An emerging understanding of the wide range of human differences and abilities turns questions of accessibility upside down: Instead of creating a world of ideal forms to which we then find ways for people to adapt themselves, shouldn't we be adapting the world to the people?

Past

For much of Western history — and in other parts of the world — the issue of human beings' abilities and their participation in society has been centered mostly on what's been understood as their disabilities. In this binary view of the world, someone was either disabled or they were not. To further the dichotomy, the earliest explanations for disability said that a person was disabled because he or she was morally wrong and therefore being punished. Or that one's parents or ancestors were immoral, and their descendents' disability was the proof.

This view persisted for many millennia in many cultures — for example, people with leprosy were shunned or regarded as less than human and people with mental or emotional disabilities would often be hidden from the rest of society and even their own family members.

Even today, we see vestiges of this earlier view because — despite such conditions being common throughout human history and experience — some people continue to feel ashamed of physical or mental disabilities, whether their own or other people's. Over time, and up to the mid-20th Century, however, as ethical philosophies and medical understanding advanced, a disability was regarded less as something to be shunned and more as something to be pitied and, if possible, treated.

Present

This latter view, which favored acts of charity and medical cures to help people with disabilities "be fixed" or to "catch up" to the rest of society, often came from very sincere and concerned perspectives. While few people wish to be seen as an object of pity, concern is generally considered a more promising attitude than disdain. And the new "medical model" of disability was born out of the very real advances that scientific research was able to make in improving the quality of life for nearly everyone. As a result, and with some very good results for some people, much money was raised and advanced research into underlying medical causes for certain impairments occurred in the 20th century and continues in the 21st.

It is, however, this question of "quality of life" that continues to plague even modern understandings of disability. In this view, someone is considered either "severely disabled," "somewhat disabled," "slightly disabled," or "non-disabled" — which is sometimes still called "able-bodied," if the discussion is centered around physical or sensory disabilities. Such distinctions can be useful, and have paved the way for guidelines and regulations that seek to make more aspects of society accessible by more people — from architecture to employment, and from civics to entertainment.

This sliding scale of various stages of disability and ability has shaped many policy decisions and programs — yet the definitions are not the same from one framework to the next. In the United States, there is a very different definition of disability in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade education than there is for public assistance programs and those are both different from definitions used in employment practices and policies. All such definitions have their purposes, but they also have many limitations. Not least among them is how the definition of a disability continues to be centered on the individual with the disability, without acknowledging the societal barriers that can cause one's differences to become limiting in the first place.

In addition, some people think the medical model has skewed societal priorities and created a variation, the "rehabilitation model." In this model, more attention and finite resources are given toward rehabilitating and curing people and less toward reducing and eliminating societal barriers to their full participation.

There are impassioned people on both sides of this discussion — and many more who regard the two as an evolving balance for both individuals and society. But, in addition to medical advances, one benefit of the rehabilitative model is to highlight the other view, which is a social view of disability.

The social view of disability makes a distinction between an individual's impairments and the barriers in society that prevent such individuals from freely and fully participating in society. For example, someone who uses a wheelchair is "disabled" when he or she encounters a curb or an entrance that does not allow for wheeled access. His or her abilities to adjudicate a legal case, to write a story, or to enjoy a concert are not affected by use of a wheelchair — unless those environments and jobs also include erected barriers to access and participation.

Such barriers are, in almost every case, inadvertent and unintentional. In most cases, someone who does not use a wheelchair designed the building entrance and someone with unimpaired vision and who can read English designed the crosswalk sign. And in neither case were they intending to limit these environments only to people with their same abilities, but the end result is the same as if that were their intention.

In these current models, those creating the elements that make up environments and experiences have generally sought to make them useful for a majority of people, with the hope that accommodations would be made to help people with one or several disabilities adapt themselves to the environment or experience. This was seen as the most efficient approach, even if it used an idealized norm for human beings as its model — a norm that, in reality, rarely exists for any actual individual every time.

