Over the Horizon:\
Potential Impact of Emerging

Trends in Information and Communication Technology on Disability Policy
and Practice

# ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.0972222222222223in" height="1.9583333333333333in"}

# National Council on Disability 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20004 202-272-2004 Voice 202-272-2074 TTY 202-272-2022 Fax

#  John R. Vaughn, Chairperson December 19, 2006 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Executive Summary 1](#executive-summary)

[New Opportunities 1](#new-opportunities)

[Barriers, Concerns, and Issues 2](#barriers-concerns-and-issues)

[Issues for Action](#_Issues_for_Action) 5

[Introduction 7](#introduction)

[Technological Advances that are Changing the Rules
8](#technological-advances-that-are-changing-the-rules)

[Trend 1: Ever-Increasing Computational Power Plus Decreasing Size and
Cost
8](#trend-1-ever-increasing-computational-power-plus-decreasing-size-and-cost)

[Trend 2: Technology Advances Enabling New Types of Interfaces
9](#trend-2-technology-advances-enabling-new-types-of-interfaces)

[Trend 3: Ability to be Connected Anywhere, Anytime -- With Services on
Demand
12](#trend-3-ability-to-be-connected-anywhere-anytime-with-services-on-demand)

[Trend 4: Creation of Virtual Places, Service Providers, Products
14](#trend-4-creation-of-virtual-places-service-providers-products)

New [Opportunities 15](#new-opportunities-1)

[Opportunity 1: More Accessible Mainstream Products (Simpler, More
Adaptable, More Mainstream Benefit)
15](#opportunity-1-more-accessible-mainstream-products-simpler-more-adaptable-more-mainstream-benefit)

[Opportunity 2: Better (Cheaper, More Effective) AT and New Types of AT
17](#opportunity-2-better-cheaper-more-effective-at-and-new-types-of-at)

[Opportunity 3: Decrease net cost while increasing quality of
life](#barriers-concerns-and-issues-1) 20

[Barriers, Concerns, and Issues](#barriers-concerns-and-issues-1) 21

[1) Technology Trends That Move Away From Accessible Interfaces Toward\
Inaccessible Interfaces](#_Issues_for_Action) 21

[2) Technology Advancing Into Forms Not Compatible with Assistive
Technology.
24](#technology-advancing-into-forms-not-compatible-with-assistive-technology)

[3) Technology Advancing Into Forms Not Covered by Accessibility Rules.
28](#technology-advancing-into-forms-not-covered-by-accessibility-rules)

[4) Definitions of Disability, Assistive Technology, and Universal
Design
32](#definitions-of-disability-assistive-technology-and-universal-design)

[5) Central Role of the Business Case
34](#central-role-of-the-business-case)

[Issues for Action](#_Issues_for_Action) 37

[Closing 4](#closing)8

[References](#references) 49

## Executive Summary

The technologies used in information and communication products are
advancing at an ever increasing rate. Devices are getting smaller,
lighter, cheaper, and more capable. Electronics are being incorporated
into practically everything, making a wide variety of products
programmable, and thus more flexible. Computing power is increasing
exponentially. What requires a supercomputer one year can be done on a
child's game player 15 years later.

There are many emerging technology trends that affect technologies used
by people with disabilities. Four that will have particular impact on
information and communication technologies (ICT) are:

-   Increasing computational power, combined with decreasing size and
    costs;

-   New interface research in areas such as virtual projected
    interfaces, speech input and output, direct brain interfaces, multi
    modal interfaces, and artificial intelligent agents that can act as
    mediators;

-   Ubiquitous connectivity and network services, including the ability
    to be in constant connection with people or services that can
    provide assistance or augment a person's abilities -- all with
    technologies that soon will be wearable or incorporated directly
    into clothing; and

-   Creation of virtual places, service providers, and products that can
    enable a person to shop, explore, learn, travel, socialize, and work
    in "cyber space."

### New Opportunities

These technical advances will provide a number of opportunities for
improvement in the daily lives of individuals with disabilities,
including work, education, travel, entertainment, healthcare, and
independent living.

It is becoming much easier to make mainstream products more accessible.
The increasing flexibility and adaptability that technology advances
bring to mainstream products will make it more practical and cost
effective to build accessibility directly into these products, often in
ways that increase their mass market appeal. Although products have been
getting progressively more complex for some time now, advances in key
technologies will soon make it possible to reverse that trend and make
products simpler. Improvements in connectivity and interoperability will
enable individuals with severe or multiple disabilities, who could not
operate the standard interface on universally designed products, to use
products via a personal interface device that matches their abilities.

Less costly and more effective assistive technologies (AT) will also be
possible as technology advances. More importantly, however, emerging
technologies will enable the development of new types of AT, including
technologies that can better address the needs of individuals with
language, learning, and some types of cognitive disabilities. A
potential for new "intelligent AT" is emerging that was previously not
possible. Translating and transforming technologies will be able to take
information that is not perceivable or understandable to many with
sensory or cognitive impairments, and render it into a form that they
can use. Human augmentation technologies will enhance some individuals'
basic abilities, enabling them to better deal with the world as they
encounter it. Advances in technology will also reduce the size and cost
of products, making them easier to carry, wear, and, in some instances,
replace. Assistive devices will be made available to and usable by those
who would not have used them in the past out of a concern that they
might lose them.

