Considerations in the Design of Computers

to Increase Their Accessibility

by Persons with Disabilities







Version 4.2

May, 1988







Introduction







This document has been prepared by the Design Considerations Task

force of the Industry/Government Cooperative Initiative on Computer

Accessibility.  It is designed to be purely informational in nature,

and has been developed at industry's request, to facilitate their

efforts in this area.  It represents the compilation of information

from many sources and, as a working document, is under continual

revision.  No endorsement of the contents by any particular group

should be inferred.



If you received this document directly from the Design Considerations

Task Force (in a Trace Center envelope), you are on our mailing list

and will continue to receive new information as it is developed.  If

you received your copy from someone else, you are probably not on our

direct mail list.  If you would like to receive information directly

in the future, please send a note with your name and address to the

Trace Center:



Industry/Government Computer Accessibility Task Force

Trace Center

S-151 Waisman Center

1500 Highland Avenue

Madison, WI  53705



Background on the Industry/Government Initiative







In 1984, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services

(U.S. Department of Education), in conjunction with the White House,

took the initiative to begin a process of bringing computer

manufacturers, developers and consumers together to address the

question of access and use of standard computer and computer software

by persons who have disabilities.



The first meeting of the initiative was held on February 24, 1984 at

the White House.  The objective of the first meeting was to

familiarize the companies with the problem and to solicit their

support for a cooperative effort to address the problem.  The result

of the first meeting was a recognition of the problem, and a request

by the manufacturers for more information about the types of

disabilities, the resulting barriers to the use of standard computers,

and the types and scope of the solution strategies that the

manufacturers were being asked to consider.



Subsequent to the meeting in February at the White House, briefings

were held with manufacturers, and a White Paper was developed,

distributed for comment, and revised and distributed in preparation

for a second meeting held on October 24-25, 1985.  This meeting

consisted of a one and one-half day work session followed by a

reporting session at the Rayburn Building on Capitol Hill.  Computer

firms represented included Apple, AT&T, Digital Equipment Corp.,

Hewlett Packard, Honeywell, IBM, and Tandy (Radio Shack).



One of the four results of this meeting in October was the formation

of a task force to identify, refine, and document ideas and

considerations for the design of standard computers to increase their

accessibility by disabled and non-disabled people.  This group is open

to any researchers, manufacturers, and consumers who want to work with

this group.  The objective of this cooperative industry-rehabilitation

group is to develop materials for industry that can be used to improve

the design of computers so that they will be usable by a larger

portion of the population.  The primary focus of this task force is

the development of the design information to increase accessibility.

This includes information regarding the disabilities, their impact,

the specific problems currently encountered, future anticipated

problem areas, and existing or suggested design strategies as they are

identified.



The overall computer access effort is being coordinated by the

Electronic Industries Foundation and the Trace Center at the

University of Wisconsin-Madison and is supported by grants G008300045

and G0083C0020 of NIDRR (OSERS - Department of Education).  The task

force (of the Industry/Government Committee) is being coordinated out

of the Trace Center.  Membership in the task force is open to anyone

who would like to participate.  All task force work is done via mail

to maximize participation by all interested parties.  You may become a

task force member simply by dropping a note to the task force, care of

the Trace Center, S-151 Waisman Center, 1500 Highland Avenue, Madison

WI  53705.





Overview



+    A significant portion of our population has disabilities

(acquired at birth or through accident, illness or natural aging)

which prevent them from using standard microcomputers and software.



+    Many low-cost and no-cost modifications to computers would

greatly increase the number of individuals who could use standard

computers without requiring modifications.



+    In addition, other modifications would greatly increase the

ability to attach special input and output systems, further increasing

the number of individuals who can access and use standard computers

and software (as well as lowering the cost for such modifications).



+    Most of these design changes fall in the low-cost or no-cost

range, and have direct benefit to the mass market as well.



+    The current direction in which computer systems are evolving will

automatically encompass many or most of the required features and

capabilities if the new design directions are implemented carefully.



+    In discussions with engineers and designers within the major

computer companies, the predominant response has been that many of the

desired changes could have been included in the design of computers

originally if the developers had been aware of the need for and impact

of such changes.



+    The purpose of this Design Considerations document is to provide

an awareness of the different types of problems, as well as design

recommendations for increasing the accessibility of new computers.





Disability Types and Barriers



+    Physically impaired individuals face their primary difficulty in

using the computer's input devices, or in handling storage media.

Individuals in this group include individuals with congenital

disabilities, spinal cord injuries, and progressive diseases, as well

as individuals who are without the use of just a hand or arm.  Adding

some options to the keyboard handling routines would allow many

individuals to use the keyboard.  Providing means to connect

"alternate keyboards" would provide access for individuals who have

more severe disabilities.



+    Visually impaired individuals have their primary difficulties

with the output display, although newer display-based input systems

(e.g., mice, touchscreens) may also pose problems.  This group

includes individuals who have failing vision and individuals with

partial vision, as well as those who are blind.  The primary solution

strategies involve providing a mechanism to connect alternate display

or display translator devices to the computer, and providing

alternatives to display-based input.



+    Hearing impaired and deaf individuals currently have little

difficulty in using computers.  Visual redundancy of auditory clicks

and tones would be helpful.  The primary concern is ensuring that

future voice output information is provided in a redundant form that

hearing impaired or deaf individuals can also understand.



+    Cognitively impaired individuals have their greatest difficulties

in dealing with the software itself, although layout and labeling of

operational controls can also effect their ability to use computers.

Cognitive impairments can take many forms, including retardation,

short- or long-term memory impairments, perceptual differences,

learning disabilities, and language impairments.  Of particular

concern are computer, information or transaction systems which are

intended for public use.  Proper design of these systems can greatly

increase the number of individuals with mild cognitive impairments who

could use the systems -- although these systems may not be operable by

individuals with severe impairments.  Solution strategies in this area

would be more general in nature, and revolve around such objectives as

simplification of displays and legends, minimization of language

level, and obviousness of operation.

put executive summary charts here:



Chart 1

Put Executive Summary Charts here:



CHart 2

Put Executive Summary Charts here:



Chart 3

Put Executive Summary Charts here:



Chart 4

















Part II:



Detail and Notes

for Design Recommendations

Table of Contents: Part II



.Begin Table C.



Design Considerations for Individuals

with Moderate Physical Impairments (P)  12



Item P1:  Sequential Option if Simultaneous Actions Are Normally

Required  13



Item P2:  Timed Responses Adjustable or Defeatable     15



Item P3:  Alternate Method for Achieving Input Normally Done with a

Pointing Device     16



Item P4:  Media (Removable) Should Be Easily Inserted and Removed     

17



Item P5:  Controls and Latches Easily Accessible and Operable    19



Item P6:  Keyguard and/or Delay Before Acceptance of Keyboard Input   

21



.End Table C.



.Begin Table S.



Design Considerations for Individuals

with Severe Physical Impairments (SP)   23



Item SP1:  Alternate Input Connection Points -- External and Through

System    24



.End Table S.



.Begin Table V.