Because when we look at society and the activities and events it comprises, we see that the different things people develop and produce have greater or lesser accessibility as they are used by people of greater and lesser abilities.

Future

What's emerging is a view of human ability and accessibility that recognizes the unique context of each environment and the unique capabilities of each person. Most importantly, it rebalances the emphasis between an individual's need to adapt to a situation and the situation's ability to adapt to individuals.

Instead of a monolithic scale that runs from disabled to abled, an individual's personal capabilities are honored and — following the more recent insights in both business and psychology that tell people to "play to their strengths" — celebrated. The actual list of such capabilities would be as infinite as the possible endeavors undertaken by human beings, whether in business, sports, entertainment, or personal life and relationships. And in this emerging understanding, individuals should celebrate and take pride in who they are, whether formed in a culture of disability or, just as importantly, as part of other cultures.

No person exists at the midpoint of ability in all areas. Some people may have a wider list of common abilities than other people, but in the emerging model, the goal is to adapt environments and experiences to as wide a range of ability as possible.

In this model, a job, a product or a service would therefore be considered from a variety of angles, just as the individuals performing the job or using the product and service would bring a wide variety of abilities to it.

In an abstract view, this could be seen as an infinite number of abilities, skills and potentials, with a particular individual at the intersection of all those capabilities. The context for accessibility could be seen as a circle or penumbra — inside the shadow it could be considered accessible for people with a certain level of capability in a variety of areas; outside the circle, it would be considered inaccessible.

There is no one, idealized state, however. The goal is not to achieve a state of total accessibility — because as human capabilities are infinite, so are the ways in which people interact with their environments, and accessibility and inaccessibility should be considered a continuum along each of the various capabilities. Therefore, the goal instead is to continue increasing the penumbra of accessibility for an increasing range of abilities.

Reality

Of course, no model can adequately describe every environment and situation, because every individual is unique — and our individual abilities develop and change over time, due to things like experience, age and even luck.

And no product or service — or even job — is applicable to every possible ability. For someone with impaired vision, an art museum presents a decided set of challenges and frustrations that are both similar and different to the challenges and frustrations experienced by a deaf person at a symphony concert performance.

But by recognizing that some experiences are designed specifically for use or appreciation by people with certain abilities, we can then work to eliminate the barriers that keep all other people from also participating. An art museum can provide audio tours as well as printed exhibit information — and it can design exhibit spaces that can accommodate people using wheelchairs, using mobility scooters, walking unassisted, or walking with a cane or walker. A concert hall can provide closed-circuit audio program notes and seating spaces that can accommodate wheelchairs or seeing-eye dogs.

The fact is, the range of innovations to increase accessibility is today rarely limited by technology. Even the cost differential of creating accessible and inaccessible products, services, or working environments has become negligible. Studies show that more than half of the accommodations needed by employees and job applicants with disabilities cost absolutely nothing. Of those accommodations that do cost money, the typical expenditure by employers is around $600.

As our understanding of accessibility and the range of human abilities increases, we quickly start to realize the greatest barrier to an inclusive society and accessible environments is a lack of two of the greatest human capabilities of all: dedication and imagination.

Customization and personalization are two of the leading trends in information technology, particularly for end-users of the technology. Examples can be seen in everything from news aggregators and filters that allow you to subscribe only to the news and content you're interested in, to blog publishing tools that allow you to choose from several pre-set Web site templates or adapt the tool's stylesheets to your own sizes, colors and layout.

An underlying premise of customization is the understanding that different people have different needs and preferences and that this diversity itself contributes to the overall richness and utility of an experience or tool for everyone.

The impact of customization extends beyond the needs and preferences of individual users, however. It also means designers and developers can restyle, reformat, and recalculate data and information to use it in new applications for new audiences or new purposes.

