By taking a consensus-based approach, it is the goal of the Universal Access Project to identify a public policy framework that will be supported by all project members - disability rights advocates, researchers, industry, government regulators and policy makers.
One example of this flexibility is Apple Computer's "StickyKeys" settings available on all Macintoshes since 1987. This feature allows computer users to customize their machine so that certain command keys will stay activated ("down") until after the next keystroke. This type of customizing is essential for many people with mobility impairments, but can also be useful to children who are learning the keyboard and others.
It is not possible to completely do away with the need for specific adaptive equipment, given that individual disabilities vary so greatly. But the goal of this project is to identify what can feasibly be achieved to expand the flexibility of information technologies and move closer to the goal of universal design.
Setting standards has traditionally served as the appropriate mechanism for achieving specific goals. There are, generally two ways to achieve this. Through specification-based standards and through performance- based standards.
Specification-based Standards The process of setting specification-based standards mandates exactly how an intended result should be achieved. For example, if the goal is to make a product accessible to a person using a wheelchair, this type of standard would mandate that a product could not be placed above four feet high. The advantage to this type of standard is that it creates uniformity throughout a particular industry. The disadvantage is that with industries characterized by rapid technological change - such as the information industry - specification-based standards can be virtually obsolete by the time they are agreed upon and set.
Performance-based Standards This type of standard spells out the intended result the standard is trying to achieve - for example, making a product usable by a person in a wheelchair or someone who is hearing impaired. This type of standard offers engineers and designers a great deal of flexibility in the design of their products to achieve the intended results. In the rapidly changing information industry, that flexibility is extremely important. However the disadvantage is that this type of standard does not necessarily result in uniformity of products or universality of access. There is also the problem of how to measure accessibility, or who decides whether something meets the standard.
Generally, the disability rights community has pushed for mandatory standards. After years of fruitless waiting for the marketplace to identify people with disabilities as a viable niche to serve, disability rights groups have concluded that mandatory Federal standards offer the best promise of accessibility. Industry, on the other hand, has generally resisted mandatory standards saying they are often burdensome and do not always guarantee the intended results. However, industries have not always been willing to set their own voluntary standards.
Mandatory Standards There are several advantages to setting mandatory standards. They ensure uniformity throughout industries, they can be rapidly implemented, and they even work to the advantage of industries by leveling the playing field among industrial competitors.
If, however, mandatory standards are seen as too burdensome, their implementation can be blocked by legal challenges. For example, the FCC standards on hearing-aid compatibility for public telephones, which were approved two years ago, have yet to be implemented because of challenges from industry. This kind of roadblock can be averted, however, if advocacy groups, regulators, policy makers and industry collaborate on developing standards.
Voluntary Standards The advantage to voluntary standards, generally, is that if industry participates in setting standards, it is more likely to follow them. Voluntary standards also offer greater flexibility so that industry can be more responsive to changes in the marketplace. Ultimately this could result in ensuring greater accessibility of information systems over the long term.
The disadvantage to pursuing voluntary standards is that it can be slow and time consuming. There is also the risk that industries may not be able to achieve a consensus and that ultimately, no standards will be set.
Some argue that the Federal Government should take the lead in this area. The United Cerebral Palsy Association has called for broad Federal initiatives that would strengthen existing laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, articulate new policies on "communication accessibility" as a constitutional right of free speech, and pursue an industrial policy that integrates the needs of people with disabilities into R&D on new technology, just to name a few.
Generally, advocacy groups see the need for Federal intervention to ensure accessibility. For example, closed captioning, which is now widely available on both commercial and public television programs would probably not exist today, had the Federal government not supported its early development.
The watchword of the day in Washington, however is de- regulation. That was the stated goal of the 103rd Congress in its efforts to revamp the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Under the new Republican regime, the push for deregulation is likely to increase.
What then should be the most appropriate and viable approach to take regarding the issue of regulation under the Universal Access Project?
In addition to the role of Federal and state officials, the policies of individual companies also play a role in achieving the goals of the Universal Access Project. Companies need to internalize universal design within their organizational structure to ensure that truly accessible products are developed.
A noteworthy example is Pacific Bell's Advisory Group for People with Disabilities. This group of fourteen disability leaders from the San Francisco Bay Area conducted an extensive two year review of telephone services provided by Pacific Bell. It also assessed some products in development. In addition to identifying existing barriers to access, the Advisory group recommended procedures that Pacific Bell could follow to help eliminate potential barriers in products still on the drawing board.
Establishing such an Advisory Group is an excellent start for any company concerned about creating accessible information technologies, but it must be followed up by a commitment of company resources and personnel to work on universal design and accessibility issues.
One possible project in keeping with the above stated goals could be to identify and catalogue the leading high- tech companies currently developing information systems to determine whether they are pursuing any activities related to disability access.
This type of project might ask the following questions:
Compiling this data would provide a useful tool in identifying where progress is being made and where further effort needs to be undertaken.