Design Considerations for Individuals

with Visual Impairments (V)   26



Item V1:  Screen Image Enlargement Capability     27



Item V2:  Display Colors Adjustable     29



Item V3:  Easily Readable Letters on Keys and Important Controls 30



.End Table V.



.Begin Table B.



Design Considerations for Individuals

Who Are Blind (B)   31



Item B1:  Display Data Available at External Connection Point -- and

through System 32



Item B2:  Alternative to Eye-Hand Coordination Input Devices Where

Possible  34



Item B3:  Nonvisual Indication of Toggle Keys' State   35



Item B4:  Nonvisual Key Labelling  37



.End Table B.



.Begin Table H.

Design Considerations for Individuals

Who Are Hearing Impaired or Deaf (H)    39



Item H1:  All Audible Output Also Provided in Visual Form   40



Item H2:  Audio Output Should be Adjustable as well as being Available

in a clear form for Amplification  42



.End Table H.



.Begin Table E.



Design Considerations For Individuals

Who Have Seizure Disorders (S)     44



Item S1:  Displays and Software Avoid Some Refresh and Update

Frequencies    45



.End Table E.



.Begin Table M.



Design Considerations that Would Facilitate

Development of Computer Access Devices

by Third-Party Manufacturers (M)   47



Item M1:  Manuals Available in Electronic Form    48



Item M2:  Speech Output Compatible 49



Item M3:  Special Display Window Which Can Stay Visible (on top) 50



Item M4:  Connection Point for Switches or Transducers      51



Item M5:  Method for Distinguishing Macro Input from Keyboard Input   

52



Item M6:  Keyguard or Keyguard Mounting Provision 53



.End Table M.

















Design Considerations for Individuals

with Moderate Physical Impairments (P)







Physically disabled individuals face their primary difficulty in using

the computer's input devices, or in handling storage media.  People in

this group include persons with congenital disabilities, spinal cord

injuries, and progressive diseases, as well as people who are without

the use of just a hand or arm.  Adding some options to the keyboard

handling routines would allow many individuals to directly access the

computer.

Item P1:  Sequential Option if Simultaneous Actions Are Normally

Required



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some individuals who can use only one arm or hand (temporarily or

permanently) or who use a headstick or mouthstick cannot activate

multiple buttons or keys at the same time.



Examples



+    Individuals with one arm or those who use a mouthstick cannot use

shift/control/option keys on standard keyboards. . .

. . . or operate a mouse while they hold down a shift/control/option

key. . .

. . . or operate a multi-button mouse.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Input devices that require multiple simultaneous activations should

have an optional (sequential) mode of operation.  This mode should be

available at any time, and should eliminate the need for simultaneous

actions.



PRIORITY:  1st



RECOMMENDED EXCEPTIONS:  1) Input buttons/keys requiring co-activation

for physical safety reasons; 2) input buttons/keys not required for

normal operation;



Current GSA Guideline



"Multiple Keystroke Control. Currently there are numerous common

functions on the computer that require multiple, simultaneous

keystrokes (e.g., to reboot CTRL+ALT+DEL must all be depressed at the

same time).  Multiple keystroke control would enable the user to

execute a sequential option in which multiple keystrokes could be

entered serially (e.g. to reboot a user could depress CTRL, then ALT,

then DEL)."  (Current GSA - Initial Guidelines, October, 1987)



     NOTES          



1)   This is the only major computer access barrier faced by many

individuals with mild to moderate handicapping conditions (such as

many with spinal cord injuries), and one which can be easily

addressed.



2)   This feature applies to input devices and controls needed for

computer operation only, and is not meant to apply to periodic

adjustment, maintenance, set-up, or materials replacement aspects of

the equipment, such as changing ribbons or paper, removing jams, etc.,

although these capabilities are also useful.



3)   A "Sticky Key" feature could be added to the keyboard to solve

this problem.  Recommended implementation for Sticky Keys is:



+    Sticky Key feature invoked by tapping five times in a row on

either shift key.



+    Once activated, touching any modifier key (shift, control, etc.)

followed by another key will be presented to the system and

application software exactly as if the modifier key and the other key

were pressed concurrently.  Immediately after the other key is

pressed, the modifier key is automatically released.

+    Depressing a modifier key twice in a row causes that modifier to

"lock down" until the modifier key is pressed a third time.



+    Any time any a modifier key and another key on the keyboard are

depressed simultaneously, the feature immediately deactivates and the

keyboard returns to normal operation.  (Thus, the feature would

automatically disappear if a normal typist began using a keyboard on

which the feature had been active.)



+    The feature can also be turned off by hitting the shift key five

times.



+    In systems that use a "shift click" feature (where the shift key

is depressed while the mouse key is activated), the "Sticky Key"

feature should work in conjunction with the mouse.



+    In systems with mice or other devices having multiple buttons

that are sometimes held down simultaneously, alternate sequential

activations should be provided.



+    If there are two modifier keys with the same function (e.g., two

alternate keys) that can be distinguished as two separate keys by the

operating system or software, then they should behave as if they are

two separate Sticky Key keys (to allow the disabled user to activate

programs which ask the user to depress two shift keys simultaneously

to invoke special features or functions).  If one of the keys is

locked, however, hitting the other key should release the locked key

(in case the user cannot remember which key they locked).



+    Whenever possible some indication (visual and/or auditory) of the

key status should be provided) (Auditory indications should have

visual alternative - see Item H1.)

Item P2:  Timed Responses Adjustable or Defeatable



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some individuals with poor coordination have slower or irregular

reaction times, making time-dependent input unreliable.



Examples



+    The normal key repeat rate is too fast for some users, resulting

in undesired characters.



+    Programs that require a response within a short period of time or

that utilize modes that shut off automatically or reset too quickly

may also cause problems.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Systems requiring responses in less than 5 seconds, or a release of a

key in less than 1.5 seconds, should include a provision for the user

to adjust the time interval, or to have a non-time-dependent alternate

method.



PRIORITY:  1 - Individuals with slow response times need this ability

in order to operate the equipment.



Current GSA Guideline



"Keyboard Repeat Rate.  Currently the computer generates repetitions

of a character if the key is held down.  This is a problem for those

users without sufficient motor control of their fingers to conform to

the repeat tolerances of the keyboard.  This feature would give the

user control over the repeat rate.  The user could extend the keyboard

tolerances or turn off the repeat function completely."



     NOTES          



1)   The key repeat rate adjustment option should include both the

start delay and the repeat delay, as well as the ability to turn the

repeat feature off.



2)   Rates should be adjustable in five or more steps which vary the

time interval in a nonlinear fashion.

Item P3:  Alternate Method for Achieving Input Normally Done with a

Pointing Device



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some individuals do not have enough fine movement control to use some

of the newer input methods, such as the mouse, touchscreen, etc.



Examples



+    Individuals with paralysis of the hands or motor coordination

problems cannot accurately use a mouse, touchpad, joystick, trackball,

or touchscreen.



+    Individuals who use a mouthstick, or those using special

keyboard-simulating input systems, cannot operate a mouse or other

analog pointing device.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Systems having mice or other pointing systems should have a method for

carrying out all of the same functions from the keyboard.



