Accessibility of Products and Services Following a Design for All Approach in Standards
All individual users have their own profile of needs, characteristics, capabilities, and preferences, and this fact needs to be recognized when developing mainstream products, goods and services. For most people the profile of abilities changes substantially throughout the course of their life, as they advance from childhood to adulthood and then into old age. In addition, changing circumstances, accidents, disease and other events frequently have a significant impact on needs, characteristics, capabilities, and preferences. Furthermore, the context of use of products and services can influence users’ needs, characteristics, capabilities, and preferences.
A Design for All approach takes account of human diversity to extend the range of users in the developing of mainstream products and services which includes, older persons and persons with disabilities.
Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [UNCRPD] (see footnote 1) refers to equal rights of persons with disabilities in the context of “accessibility” and “to enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life” [Art 9(1)].
M/473 (M/473 EN, Standardization Mandate to CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI to include “Design for All” in relevant standardization initiatives [Ref. Ares (2010)578264 – 10/09/2010] http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/mandates/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.detail&id=461ftp://ftp.cencenelec.eu/CEN/Sectors/List/Accessibility/DfAmandate.pdf.), a Standardization mandate issued by the European Commission in 2013 to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI with a request to include accessibility following a “Design for All” approach in mainstream standards. The intent was not to develop specific accessibility standards but to incorporate accessibility in mainstream standards and from an early stage. Early research in this M/473 project informed the work of M/473, that the best approach was to develop a standard which would enable organizations to extend the range of users by identifying diverse needs, characteristics, capabilities, and preferences, by directly or indirectly involving users, and by using knowledge about accessibility in its procedures and processes.
The European standard [FprEN17161] is unique in the standardization arena as it sets out requirements that enable an organization to design, develop and provide products or services so that they can be accessed, understood and used by the widest range of users including persons with disabilities. An environment where products and services are more accessible allows for more inclusion and participation of citizens in society.
Extending the range of users that can access, understand and use a product or service has the potential to benefit a wider range of users in the population including persons with disabilities. Furthermore, the standard supports the proposed “European Directive on Accessibility” (Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States as regards the accessibility requirements for products and services [2015/0278 (COD)].).
KeywordsAccessibility Standard Human rights
- EN ISO 9001: Quality Management systems – RequirementsGoogle Scholar
- EN ISO 9241-11:1998, Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 11: Guidance for usabilityGoogle Scholar
- EN ISO 9241-110:2006, Ergonomics for human-system interaction – Part 110: Dialogue principlesGoogle Scholar
- EN ISO 9241-112:2017, Ergonomics for human-system interaction – Part 112: Principles for the presentation of informationGoogle Scholar
- EN ISO 9241-171:2008, Ergonomics for human-system interaction – Part 171: Guidance on software accessibilityGoogle Scholar
- EN ISO 9241-210:2010, Ergonomics for human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systemsGoogle Scholar
- EN 301 549:2015, Accessibility requirements suitable for public procurement of ICT products and services in EuropeGoogle Scholar
- ISO/IEC 40500:2012, Information technology – W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0Google Scholar
- ISO/DIS 21056 (Under development), Ergonomics – Accessible design – Guidelines for designing tactile symbols and lettersGoogle Scholar
- ISO/CD 24500-1, Ergonomics- Accessible design- Auditory signals for consumer productsGoogle Scholar
- ISO/CD 24500-2 (Under development), Ergonomics- Accessible design- Auditory signals- Part 2- Voice guides for consumer productsGoogle Scholar
- ISO/AWI 24500-3 (Under development), Ergonomics- Accessible design- Part 3: Accessibility of digital information visually displayed on consumer productsGoogle Scholar
- ISO 24505:2016, Accessible design- Method for creating colour combinations taking into account of age-related changes in human colour visionGoogle Scholar
- EN ISO 26800:2011 ‘Ergonomics –General approach, principles and concepts ‘ISO/IEC TR 29138-1:2009 ‘ Information technology – Accessibility considerations for people with disabilities - Part 1: User needs summary’Google Scholar
- CEN-CENELEC Guide 6:2014, Guide for addressing accessibility in standardsGoogle Scholar
- Ehrenstrasser L (2012) Designing for the digital age. how to create human-centered products and services. Inf Des J 19(3):272–274Google Scholar
- Park S, Park J (2011) A study on universal design product development combined with value engineering approach, p 2927Google Scholar
- Magalhães R (2018) Human-centred organization design. Des J 21(2):227Google Scholar
- Pericu S (2017) Designing for an ageing society: products and services. Des J 20(sup1):S2178–S2189Google Scholar
- Conrad MO, Pandey V (2017) Disability distribution modeling for universal product design, p 1106Google Scholar
- Park J (2014) Design evaluation method for universal product development, p 1481Google Scholar
- Lenker JA, Nasarwanji M, Paquet V, Feathers D (2011) A tool for rapid assessment of product usability and universal design: development and preliminary psychometric testing. Work 39(2):141–150Google Scholar