.(2013).ConfiguringParticipation:OnHowWeInvolvePeopleinDesign.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 AssistivetechnologiesarespecificprogramsorperipheralsthatpeoplewithdisabilitiesusetoimprovetheirinteractionwiththeWeb.Forexample,screenreadersnormallyusedbypeoplewithblindnessareassistivetechnology.
2 TheWebAccessibilityInitiativedefinesthecontentas“theinformationthatformsWebsitesandWebapplications:thecodeandmarkupthatdefinethestructure,presentation,andinteraction,aswellastext,images,andsoundsthatconveyinformationtotheend-user.”(Chisholm&Henry,2005,p.32)
3 It is also to inscribe participatory design as a practice of complex thinking and as a second-orderepistemology.Theconceptofthemeta-pointofviewofMorin(2005)isrelevanttodeepenthisaspect.
International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge DevelopmentVolume 9 • Issue 4 • October-December 2017
11
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.