PRIORITY:  1



Current GSA Guideline



"Input Redundancy.  Currently numerous programs use a mouse as one of

the input options.  As the use of graphics increases so will

dependence on the mouse as an input device.  Some users with

disabilities cannot use a mouse.  This feature would provide an

emulation of the mouse using the keyboard and/or other suitable

alternative input devices, e.g. joy stick, trackball, voice input, and

touchpad.  In effect, any movement control executed through the mouse

could also be executed from alternative devices."



     NOTES          



1)   This recommendation could be satisfied through a user-invokable

operating system option which would use part of the keyboard to

control the mouse cursor and mouse buttons, or to create simulated

touchscreen and touchpad input, etc.



2)   Systems that allow keystrokes as an alternate to mouse pointing

help with, but do not fully solve this problem (e.g., rather than

clicking on a cancel button, the individual can type a "C").



3)   The use of cursor arrow keys to move through different options in

dialog (set-up or adjust) boxes also assists with this problem.



4)   Systems that are designed such that all mouse-activated functions

can also be activated from the keyboard may satisfy this need.



5)   Keyboard alternatives to mouse operations are frequently useful

to the regular nondisabled user population as well.

Item P4:  Media (Removable) Should Be Easily Inserted and Removed



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some individuals with poor motor control or limited strength or manual

dexterity (including those with no hand use) have difficulty grasping

or handling materials delicately.

Some individuals are unable to reach built-in media drives because of

their position relative to the drive location.



Examples



+    Individuals with cerebral palsy often damage media surfaces or

bend flexible floppy disks.



+    Individuals with limited reach or strength cannot reach built-in

drives, especially on floor-mount computers.



+    Individuals with cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury, arthritis,

etc., have difficulty reaching into floppy, CD ROM, and other media

drives to remove media.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Removable media drives should allow media insertion and removal with

minimal reach and manual dexterity.



PRIORITY:  2 - Increases efficiency of worker by removing the need to

call for assistance each time removable media must be handled.



Current GSA Guideline:



None



     NOTES          



1)   This is most important in environments where diskettes, CD ROMs,

and other removable media are exchanged regularly in the drive.  It is

less important when programs and data are accessed by modem or

network, or from a local hard drive.



2)   Removable media should be able to withstand fairly rough

handling, and should preferably be "hard cased" to accept light

clamping.



3)   Removable media should eject and/or protrude a minimum of 3/4" to

1 1/2" from the drive when unloading.  This is true clearance beyond

any frame and cover overlap.  A clearance near or above the upper end

of this range is preferred.  Distances beyond 1 1/2" are desirable

where possible.



4)   Removable media drives which are available in external mount

configurations allow special positioning of the drives for easier

access.



5)   Media/drives should be self-guiding, loading and unloading from

the front by pushbutton or software ejection.



6)   Pushbutton ejection systems, particularly those that can be

operated with low pressure, help to address this problem.



7)   Ejection buttons that are concave rather than flat are much

easier to operate with a mouthstick or headstick.



8)   Drives that involve a twisting motion are difficult to use.

9)   Hard cases such as those on 3 1/2" disks are very helpful here.

Item P5:  Controls and Latches Easily Accessible and Operable



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some individuals who are weak, have poor or no use of their hands, or

have limited reach have difficulty accessing and manipulating some

conventional controls (or moving equipment in order to access

controls).



Examples



+    Individuals with limited reach are unable to operate switches or

controls located at the rear of the computer.



+    Individuals with limited dexterity (arthritis, cerebral palsy,

etc.) are unable to use latches or controls that require twist motion.



+    Individuals with use of only one hand cannot open some laptop

computers with dual latches which must be simultaneously released.



+    Individuals with low strength (MS, MD, and spinal cord injury)

are unable to operate controls that require very much force (much more

than 100 grams).



+    For severely physically handicapped persons who are using

alternate special keyboards (sip and puff keyboard, Morse code

keyboard, eye gaze operate keyboard, etc.), only controls that can be

operated from the keyboard would be accessible.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Controls (and latches) which are required on a regular basis for

system operation should be accessible and operable with minimum

dexterity.



PRIORITY:  If only occasional adjustments are involved, then it is a

Priority 3.  If controls are needed for ongoing operation rather than

occasional adjustments, then they would be Priority 1.



Current GSA Guideline



None



     NOTES          



1)   This becomes less critical if a control is for an adjustment that

is only occasionally used.



2)   The following are good features for controls (all light action):



+    Controls located at the front edge of the equipment



+    Pushbutton controls (preferably concave) requiring less than 100

grams of pressure



+    Sliding or edge-operated controls



+    Up/down (integrating) control buttons



+    Double-acting pushbutton controls



+    Rocker switches (concave)



+    Controls that are operable from the keyboard are best (e.g.,

volume, display and printer controls, power - "sleep," etc.), since

they also facilitate access to these controls by individuals who are

using alternate or substitute keyboards (future systems)



3)   The following should be avoided:



+    Placement requiring the user to lean around the side or back of

the equipment to see or operate the controls



+    Controls requiring twist or push-and-twist in combination



4)   A good rule of thumb is



"IF YOU CAN PUT A STICK IN YOUR MOUTH AND REACH, OPERATE, AND ADJUST

THE CONTROLS EASILY USING ONLY THAT STICK. . . YOU ARE IN GREAT

SHAPE."

Item P6:  Keyguard and/or Delay Before Acceptance of Keyboard Input



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some individuals with limited movement control can inadvertently bump

extra keys on their way to the desired key(s).



Examples



Individuals who have difficulty in eye/finger (eye/stick) coordination

often strike unwanted keys before targeting the desired key.  This

includes individuals with tremor, incoordination, or those using

headstick or mouthstick.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



A special option (difficult to accidentally invoke) could be provided

that would delay the acceptance of a keystroke for a preset,

adjustable amount of time, and/or a keyguard or keyguard mounting

provision could be provided.



PRIORITY:  4 - Individuals with this difficulty can use a third-party-

supplied keyguard.  Also, presence of this feature can be mistaken for

a broken keyboard (see below).



Current GSA Guideline



"Keyboard Orientation Aids.  . . . To assist a motor disabled user, a

keyguard should be available to ensure that the correct keys are

located and depressed.  A keyguard is a keyboard template with holes

corresponding to the locations of the keys."



     NOTES          



1)   The recommended software option would require any key to remain

depressed for a continuous interval of time before it was recognized

by the system.  This option should be designed so that it must be

purposefully loaded and activated each time, as a patch to the

keyboard system from a special diskette.  It is not recommended that

this be a standard system option, as it has the potential for causing

the keyboard to appear to be broken (see below).



2)   Once the feature is invoked, the keyboard will look "broken" to a

normal user, especially if the delay is of any significant length.

This is because when the normal, nondisabled user taps on the keys in

the normal fashion, nothing happens (since the keys do not stay down

long enough).



Even if the delay is set to a short period of time, the keyboard may

still appear faulty.  If a person is typing at normal speed, , few if

any keys will be accepted, causing the keyboard to behave as if the

keys are broken or erratic.  If the individual hits the keys harder,

however, the keys may appear to work (since pressing keys harder also

causes them to be depressed longer).





