See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235339972

Is There Design-For-All?

Article  in  Universal Access in the Information Society · May 2007

DOI: 10.1007/s10209-007-0071-2 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

14 99

1 author:

Simon Harper
The University of Manchester
247 PUBLICATIONS   2,234 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

STA - Scanpath Trend Analysis View project

PhD project: The role of Web-based health information in help-seeking prior to a diagnosis of lung cancer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Simon Harper on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Univ Access Inf Soc (2007) 6:111–113
DOI 10.1007/s10209-007-0071-2
COMMUNICATION
Is there design-for-all?
Simon Harper
Published online: 2 March 2007

Springer-Verlag 2007
In 1891 master cutler Karl Elsener invented his first multi-
function tool, the ‘‘Offiziermesser’’, a soldier’s knife de-
signed to universally meet the needs of the soldier and
woodsman. This officer’s knife was renamed by American
GIs1 in 1945 to the more commonly known ‘‘Swiss Army
Knife’’. Adopted by outdoor enthusiasts worldwide, its
popularity has increased, as have the number of varieties
and styles. The tool, which is designed-for-all your outdoor
needs, and built so that one design is universally acceptable
to all, now has over 100 combinations. One of the key ideas
of making the World Wide Web (web) accessible to users
with disabilities is this same idea of design-for-all, which
so inspired Karl Elsener: a concept which proposes that
every web page should be designed so that as many people
as possible can access it, regardless of any sensory or
cognitive impairments. However, design-for-all can mean
many things to many people [3]. Some discuss design in
terms of the society at large, by making reference to socio-
economics, ethics, and issues of general discrimination [6].
Others see design-for-all as a technological issue and a
problem to be solved [1]. Still others link design-for-all to a
way of thought that should encompass everyone [4]. In the
context of computing and software development, many
suggest that technology must focus on designing products
so that they are usable by the widest range of people. Yet,
in reality, every person is a unique individual and so this
view cannot possibly be sustainable or achievable.
To create universal usability by designing for all in-
volves making generalizations about users, and it is these
exact generalizations that have lead to so many users being
S. Harper (&)
Information Management Group, School of Computer Science,
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
e-mail: simon.harper@manchester.ac.uk
excluded from the technological world in the first place. In
practice, we suggest that universal usability is possible but
not by using this design-for-all ethos, in point of fact we
suggest that it is only possible by ‘‘design-for-one’’.
Universal usability is not a lord-able idea or a sop for the
few, it is a necessity for a significant percentage of the
increasingly aging population, but more logical thinking
about how to attain it is necessary. Universality suggests to
most designers and engineers that the solutions they come
up with must best fit most of the population most of the
time. Many organizations2 follow the viewpoint that uni-
versal usability means design-for-all. The argument often
follows thus:
A focus on designing products so that they are usable
by the widest range of people operating in the widest
range of situations as is commercially practical [2].
Paradoxically, they also come up with a pointer to a
workable solution:
As one might imagine, there are no universally usable
products. There simply is too great a range of human
abilities and too great a range of situations or limi-
tations that an individual may find themselves in [7].
1
Describing a member of the US armed forces and derived from the
term ‘‘Galvanized Iron’’ after the letters ‘‘GI’’ that were stamped on
USA Army metal trash cans.
2
Many of these do very good work in disability and attempts at
universal access. The author both supports and respects their work
and as such realise it would be very unfair to single out any individual
organization.
123
112
But unfortunately do not take it:
Thus, universal usability is more a function of
keeping all of the people and all of the situations in
mind and trying to create a product which is as
flexible as commercially practical, so that it can
accommodate the different users and situations [7].
While Universal Usability through design-for-all seems
reasonable on first inspection, it is not and can not be
supported in practice. By trying to address all user needs in
one design the technologist is apt to address none. Making
software usable is not just about a utilitarian view of
software use, it is also about the personal choice of the user
[5]. Too often designs are implemented based on knowl-
edge and aesthetics of the designers and engineers, but not
on those held by the user. Consider the example of a
spreadsheet application, in which a visually impaired user
may have difficulty in choosing cells and accessing
spreadsheet functions because the user interface (in this
case a GUI display) does not support their needs. Another
example concerns how to notify a deaf person working in a
communal office that the application they are using has
sound (which may be set too high).
When mainstream computer systems were initially
developed, the overriding aim was focused on the creation
of a computing resource, and not on the interaction of
humans with that resource. Designers thought that they
had overcome so-many problems in the creation of
computing resources that users would be thankful just for
the computational ability; and they were. However, as
systems became more complex and machines spread to
the desktop to be operated by non-technical users, inter-
action with these machines became more of a concern.
Some solutions, collectively known as User Interface
Management Systems, were suggested. These mainly fo-
cused on interface generation for large bespoke embedded
systems (aircraft avionics and the like) which met with
little success when moved to off-the-peg software devel-
opment.
It seems that the entire current access paradigm is
flawed, and that exponents of computation should be
looking at moving away from the limited Graphical User
Interface (GUI) model. GUI’s expect users to be endowed
with a standard set of properties which in real life they do
not necessarily posses. Plainly, a visually impaired users
interaction with a GUI will not only be almost impossible
but unproductive too. Even with the addition of accessi-
bility application program interfaces (API), interaction is
still difficult and counter intuitive at best, and frustrating at