The factor most fueling the drive in customization in the IT environment — whether in blog templates, billing systems, "mashup" applications, health records, or browser extensions — is the use of open standards. Open standards are publicly available guidelines for interoperability among both aligned and competing interests — which isn't necessarily limited to information technology. The sizes, threads and specifications for things like hex nuts, light bulbs, and paper hole punches have been voluntarily governed by standards bodies for years.

The more recent rise in the use of open information technology standards has led to the greatest advances in productivity and globalization, enabling the creation of the Internet and World Wide Web, along with e-mail, instant messaging, and secure online purchases.

In addition, open standards (such as XML and CSS) allow for "content" to be separated from "presentation" — which means that information you access in a Web browser can appear differently on a mobile phone or PDA for legibility purposes, just as it might need to look or sound differently for someone using a special "assistive technology" that compensates for low vision or deafness.

In other words, standards help to identify and categorize data — which frees up the data itself so it can be used in a greater variety of ways.

"Accessibility" has almost as many definitions as people interested in the topic. One view says that it describes the degree to which a system is usable by as many people as possible without modification. Another definition that's gained some traction is that accessibility is about accommodating things that people can't easily change.

Standards underlie many accessibility discussions and guidelines, because standards give designers and developers clear specifications and true-false criteria for products and services that users and creators of assistive technologies can later rely on without having to spend time or energy re-learning or re-inventing the "standard."

Standards aren't created out of thin air or even, usually, by individuals, but rather by consortia and committees. Increasingly, these standards bodies are including the perspective of people with disabilities right at the beginning of the formulation of the standards — and, increasingly, people with disabilities or their representatives are taking responsibility to get involved in setting the standards right from the outset. This participation and collaboration helps to ensure that accessibility can be built into a technology or industrial standard at the start, rather than subsequently added on or written into later revisions, which is often less effective and more expensive.

Once data is organized in a predictable format using open standards, advocates and inventors are able to imagine new ways of accessing that data, which can include new software and even new hardware to assist people with disabilities.

For example, users who are deaf, hard of hearing or situationally hearing impaired require captions and transcripts in order to access, understand and use multimedia content.

IBM ViaScribe™ is an innovative research technology that utilizes industry-leading speech recognition technology to automatically caption audio-visual media. The technology automatically creates and aligns text, audio, slides, and video to create multimedia presentations based on the Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language content standard. The resulting media can be edited for accuracy then viewed by participants or stored, indexed and posted on Web sites.

Open standards don't automatically make information technology accessible, however. And despite standards for Web accessibility, many Web pages remain difficult to use for older users and people with various disabilities. Innovation can help here, too. IBM WebAdapt2Me is software that enables people who have vision, cognitive or hand limitations to customize the way Web pages are presented to them.

WebAdapt2Me can be used with a standard Web browser. It allows a user to enlarge text on a Web page to enhance readability and it can reduce the visual clutter of distracting backgrounds or animations. It can even read Web page text aloud or can make the browser, mouse and keyboard easier to use for people with hand movement limitations, including those with tremors, arthritis, or who have had a stroke.

In June 2006, IBM announced that it was donating software technology to the open source community in an effort to help companies and software developers adopt and share best practices for Asynchronous JavaScript and XML, or "Ajax" as it is called. Ajax enables greater usability and responsiveness of browser-based applications, and IBM's software contributions will, in part, help developers make such applications fully accessible to persons with disabilities using a variety of assistive technologies.

These and many other examples from IBM and other organizations show that great progress has been and continues to be made to open up the resources of a networked world to everyone. More work, however, needs to be done — including work by IBM. Even the Web pages you are reading right now are not yet as accessible as they could and should be. Programmers, content developers, page designers, and technical experts all need to improve their awareness of accessibility issues and solutions and deepen their skills with additional training. In the business world of deadlines and time limitations, "good enough" is often preferable to perfect. But when it comes to accessibility, "good enough" all too often isn't.