It is therefore recommended that this feature not be included as a

standard feature, but rather be treated as a specially loaded utility.

Furthermore, it is recommended that when invoked, a large sign appear

on the display, warning of the consequences as well as the "symptoms"

of the feature when viewed by normal typists (especially in a shared

user environment).  This sign should remain on the screen until a

confirming key is struck, to avoid missing the message if someone put

the routine into an autoexec batch file.

















Design Considerations for Individuals

with Severe Physical Impairments (SP)







For individuals with more severe physical handicaps, modifications to

the standard input devices are not sufficient to allow them to use the

computer.  For these individuals, some mechanism for connecting

alternative keyboards, mice, and other input devices is required.



Item SP1:  Alternate Input Connection Points -- External and Through

System



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some individuals with severe physical impairments must use special

devices and programs (simulating keyboard, mouse, and touchpad input)

in order to use the system.



Examples



+    Individuals who require an eyegaze or sip-and-puff controlled

input cannot connect their device in place of the normal input devices

(keyboard, mouse, touchscreen, etc.)



+    Scanning and other special input programs can be designed which

would run in the background (or under multitasking) and replace the

keyboard function.  These systems, however, do not have a standard

means to inject simulated keystrokes, touchscreen or mouse activity

into the computer for use by the operating system and application

programs.  This inability on the part of the operating system to allow

simulation of input device activity prevents the use of low-cost

software solutions that provide alternate input systems for those who

require them.



+    When computer systems are changed or upgraded, or when an

individual changes jobs, their special input devices usually will not

work on the new computer/model.  Architectural considerations that

facilitate transportability of such alternate input systems between

operating systems and/or work station models is needed.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



a) Systems should have an externally available connection point(s)

(standard or special port{s}) for adaptive input devices; the

connection should be an industry or company standard; and the computer

should treat the input from the adaptive devices the same as input

from other standard input devices such as keyboard, mouse, or tablet.



b) This ability to simulate input device activities should also be

available to programs running in background on computers which support

background processing or multitasking.



PRIORITY:  1 - Severely physically impaired persons are unable to

access computers if no provision is made for connecting alternate

input devices and programs.



CURRENT GSA GUIDELINE



"Alternative Input Device.  The capability to connect an alternative

input device would be available to the user who is not able to use a

modified, but standard keyboard.  This feature would supplement the

keyboard and any other standard input system used.  The alternative

input capability would consist of a physical port (serial, parallel,

game, etc.) or connection capability so that an accommodation aid

could augment the keyboard or replace it.  The computer would regard

this device as its keyboard and the user would be able to input any

valid keystroke combination (e.g. CTRL + ALT + DEL) available from the

regular keyboard.  This alternative input capability would also

support the mouse emulation described above."  (previously discussed,

in Item P3)



     NOTES          



1)   One way that part (a) of this recommendation could be satisfied

is by a system command which would cause input from a standard serial,

parallel or other system port to be treated by the system and

application programs exactly as if it had come from the computer's

standard input devices (keyboard, mouse, etc.).



2)   One way that part (b) could be satisfied would be for the

operating system to have an "inject only" (write only) point or

address to which simulated input could be sent.  This injection point

would have to be in front all system or program processing of the

input, so that anything done through the standard input devices

(including reset and switching between programs in a multitasking

system) could be accomplished through this "injection point."



3)   Blind individuals may not be able to access newer mouse or

display-based computers without the ability to have their special

display systems and/or programs simulate mouse or other types of

display-based input.

















Design Considerations for Individuals

with Visual Impairments (V)



Visually impaired individuals have their primary difficulties with the

output display, although newer display-based input systems (e.g.,

mice, touchscreens) which require eye hand co-ordination also pose

problems.  This group includes individuals who have failing vision and

individuals with partial vision.

Item V1:  Screen Image Enlargement Capability



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some visually impaired individuals have difficulty seeing normal sized

text and graphics images on the screen.



Examples



Individuals with low vision have difficulty reading the screen because

the characters (text) and images are too small.

Individuals with low vision have difficulty seeing the screen due to

glare or distance.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Microcomputers should provide a means for



a) attaching larger (and repositionable) displays, and



b) for enlarging the image on the display.



PRIORITY:  1 - Some means for connecting larger displays is necessary.

A built-in zoom enlargement feature can reduce or eliminate the need

for high cost or custom screen image enlargement equipment.



CURRENT GSA GUIDELINE



"Large Print Display.  This feature increases the size of a portion of

the screen for the low vision user.  The process might use a window or

similar mechanism that allows magnification to be controlled by the

user.  The user could invoke the large print display capability from

the keyboard or control pad for use in conjunction with any work-

related applications software.  If applications software includes

graphics, then enlargement of graphics should also be available."

(Current GSA - Initial Guidelines, October, 1987)



     NOTES          



1)   A standard video connector or a slot that allows connection of a

video controller card should satisfy part (a) of this recommendation.



2)   Modification to the basic display support that would allow the

user to "zoom" on any area of the screen would address part (b) of

this recommendation.



3)   Such a "zoom" feature would be most useful if the enlarged image

could automatically track cursor movement during data entry, as well

as pointing device (e.g., mouse) movement (real or simulated).



4)   A zoom enlargement feature should be able to enlarge any area of

the screen, and provide magnification up to 16 times original size, in

at least 8 steps.



5)   If the display contains both text and graphics, the zoom feature

should work on any portion of the image.



6)   If a very small cursor is used (e.g., an underline or a thin

vertical line), it is helpful to have a means for substituting a

larger cursor and/or causing the cursor to blink.



7)   The above zoom capability might initially be provided by building

"hooks" into the appropriate operating system functions that third-

party manufacturers could use to write special zoom programs (although

it would be useful to have some zoom capability built into the

operating system itself).

8)   If text-only screens are used, a useful option would be to allow

the text to be reformatted into long, narrow columns (based upon the

magnification selected) so that the user need only scroll in the

vertical direction while reading text.



9)   Advanced zoom features might include a split-screen option to

allow two non-adjacent parts of the display to be viewed

simultaneously (especially for database/spreadsheet programs).

Item V2:  Display Colors Adjustable



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some color blind end users have difficulty distinguishing some color

pairs, such as green and red.



Examples



+    Color blind individuals cannot see text presented in some text-

background color combinations.



+    Color blind individuals may not notice highlighted words when

they are highlighted with a color and have no other distinguishing

characteristic.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Where the color of graphics or text must be distinguished in order to

understand information on the display, end users should be able to

select the colors used.



PRIORITY:  1 - If color differentiation is required to operate the

system, then individuals who cannot distinguish colors will not be

able to operate the system.



Current GSA Guideline



"Color Presentation.  Where colors must be distinguished in order to

understand information on the display, color-blind end users should be

able to select the colors displayed."  (Current GSA - Initial

Guidelines, October, 1987)



     NOTES          



1)   If information is discernible in grey scales on a black and white

screen, then a monochrome display mode would satisfy the

recommendation.



2)   If the colors chosen are of sufficiently different intensity

(light yellow versus dark red) that they would be distinguishable as

different shades even to a color blind individual, this recommendation

would be satisfied.  Similarly, if the colors and intensities were

chosen such that they were distinguishable by individuals with all

types of color blindness, the recommendation would be satisfied.