worst. So would the solution be to build an Auditory User
Interface (AUI)? Well no, this would mean another coarse
123
Univ Access Inf Soc (2007) 6:111–113
grained solution for a specific kind of user just as the GUI
has become.
The real solution is to realise that the interface is be-
tween the application logic (functionality) and the way that
functionality is rendered (returning event capture would
not be effected in any major way). This suggests that in-
stead of using an Abstract Windows Toolkit (AWT, sug-
gesting a visual component) we should create a Neutral
Abstract Toolkit (NAT) which enables application logic to
call the same consistent generic interface components and
handle events back from those components but with an
additional layer to handle presentation. This additional
layer should be at first coarse grained along the lines of
visual, auditory, haptic, etc., but with a system wide
capability to change interaction paradigms to support the
user. In this way, systems bend themselves to the interac-
tion will of the user and absolve the software engineer of
responsibility for trying to fulfil the design considerations
of all users while enabling the system to respond in a more
bespoke manner. We call this ‘‘Design-for-One’’.
We think that design-for-one is the only way to over-
come the constraints placed on users by the need to service
the perceived interaction requirements of all users. Design-
for-all is only needed if that design is trying to fulfil all the
gaps in technology provision created by an inappropriate
user interface. We need a way to make the user interface
bespoke to the individual user and theorize that universal
access to software applications does not exist because the
user interface and the system application logic are con-
joined. Further, a stable and usable interface specification
between these parts does not exist and this means that
separation cannot occur. Human Computer Interaction
(HCI) design heuristics that support a separation between
the user interface and the code that implements the func-
tionality of the application are ably demonstrated in the
Mozilla User Interface (XUL) implementation, which al-
lows a different ‘‘Look and Feel’’ to be used over different
applications and operating systems. By this separation,
universal access to applications can be accommodated
because the interface can adapt to the task without the need
to change any part of the other functionality. We can see
that this kind of design thinking supports the utilitarian user
requirement, user activity, and users personal choice. It
provides a halfway-house ‘‘coarse’’ grained interface and a
method of fine tuning to a specific user. Even though the
rendering is still visual, Mozilla points the way to com-
ponent separation, and therefore interface adaptability.
In his article ‘‘Bridging the Digital Divide with Universal
Usability’’ [4], Ben Shneiderman asks the question ‘‘Can
you design a text-only interface that conveys the contents
and experience of an animated Flash presentation?’’. It is an
interesting problem, but one that cannot be solved by
designing one all encompassing solution. Indeed, there can
Univ Access Inf Soc (2007) 6:111–113
only be a solution if the information in question provides the
opportunity for universal access. Once the opportunity is
provided, interfaces can be developed to access that infor-
mation3 in the most appropriate way to the user and not to
the information itself. For instance, if an audio file is created
without the opportunity of both a graphical or textual
expression, then a hearing impaired user could not interact
with that source. In fact, a hearing impaired user may not
wish to play the audio at all, but have an mp3 interface
which prints the audio—maybe textually or in the form of
the written sheet music. To achieve this, the information
must indeed be complete and in a standardized format.
The main objective of many governments and ethical
organisations is the integration of older people and people
with disabilities into the information society. They propose
that this will only come about as a result of designing
mainstream products and services to be accessible by as
broad a range of users as possible, that is ‘‘design-for-all’’.
We propose that to solve the problems surrounding Uni-
versal Usability we need to address five main points.
1. Provide the opportunity for universal access by creat-
ing complete but neutral information.
2. Provide multiple abstract user interface toolkits (AU-
ITs) to enable the creation of coarse grained user
interfaces.
3. Create a strict definition of functionality available
across all interface toolkits in the form of a reference
AUIT. In this way, application logic written for one
interface toolkit will communicate with all.
4. Interfaces must be coarsely tailored to a target user
group with the possibility of fine tunability by an
individual user (from that user group) to suit their
personal interaction requirements.
3
2Be it graphical, audible, or textual.
View publication stats
113
We effect we disagree with the accepted view and
propose that universal accessability should be addressed
by focusing not on the human computer interface itself,
but on the interface between the system and the method
of controlling that system. In this way, human computer
interfaces within systems can cater for multi-model
sensory user interaction and multiple system functional-
ities.
• It is time to create truly universally accessible systems.
• It is time to change our view of Universal Usability.
• It is time to enable Design-for-One.
References
1. Law, C., Vanderheiden, G.: The development of a simple, low cost
set of universal access features for electronic devices. In:
Proceedings on the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability, pp.
118–123. ACM, New York, (2000)
2. Mace, R.L. (1998) A perspective on universal design. An edited
excerpt of a presentation at designing for the 21st Century: an
International Conference on Universal Design. Retrieved Decem-
ber 26, 2002 from: http://www.adaptenv.org/examples/ronmace-
plenary98.php
3. Novick, D.G., Scholtz, J.C.: Editorial—universal usability. Inter-
act. Comput. 14(4), 269–270 (2002)
4. Shneiderman, B.: Design: Cuu: bridging the digital divide with
universal usability. Interactions 8(2), 11–15 (2001)
5. Stephanidis, C.: Adaptive techniques for universal access. User
Modeling User-adapt Interact. 11(1–2), 159–179 (2001)
6. Stephanidis, C., Emiliani, P.L.: ‘Connecting’ to the information
society: a European perspective. In technology and disability, vol
10, pp. 21–44. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1999)
7. Vanderheiden, G.: Fundamental principles and priority setting for
universal usability. Proceedings of ACM Conference on Universal
Usability, ACM, New York, pp 32–38 (2000)
123