At one time, industrial designers and product innovators would build a single version of a product, with the intention that it would be used by everyone interested in using it. In most cases, the product was designed with the designer's own abilities assumed for all other users. (After all, product designers are like most people: they consider their abilities to be unique — and then assume that others generally share their experience and outlook.)

As individual choice became an important consideration for business success in the 20th century, products came in more styles and colors. Increasing numbers of options and extensions for existing products expanded existing markets and opened new ones. Business solutions, too, were customizable for the variety of needs a business might have. IBM led the way in this kind of business customization with its System/360 — which came with more than 40 types of peripheral equipment to ensure that companies in every industry could integrate all of their data processing applications into a single management information system, tailored to their business.

As the appeal of customization increased, some companies designed and built options for their products specifically for people with disabilities; in many other cases, companies sprouted up with the specific mission to create accessible variations and extensions for existing products from established firms.

Along the way, product designers found that, with sometimes only slight modifications, an adapted product could be used by people without disabilities as easily as the original. And, in many cases, the new, more convenient or comfortable solution could be used by nearly everyone, with or without disabilities.

The concept of "universal design" seeks to make products, services and environments usable by as many people as possible, regardless of age, ability or situation. Drawing on lessons learned in accessibility, ergonomics, and usability design, it is a school of thought in architecture and industrial design in which, once again, a single version of a product can be created with the intention that it would be used by everyone. The difference this time is that architects, industrial designers and product makers use their own abilities to address as wide a range of differing abilities in their innovations as possible.

Similar lessons can be applied to good business design, whether of IT systems and infrastructures or to business processes. It comes down to designing for interaction and interface with real people, who bring a variety of skills and talents to their jobs, but who must also work in business and with business equipment and applications in the context of their limitations and disabilities.

The Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University defines universal design as "the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design."

The Center has also conceived and developed a series of seven principles for universal design, from which this information and examples have been adapted. It should be noted, however, that use or application of these principles in any form by an individual or organization is separate and distinct from the principles and does not constitute or imply acceptance or endorsement by The Center of the use or application.

More information on these principles can be found at the Center for Universal Design Web site: www.design.ncsu.edu/cud

Principle 1: Equitable use

The design should be useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.

Examples:

• Power doors with sensors at entrances that are convenient for all users.
• Integrated, dispersed, and adaptable seating in assembly areas such as sports arenas and theaters.

Principle 2: Flexibility in use

The design should accommodate a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.

Examples:

• Scissors designed for left- or right-handed users.
• An automated teller machine that has visual, tactile, and audible feedback; a tapered card opening; and a palm rest.

Principle 3: Simple and intuitive

Use of the design should be easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.

Examples:

• A moving sidewalk or escalator in a public space.
• An instruction manual with drawings and no text.

Principle 4: Perceptible information

The design should communicate necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the user's sensory abilities.

Examples:

• Tactile, visual, and audible cues and instructions on a thermostat.
• Redundant cuing (e.g., voice communications and signage) in airports, train stations, and subway cars.

Principle 5: Tolerance for error

The design should minimize hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

Examples:

• A double-cut car key easily inserted into a recessed keyhole in either of two ways.
• An "undo" feature in computer software that allows the user to correct mistakes without penalty.

Principle 6: Low physical effort

The design should be able to be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue.

Examples:

• Lever or loop handles on doors and faucets.
• Touch lamps operated without switch.

Principle 7: Size and space for approach and use

Appropriate size and space should be provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user's body size, posture, or mobility.

Examples:

• Controls on the front and clear floor space around appliances, mailboxes, dumpsters, and other elements.
• Wide gates at subway stations that accommodate all users.

John Kemp is successful Washington, D.C., attorney, writer, speaker and a passionate advocate for the rights of people with disabilities.

Born without arms or legs, John served as the poster child for the National Easter Seal Society in 1960. Today, he celebrates a growing disability culture in which human differences open up opportunities and tear down barriers that separate people from their potential — and each other.