3)   Choice of colors for all key labels and other documentation

should take into account the limitations of color blind individuals.

Item V3:  Easily Readable Letters on Keys and Important Controls



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some visually impaired individuals have difficulty identifying keys

and operating controls with existing (small) lettering.



Examples



Individuals with low vision have difficult reading keys with small

labels.  They also have difficulty reading controls which use small

lettering or low contrast colors.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Lettering on keys and controls required for operation should be easily

readable.



PRIORITY:  2 - Large, easily readable lettering facilitates the

initial learning of equipment, and facilitates the efficiency of

operating occasionally used equipment.



Current GSA Guideline



None



     NOTES          



1)   Large lettering and the use of high contrast colors facilitates

readability.  Light gray on slightly darker gray, and other similar

stylish but low contrast combinations should be avoided.



2)   Lettering which utilizes most of the key top surface facilitates

readability.



3)   All keys could be made recappable.  This would allow the use of

special keytop kits for visually impaired persons that could

incorporate extra large, high contrast letters, colors, and/or symbols

to facilitate key identification.  These could be either custom key

caps or key caps with removable clear plastic lids into which special

legends could be placed.  This would be particularly applicable for

dedicated workstations.



4)   Sticky tape with unique symbols to identify the various keys,

either on or near the key, could be employed, but is less desirable

unless permanent.



5)   Larger, easily readable lettering improves the learning process

and efficiency of occasionally-used equipment for nonimpaired users as

well.

















Design Considerations for Individuals

Who Are Blind (B)



Blind individuals have their primary difficulties with the output

display, although newer display-based input systems (e.g., mice,

touchscreens) may also pose problems.  The primary solution strategies

involve providing a mechanism to connect alternate display or display

translator devices to the computer, and providing alternatives to

display-based input.

Item B1:  Display Data Available at External Connection Point -- and

through System



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Blind individuals (and those with severe visual impairments) must use

special alternate displays (voice, Braille, tactile, etc.) to view the

information normally displayed visually.  In order for them to use

these alternate displays, it is necessary that these special displays

have access to the contents of the computer's normal display screen.

When the blind individual owns or controls the computer (and can

modify it, insert cards, etc.), access to the screen's contents can be

provided via the internal bus or memory access.

For computers that are shared or public, access must be via an

externally available connection, since the user often is not able to

open or physically modify the computer.







     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



a) Visually displayed information should be available at an external

connection point (standard or special port), preferably in an industry

or company standard format.  This information should be provided in

one of the following formats (listed in order of preference): a

description of the information on the display, a character listing

(for character-based screen displays), or a bit image.



b) If an operating system supports multi-tasking, this display

information should also be available to adaptive programs running in

the computer.



PRIORITY:  1 - Access to display data is required by blind individuals

in order to access and use the computer.



Current GSA Guideline



"Access to Screen Memory for Text.  The capability to access screen

memory is necessary to support the speech and/or tactile braille

output requirement of many blind users.  Currently, blind users are

able to select and review the spoken or braille equivalent of text

from any portion of the screen while using standard application

software.  The access to the contents of the screen must continue to

provide third party vendors the ability to direct it to an internal

speech chip, a speech synthesizer on a serial or parallel port, or a

braille display device.



Access to Screen Memory for Graphics.  Information that is presented

graphically also needs to be accessed from screen memory in such a

manner that as software sophistication improves, it may eventually be

interpreted into spoken output."  (Current GSA - Initial Guidelines,

October, 1987)



     NOTES          



1)   This is the most important and highest need area for blind

individuals' accessing newer "graphics-oriented" computers.  Without

this capability, they cannot use the computer.



2)   A bit image dump would minimally satisfy this item, but it would

be much more difficult for an adaptive aid (access system) to

interpret than a properly designed display description format.  (See

Note 7)



3)   The existing "video output" on most computers does provide the

display image in a continuous fashion on an external connector.  This

should (barely) fulfill recommendation (a) until more suitable

solutions can be implemented.



4)   Documenting procedures to access the display memory or providing

a system call that would provide a copy of the display memory would

satisfy recommendation (b).  Again, access to a description of the

screen is far superior to a bit image.



5)   The system might provide a description of the screen contents on

command, or a mode might be invoked where all information that is sent

to the display processor (software or hardware) is also sent to an

external port (or adaptive software running in the background).



6)   The external connector could be a standard parallel, serial

(quite slow), or other I/O port.



7)   At the present time (early 1988), an appropriate screen

description format does not exist, nor do special adaptive aids

capable of handling this type of input (although several are now being

explored in research).



8)   Standardization of software-based screen drawing routines would

allow third-party software to intercept these calls and obtain the

information before it got to the screen.



9)   The goal should be to allow information to be intercepted before

it gets to the image creation phase, so that it can be more easily

translated into a form usable by the visually impaired and blind

users.

Item B2:  Alternative to Eye-Hand Coordination Input Devices Where

Possible



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Blind individuals cannot use an input device (such as a mouse,

trackball or touchscreen) which requires constant eye-hand

coordination and visual feedback.



Examples



+    Blind individuals cannot use a mouse or trackball, because they

cannot monitor the mouse cursor's continually changing position in

relation to the image on the screen.



+    Blind individuals have difficulty in precisely locating areas

spatially on touchscreens.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



If a computer has a standard input system that requires continual

visual feedback to operate (e.g., mouse, touchscreen), the computer

would preferably have an alternative means or mode for achieving as

many of the functions as possible.  This alternative means or mode

should be available at any time, and should not require continual

visual feedback.



PRIORITY:  1 - Needed for blind individuals to be able to operate

systems and software which incorporates a mouse or similar pointing

device.



Current GSA Guideline



None



     NOTES          



1)   Functions and commands (e.g., menu selections and dialog box

responses) that are also achievable from the keyboard as keystrokes

would satisfy this requirement.  This would be the fastest access

technique for blind individuals, and would also facilitate use by

persons with physical disabilities.



2)   It is recognized that some activities, such as free-hand

sketching, cannot be easily done other than with a mouse or other

pointing device requiring eye-hand coordination.



3)   It is probably impossible to solve this problem entirely (see

Note 2).  It is a problem, however, that can be largely eliminated

through maximizing the options for computer operation from the

keyboard (including keyboard equivalents for pointing functions).



4)   The existence of macro programs that allow keyboard commands to

initiate pre-stored mouse and keyboard actions can partially but not

completely address this problem.

Item B3:  Nonvisual Indication of Toggle Keys' State



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Blind individuals cannot determine the state of keyboard (and other)

toggle switches which provide only visual feedback as to their status.



Examples



+    Blind individuals do not normally press toggle keys without

knowing it, but when they do, they need a mechanism for determining

status of any toggle key that does not physically lock down (Num Lock,

Caps Lock, Scroll Lock, Insert, Delete, etc.).



+    Not all software provides toggle key status on the screen

(including MS-DOS and some applications).  (Software that does provide

toggle key status on the screen can be interrogated by the blind

individual's screen reading software.)



