Advertisement

New Designs or New Practices? Multiple Perspectives on the ICT and Accessibility Conundrum

  • Tali HeimanEmail author
  • Tim Coughlan
  • Hadi Rangin
  • Markus Deimann
Chapter

Abstract

There is considerable evidence to suggest that Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) can make a positive contribution to students’ experiences in higher education. Students with disabilities therefore have a positive outlook and attitude to ICT. Despite all these positive things, the ICT, disability, and higher education community have been wrestling with what they consider to be a massive question: is the design of ICT good enough? In particular, a certain section of the community believes that as long as specialist, assistive technologies exist, design practices will have failed. This chapter will explore, from multiple perspectives, a different argument that the eradication of specialist technologies is not necessarily required to improve ICT design.

Keywords

ICT Assistive technologies Disability Higher education Accessibility Design 

References

  1. Abou-Zahra, S., Brewer, J., & Cooper, M. (2017). Web Standards to Enable an Accessible and Inclusive Internet of Things (IoT). Proceedings of the 14th Web for All Conference, W4A 2017. Resource document. ACM and MIT. https://www.smartcitieslibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Web-Standards-to-Enable-an-Accessible-and-Inclusive-Internet-of-Things.pdf
  2. Blanck, P. (2014). The struggle for web eQuality by persons with cognitive disabilities. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32(1), 4–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper, M., Sloan, D., Kelly, B., & Lewthwaite, S. (2012). A challenge to web accessibility metrics and guidelines: putting people and processes first. Paper presented at W4A 2012: 9th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility. Lyon, 16/04/12–18/04/12.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2207016.2207028.
  4. Coughlan, T., & Lister, K. (2018). The accessibility of administrative processes: Assessing the impacts on students in higher education. Proceedings of the 15th International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (Web4All 2018). ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  5. Coughlan, T., Pitt, R., & McAndrew, P. (2013). Building open bridges: Collaborative remixing and reuse of open educational resources across organizations. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 991–1000). ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  6. Coughlan, T., Ullmann, T. D., & Lister, K. (2017). Understanding accessibility as a process through the analysis of feedback from disabled students. W4A ’17 Proceedings of the 14th Web for All Conference on The Future of Accessible Work, article no. 14. ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  7. Creative Commons. (2016). What is OER? Resource document. Creative Commons. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/What_is_OER%3F
  8. Dahan, O., Melzer, Y., & Hadas-Lidor, N. (2013). Forum of Managers of Support Centers for students with learning disabilities. Journal for Educational Initiatives in the Training of Teachers, 8 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  9. Foley, A., & Ferri, B. A. (2012). Technology for people, not disabilities: Ensuring access and inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(4), 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heiman, T., Fichten, C. S., Olenik-Shemesh, D., Keshet, N. S., & Jorgensen, M. (2017). Access and perceived ICT usability among students with disabilities attending higher education institutions. Education and Information Technologies, 22(6), 2727–2740.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-017-9623-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heiman, T., Olenik-Shemesh, D., Kaspi-Tsahor, D., & Regev-Nevo, M. (2018, March). In search of new designs. Proceedings of the Ed-ICT International Network Israel Symposium. Resource document. Ed-ICT. http://ed-ict.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ProceedingsEd-ICTIsraelSymposium.pdf
  12. Heiman, T., & Precel, K. (2003). Students with learning disabilities in higher education: Academic strategies profile. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(3), 248–258.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940303600304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Law, P., & Perryman, L. A. (2017). How OpenLearn supports a business model for OER. Distance Education, 38(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lazar, J., Jaeger, P. T., Olalere, A., Algarne, M., Augustine, Z., Brown, C., et al. (2012). Still up in the air: Government regulation of airline websites and continuing price inequality for persons with disabilities online. Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (pp. 240–245). ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  15. Lazar, J., Olalere, A., & Wentz, B. (2012). Investigating the accessibility and usability of job application web sites for blind users. Journal of Usability Studies, 7(2), 68–87.Google Scholar
  16. Maor, D., Currie, J., & Drewry, R. (2011). The effectiveness of assistive technologies for children with special needs: A review of research-based studies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26(3), 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meir, I. (2018). Open your eyes: How technology improves the lives of the blind and visually impaired. Presented at the 3rd Ed-ICT International Network Israel Symposium: In Search of New Designs. Tel Aviv, Israel. http://ed-ict.com/workshops/tel-aviv/programme/. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  18. Newell, A. (2003). Inclusive design or assistive technology. In J. Clarkson, S. Keates, R. Coleman, & C. Lebbon (Eds.), Inclusive design (pp. 172–181). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rodman, E. (2018). See for yourself: A camera for blind and visually impaired individuals. Presented at the 3rd Ed-ICT International Network Israel Symposium: In Search of New Designs. Tel Aviv, Israel. http://ed-ict.com/workshops/tel-aviv/programme/. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.
  20. Schreuer, N., Keter, A., & Sachs, D. (2014). Accessibility to information and communication technology for social participation of youth with disabilities: A two-way street. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 32, 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Seale, J. K. (2014). E-learning and disability in higher education: Accessibility research and practice (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Shinohara, K., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2011). In the shadow of misperception: Assistive technology uses and social interactions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 705–714). ACM Press: New York.Google Scholar
  23. Stumbo, N. J., Martin, J. K., & Hedrick, B. N. (2009). Assistive technology: Impact on education, employment, and independence of individuals with physical disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 30(2), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. UNESCO. (n.d.). Open Education Resources (OER). Resource document. UNESCO. https://en.unesco.org/themes/building-knowledge-societies/oer
  25. Vanderheiden, G. C. (2008). Ubiquitous accessibility, common technology core, and micro assistive technology: Commentary on “computers and people with disabilities”. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), 1(2), 10.Google Scholar
  26. Zeltzer-Fallah, H. (2018, March). Assistive technology – From trying to doing. Presented at the 3rd Ed-ICT International Network Israel Symposium: In Search of New Designs. Tel Aviv, Israel. http://ed-ict.com/workshops/tel-aviv/programme/. Accessed 26 Sep 2019.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tali Heiman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tim Coughlan
    • 2
  • Hadi Rangin
    • 3
  • Markus Deimann
    • 4
  1. 1.The Open UniversityRa’ananaIsrael
  2. 2.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  3. 3.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  4. 4.FernUniversitätHagenGermany

Personalised recommendations