+    Some applications that present toggle key status on the screen

incorrectly report the actual state of the toggle keys as represented

by keyboard indicators.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



A non-visual indication of the toggle keys' state should be provided

or available on request.



PRIORITY:  3 - Blind individuals normally don't hit toggle keys

without knowing it, but when they do, they need some mechanism for

determining the status.



Current GSA Guideline



"Toggle Keystroke Control.  Currently toggle keys are employed which

require visual feedback to know if a key is on or off.  This feature

would provide an alternate mode that does not require visual feedback

to know the status of any toggle key."



     NOTES          



1)   If status is presented on the microcomputer's standard display,

it is considered accessible, since the screen contents must already be

accessible to the blind user.



2)   A system that would provide distinct lock and unlock tones when

toggle keys are activated would satisfy this requirement, even if the

same pair of tones was used for all toggle keys.



3)   A command from the keyboard that would cause the system to check

the status of each of the toggle keys and present a unique audible

signal to indicate the status of each key would also meet this need.



4)   Some programs on MS-DOS machines get out of sync with the system

toggle status (and keyboard indicators), creating problems.  These

software packages, however, usually have an on-screen display of

toggle key status that can be viewed by the blind user.



5)   There is some question as to the need for this feature to be

provided within the standard system software or hardware.  For a blind

person to use the computer, he/she would need some type of screen

interpretation device (Braille, speech, etc.).  Such systems already

have built into them methods for determining the status of toggle key

switches.  As totally external alternate display systems are

developed, however, this feature will need to be incorporated into the

standard system unless the toggle key information would somehow be

made available externally to the adaptive system.



6)   If all toggle key have bright visual indicators on them, then a

small battery operated light probe can be used by the blind individual

to check the status of the keys.



7)   Design rules for software developers should include a statement

requesting that they use (and/or update) the system status flags so

that they agree with the program's use of them.



8)   The use of toggle keys that can be directly sensed by blind users

would eliminate this problem.  Examples include rocker switches or

double-acting (pop-up, lock-down) keys.

Item B4:  Nonvisual Key Labelling



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Blind individuals have difficulty in identifying some of the keys on

keyboards and keypads, as well as locating "home" keys on keyboards

and keypads.



Examples







     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Keyboards/keypads should have tactilely discernible key edges (e.g.,

no flat membrane keyboards without ridges).



A distinct tactile marking should be provided on the home keys for

keyboards and keypads.



Optional or built-in nonvisual key labelling should be provided or

available.



PRIORITY:  3 - Most important when an individual is learning a

keyboard or trying to locate a seldom-used key.



Current GSA Guideline



"Keyboard Orientation Aids.  There are several different keyboards

available for current personal computers.  To orient a visually

impaired user to a particular keyboard, a set of tactile overlays

should be available to identify the most important keys (e.g. ESC,

ENTER, CTRL, ALT, and several key letters and numbers).  The tactile

overlays might be keycap replacements or transparent sticky tape with

unique symbols to identify the various keys.



     NOTES          



1)   Placing control keys near tactile landmarks, such as along the

edges of the keyboard (not burying them in the center) allows tactile

markers to be placed very discretely and stylishly alongside controls.

Symbols may be embossed in the case in the same color, next to the

control key, so that the user can touch and identify it.



2)   Use of spatial grouping of keys (such as the cursor keys arranged

in a T) provides natural tactile landmarks.  Using small groups of

keys that are separated from the other keys also facilitates key

finding (e.g., second key in the second group).



3)   Maintaining a "standard keyboard" layout is very helpful, and

allows blind individuals to switch between computers or systems

without confusion.



4)   Overlays can be used that put tactile labels alongside the keys

located around the edges of the keyboard.  A separate tactile

(including Braille) map of the keyboard could also be used.



5)   A common approach for providing tactile markings of the home keys

is to put nibs centered on or at the front edge of the F and J or D

and K keys on the keyboard, and on the 5 key on a keypad.



6)   Flat membrane keypads or buttons should use ridges around keys, a

bump (or depression) in the center of the keys, or a plastic guard

(with holes for each key) to make the keys tactilely locatable.  This

is very important even if the keys are only labeled visually --

especially for control buttons on peripheral devices (like a printer)

where the function of the keys can be easily memorized if they can be

tactilely located on the control panel.



7)   If the computer has voice output capability, a command could

temporarily disable the keyboard but cause keys to be spoken when they

are pressed, to allow an individual to locate a particular key

auditorially.

















Design Considerations for Individuals

Who Are Hearing Impaired or Deaf (H)







Hearing impaired and deaf individuals currently have little difficulty

in using computers.  Visual redundancy of clicks and tones and other

auditory output would address most of the problems in this area.  The

primary concern is ensuring that future voice output information is

provided in a redundant form that hearing impaired or deaf individuals

can also understand.

Item H1:  All Audible Output Also Provided in Visual Form



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Individuals who are deaf cannot receive any information (tones, voice,

etc.) presented in audible form.



Examples



+    Individuals who are deaf cannot hear beeps or other tones that

are intended to alert them to problems or system status.



+    Individuals who are deaf cannot hear spoken output from a

computer.



+    Individuals who are deaf cannot hear the disk drives and cannot

tell when they are in operation if no visual indicators are provided.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



All information presented in auditory form which is required for

system operation and error detection should also be provided or

available redundantly in an appropriate visual form.



PRIORITY:  1 - Where the auditory information is required for system

operation, deaf individuals would be unable to operate the device if

the information is not also provided in visual form.



Current GSA Guideline



"Information Redundancy.  Currently, several programs use the speaker

to beep warnings or errors to the user.  Some programs do not have the

capability to present the warning visually to the hearing impaired

user.  This feature would allow the user to have information

redundancy by presenting a visual equivalent of the beep on the

monitor.  This might be accomplished by either a manual screen

indicator (i.e., the user would have to indicate that he has seen the

warning indicator by entering a key sequence to remove the indicator

from the screen) or an automatic screen indicator (i.e., the warning

would be presented for a period of time and then removed

automatically).



     NOTES          



1)   Warning beeps and tones could be accompanied by a visual

indicator, or flicker on the screen.



2)   Synthesized or digitized speech messages could be redundantly

presented in visual form.



3)        Provide as a part of the operating system a "feedback

preference" setting or "hearing impaired user" flag that would be set

by any user who wanted visual support to accompany auditory output.

The operating system and application programs could then provide full

visual redundancy for all audio output when the flag is set. Suggested

settings for a "Feedback Preference" setting might be:



     a)   Sound is okay.

b)   Use visual cues.

c)   Use locking visual cues.



     This last setting would be used by individuals who do not look at

the screen while typing, and who might otherwise miss cues that are

only displayed for a moment.

     Application programs could check for the feedback preference

setting and provide visual cues to accompany auditory cues when they

are so requested.  Programs with speech output could provide what

amounts to a caption on the screen, to accompany or replace the speech

output when the preference flag is set.



     In addition to being useful to people who are deaf, this feedback

preference capability would be useful in noisy environments, where

beeps might be missed, and in quiet environments such as libraries

where the sound level may be set very low or off, to avoid disturbing

others.



4)   Training materials (videotapes, audiovisual computer

presentations, etc.) would not normally be considered as "required for

operation" and would be exempt (although subtitling would be

preferred).



5)   In the future, education, training and other software may include

speech to accompany on-screen activity.  This may be more text than

would normally be displayed on screen.  Operating systems could

support a sort of built-in closed captioning capability that could

then be used by application programs.  A deaf individual could enable

the captioning feature by setting the "feedback preference" or a

"hearing impaired user" flag.  The closed captioning feature would

then display text on the screen (sent by the application program) to

accompany the spoken text.



     This feature would also facilitate use of equipment by

individuals for whom English is a second language, individuals who

have poor language skills, or in a noisy environment.



6)   The presence of a headphone jack provides the opportunity to plug

in a small LED that would provide a visual flicker whenever sound was

emitted from the speaker.  This would be sufficient to indicate that a

beep had occurred, but insufficient to distinguish the type of beep or

speech.  A microphone placed next to the speaker might provide a

substitute for a headphone jack, except that it is likely to pick up

loud noises in the environment (e.g., setting down a book hard), which

might give false flashes.



7)   A small LED might be wired in parallel with the speaker to

provide visual feedback of auditory activity.



8)   If different tones are used to convey different messages, they

should be accompanied by different visual signals.

Item H2:  Audio Output Should be Adjustable as well as being Available

in a clear form for Amplification



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Individuals with hearing impairments have difficulty hearing auditory

output from computers, or cannot turn up volume sufficiently due to

environmental constraints.



Examples



+    Individuals who are hard of hearing (not deaf) have difficulty

hearing beeps that indicate errors when typing or issuing commands.



+    Individuals who have hearing impairments are unable to turn the

volume up sufficiently in some environments, such as libraries (not

allowed) or a noisy environment (not enough volume).



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



a) Sound volume should be adjustable and/or reasonably loud.



b) It should also be easily available in a clear form for

amplification.



PRIORITY:  1 - (If all auditory information is provided in a redundant

visual form [see H1], the importance of Item H2 is much less.)



Current GSA Guideline



"Auditory Output Capability.  . . . The volume should be adjustable by

the user and a headset jack should be available."



     NOTES          



1)   An adjustable and fairly loud volume is particularly helpful to

aging individuals and others with mild hearing impairments who do not

normally carry or use hearing aids or other sound amplification

devices.  Volume that is "reasonable" for a particular computer is a

function of the unit's size, usual operating environment (quiet/noisy)

and type of sound.  Beeping tones that have a strong component below

750 hertz are easier for many hearing impaired persons to hear.



2)   Placement of the sound source near a quiet (no loud fan nearby)

and user-accessible location on the equipment (such as an edge), or

the provision of an audio jack, would satisfy part (b) of this

recommendation.  Hearing impaired individuals could then carry a pair

of headphones or headphones plus a small, $25 battery-operated

microphone and amplifier to provide the necessary sound levels.  This

allows the user to select an amplifier that matches the particular

volume level they need.  (The jack or portable microphone could also

drive an inductive neckring, which would allow the sound to be

directly coupled to the user's hearing aid.)



3)   The headphone jack provides the greatest privacy, which is

important for "quiet" environments (such as a library) when (if) text-

to-speech synthesis becomes native in the workstation, or when

applications utilize speech output as a standard user interface

(especially in a multiple workstation environment, where it may be

difficult to determine which computer the speech is coming from).

















Design Considerations For Individuals

Who Have Seizure Disorders (S)



Item S1:  Displays and Software Avoid Some Refresh and Update

Frequencies



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Individuals with seizure sensitivities may be affected by cursor or

display update frequencies, increasing the chance of a seizure while

working on or near a display screen.







     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Displays should avoid whenever possible refresh or update flicker or

flashing frequencies which are most likely to trigger seizure

activity.



PRIORITY:  1 - Important to health and physical safety of individuals

with seizure sensitivities.



Current GSA Guideline



"Cursor Presentation.  Where cursors or other indicators on the screen

blink, the end user should be able to adjust the blink rate.  This

feature accommodates persons with seizure disorders who may be

sensitive to certain frequencies of flashing light."



     NOTES          



1)   This is an area of potential concern which has only been

partially defined and quantified.



2)   Somewhere between 1 in 25,000 and 1 in 10,000 are affected by

photosensitive epilepsy (total: 25,000-100,000 people) (Cakir, Hart, &

Stewart, 1980, Visual Display Terminals, pp. 219-220, John Wiley &

Sons).



3)   The flash rates most likely to induce convulsions in

photosensitive epilepsy have been found to be between 10 and 25 hertz,

with a peak around 15-20 hertz.



4)   This chart illustrates the relative sensitivity of individuals to

different frequencies: it shows the relative sensitivity of

photosensitive patients in whom a photoconvulsive response was

elicited by 2 second trains of flashes, expressed as a function of the

flash frequency.  Solid dots = response with eyes open; open dots =

eyes closed (Jeavons, P.M., and Harding, G.F.A. [1975]  Photosensitive

epilepsy.  London: Heinemann.)



Put chart here:

four inches of space needed





















5)   Sensitivity to frequencies below 8 hertz is uncommon, so that in

connection with VDTs, a 5 hertz or lower blinking cursor is unlikely

to prove epileptogenic (Sakir, Hart, & Stewart).

6)   There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that combined

presence of pattern and flicker may extend the sensitivity range.  The

results from one investigation, for example, showed that while the

mean sensitivity range for diffuse stimulation was 11-13 hertz, the

range was increased to 10-43 hertz with patterned stimulation.  This

difference confirms a conclusion that has been drawn by most

researchers in the field, that pattern stimulation is more

epileptogenic than diffuse stimulation.  It has also been found that

many photosensitive epileptics are not only sensitive to flicker but

also to stationary striped patterns, and that by vibrating patterns

the incidence of pattern sensitivity is doubled (Sakir, Hart, &

Stewart).



7)   Stimulation in the 30 hertz range may occur in some fast phosphor

interlaced displays.  Stimulation in the 10-20 hertz range can occur

with systems that blank and redraw the screen rapidly, such as when

scrolling through a display or flashing very quickly across a series

of images.  This can also happen when a computer program executes a

keyboard macro within an application program.  The flash rate is not

necessarily uniform, but can be quite rapid on a fast computer.

Poorly executed animation that produces a flickering image in this

range might also cause a problem.



8)   A seizure-sensitive individual need not necessarily be working

directly at a piece of equipment in order to be affected by the

device, although they would need to be in visual contact with it.

















Design Considerations that Would Facilitate

Development of Computer Access Devices

by Third-Party Manufacturers (M)

Item M1:  Manuals Available in Electronic Form



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Blind individuals cannot read printed text, and physically impaired

individuals cannot handle printed documentation.







     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Make manuals and other important documentation available in electronic

form.



PRIORITY:  2 - Facilitates learning of systems and occasional

reference.  Sometimes needed for daily operation.



RECOMMENDED EXCEPTIONS:  Software manuals and manuals sold separately

from physical equipment might be excepted (due to software piracy

problems).



Current GSA Guideline



"Documentation.  The vendor will maintain a copy of all current user

documentation on a computer, and will be responsive in supplying

copies of this documentation in an ASCII format suitable for computer-

based auditory review or brailling."



     NOTES          



1)   Availability of manuals from third-parties (Library of Congress,

American Printing House for the Blind, etc.) should fulfill this

requirement.



2)   For documentation to be completely accessible, all information

presented graphically should also be presented in text.



3)   When full manuals are not available (and even when they are),

command or reference summaries in electronic form or on-line are very

helpful.



4)   It is recognized that there is a problem in providing electronic

copies of software manuals and manuals that are not provided along

with a piece of hardware, since provision of electronic versions of

software manuals facilitates software piracy.  Manuals that are

normally included directly with the hardware, however, could be made

available in electronic form with little or no risk to the

manufacturer.

Item M2:  Speech Output Compatible



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Individuals who are severely visually impaired or blind often use

screen access programs which read the contents of the screen back to

the individual, using a speech synthesizer.  These special access

programs need some way to access speech synthesis capability.

Speech impaired individuals and deaf individuals who are also speech

impaired could also use computers which have speech output capability

for communication (either in person or over the telephone).







     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



A speech output capability would preferably be built in or available

via connection of a speech synthesizer to an output port.



PRIORITY:  2-4 - The ability to at least connect a voice synthesizer

is a high priority.  Having the speech synthesis built into the

computer is very useful, but a lower priority, as long as an external

synthesizer can be connected.



Current GSA Guideline



"Auditory Output Capability.  The auditory output capability on

current personal computers is sufficient to beep and play music.  Some

users with disabilities, however, may require speech capability.  For

speech to be generated on today's computers, a speech synthesizer is

required.  The capability to support a speech synthesizer must

continue to be available in future generations of computers or this

capability must be internalized through an upgrade of the computer's

internal speaker.  Regardless of the methodology chosen, the volume

should be adjustable by the user and a headset jack should also be

available."



     NOTES          



1)   The availability of an (unused) standard RS232 serial port on a

computer is sufficient to guarantee that a synthesizer is available

that can be used with the computer.



2)   The ability of a computer to generate its own synthesized speech

is a function of the quality of the speaker, the audio amplifier, and

the sound generation system.  Although it is possible to generate

speech output from a speaker connected to a bus data line, high

quality speech generally requires a sound synthesizer chip, preferably

one capable of generating sine wave output.



3)   A standard add-in board that could add voice would be useful.

Built-in voice would be better, especially in portable computers which

have only one serial port.

Item M3:  Special Display Window Which Can Stay Visible (on top)



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some operating systems do not provide a mechanism that allows programs

running in the background (or under multi-tasking) to provide visual

information continuously to the user.  This prevents the use of low-

cost software-based input systems, which require continuous visual

selection or feedback.



Examples



Special adaptive access (input) programs put a keyboard image on the

screen, and the user "types" by using a cursor controlled by head

movements, eye gaze, single switch scanning, etc.  This window must be

able to always remain "on top."  If this window "keyboard" simulated

both the keyboard and mouse movements for the user, and the window

were to disappear (behind another window), the user would have no

means to bring it forward, and would be locked out (since they would

no longer have access to their "keyboard" or "mouse").



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Windowing environments would preferably have the ability to open and

maintain special windows which can remain always fully visible (for

use by special input routines).



PRIORITY:  4 - This feature can greatly reduce the cost of providing

access to a computer by allowing use of special adaptive software in

place of a separate alternate access system.



Current GSA Guideline



None



     NOTES          



1)   The special window should cover only part of the screen, and be

movable and shrinkable, to allow the user to move it around to view

different parts of the screen as required.



2)   This feature can greatly reduce the cost of providing access to a

computer by allowing the use of special adaptive software running in

the computer instead of a separate hardware alternate access system.

Item M4:  Connection Point for Switches or Transducers "



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Many computers have no provision for connecting external switches

needed for some adaptive access programs.



Examples



An eyeblink-operated scanning program needs a way to connect the

eyeblink switch to the computer.  A sip-and-puff Morse code input

program needs a way to connect two switches.



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Systems would preferably provide a standard way of connecting at least

two momentary contact (SPST) input switches.



PRIORITY:  4 - This feature lowers the cost of adapting workstation

computers by allowing easy connection of switches and use of internal

access software.



Current GSA Guideline



None



     NOTES          



1)   Connection point for switches could be implemented as dedicated

pins on an already existing connector, or optional use of seldom used

signal lines already existing on a connector.



2)   The ability to connect analog transducers as well as binary

switches is desirable, since it increases the input options for

special software.



3)   Arrays of up to 128 switches (8 x 16) are currently used as

special inputs for adaptive software.

Item M5:  Method for Distinguishing Macro Input from Keyboard Input"



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Some software programs discard certain keystrokes that show up in

typing buffers, interfering with the user of special "macro"-based

acceleration programs.



EXAMPLE:



This problem usually arises when application software throws away

strings of multiple backspace and other cursor movement characters.

This is done in programs like Microsoft Word to avoid the overshoot

problems such as are encountered in Lotus 1-2-3 when the back arrow

key is held down until the desired position is reached (or until the

desired deletions are completed).  This tendency to throw away

multiple back arrow or back space keystrokes when they rapidly appear,

interferes with macros used by disabled individuals as well as some

input acceleration programs such as abbreviation expansion (which must

erase the abbreviation before printing the expansion).



     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Operating systems would preferably provide a means for distinguishing

between typed, auto-repeat, and macro-generated "keystrokes" so that

they can be treated differently by the operating systems and

application software.



PRIORITY:  4 - The presence of this feature allows the use of special

software which increases the input efficiency of physically disabled

individuals, but is not required for their access to computers.



Current GSA Guideline



None



     NOTES          



Item M6:  Keyguard or Keyguard Mounting Provision



PROBLEM DEFINITION



Individuals with poor use of hands, or using mouthstick, headstick,

etc., may require the use of a keyguard (a plate with holes over each

key) in order to accurately use a standard keyboard.  Third-party

manufacturers make keyguards, but have difficulty mounting them to

keyboards.







     DESIGN RECOMMENDATION:



Provision would preferably be made in the design of the keyboard to

facilitate keyguard mounting.  In addition, the keyguard could be made

available directly from the manufacturer.



PRIORITY:  5 - Would increase the ease and lower the cost for third-

party manufacturers to develop keyguards for computers.



Current GSA Guideline



"Keyboard Orientation Aids.  . . . To assist a motor disabled user, a

keyguard should be available to ensure that the correct keys are

located and depressed."



     NOTES          



1)   The largest problem is with shared computers, where the keyguard

must be removed and replaced.  Velcro or posi-lock fasteners are

currently being used in these applications.



2)   Keyguard mounting might be accomplished by incorporating a groove

in the side of the keyboard, with perhaps a dimple in the groove where

it would not show.  The keyguards could then slide into place.



3)   Sculptured keyboards complicate the fabrication of keyguards.



4)   With portable computers, it would be useful to have sufficient

clearance above the keyboard so that a keyguard could remain in place

when the computer was closed.