### Barriers, Concerns, and Issues

Many of the same technological advances that show great promise of
improved accessibility, however, also have the potential to create new
barriers for people with disabilities. The following are some emerging
technology trends that are causing accessibility problems.

-   Devices will continue to get more complex to operate before they get
    simpler. This is already a problem for mainstream users, but even
    more of a problem for individuals with cognitive disabilities and
    people who have cognitive decline due to aging.

-   Increased use of digital controls (e.g., push buttons used in
    combination with displays, touch screens, etc.) is creating problems
    for individuals with blindness, cognitive and other disabilities.

-   The shrinking size of products is creating problems for people with
    physical and visual disabilities.

-   The trend toward closed systems, for digital rights management or
    security reasons, is preventing individuals from adapting devices to
    make them accessible, or from attaching assistive technology so they
    can access the devices.

-   Increasing use of automated self-service devices, especially in
    unattended locations, is posing problems for some, and absolute
    barriers for others.

-   The decrease of face-to-face interaction, and increase in
    e-business, e-government, e-learning, e-shopping, etc., is resulting
    in a growing portion of our everyday world and services becoming
    inaccessible to those who are unable to access these Internet-based
    places and services.

In addition, the incorporation of new technologies into products is
causing products to advance beyond current accessibility techniques and
strategies. The rapid churn of mainstream technologies, that is, the
rapid replacement of one product by another, is so fast that assistive
technology developers cannot keep pace. Even versions of mainstream
technologies that happen to be accessible to a particular group can
quickly churn back out of the marketplace. To complicate the situation
further, the convergence of functions is accompanied by a divergence of
implementation. That is, products increasingly perform multiple
functions that were previously performed by separate devices, but these
"converged" products are using different (and often incompatible)
standards or methods to perform the functions. This can have a negative
effect on interoperability between AT and mainstream technology where
standards and requirements are often weak or nonexistent. Thus, without
action, the gap between the mainstream technology products being
introduced and the assistive technologies necessary to make them
accessible will increase, as will the numbers of technologies for which
no accessibility adaptations are available.

Another concern is that technology advances are causing functions and
product types to develop beyond the scope of existing policy. For
example, when telephony moved from the public switched telephone network
(PSTN) to the Internet, the accessibility regulations did not keep pace.
The FCC determined that the Internet was information technology, and
that the access regulations apply only to telecommunications, even
though people were using the same phones and the same household wiring
to make phone calls to the same people, many of whom were on the PSTN.
Although the FCC has recently applied some telecommunications policies
-- namely those requiring E-9-1-1 call handling, electronic
surveillance, and contributions to the Universal Service Fund -- to some
IP services, most of the remaining telecommunications regulations,
including those requiring accessibility, have not been applied to these
new technologies. Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) manufacturers are
now talking about including conversation capabilities in their base
technologies, again raising the question as to whether telecommunication
accessibility will apply to these "phone calls." When accessibility is
tied to technologies that become obsolete, often to be replaced by
multiple new technologies, the accessibility requirements are often late
or deemed not applicable. The shift of education, retail sales, etc. to
the Internet after the ADA was drafted resulted in the Internet versions
of these activities not being specifically mentioned in the law. This is
another example of policy not keeping pace with technology. The evolving
technology(s) involving copyright and digital rights management is
another example.

The issue of policy not keeping pace with technology and product
advances, however, goes beyond accessibility regulations. It can also
apply to funding and eligibility issues. Often, the result is that
people with disabilities become trapped, using old technologies that no
longer work in their environment and activities.

Finally, there should be a broader recognition of the importance of
having a "business case" for accessibility. This report focuses on new
technologies and how they can benefit people with disabilities. None of
these technologies will benefit people with disabilities unless they are
built into products, made available, and supported. And none of that
will occur in any reliable and sustainable fashion unless individuals
within companies can make a business case for each new feature. Net
profit is the primary reason products make it to the marketplace and
remain there, and the primary reason ideas carry forward from one
version of a product to other products. This is not specific to
disability issues. It applies to all products. If a goal of our society
is to have products that are accessible to and usable by people with
disabilities, then mechanisms are needed to make accessible products
generate significantly more net revenue for a company than products that
are not accessible.

When accessibility features or capabilities have significant mainstream
market appeal, and their incorporation will result in greater return on
investment than would expending the same effort on something else,
market forces alone can cause these features or capabilities to be
incorporated into products and services. These instances should be
identified and encouraged. Other accessibility features, however, no
matter how low their cost, have not and will not occur in mainstream
products without some induced effect on net profit. Regulations can be
used to inject social values into the profit equation, but only if the
regulations are enforced in a fashion that impacts profits positively if
products are accessible, or negatively if they are not. "Pull"
regulations (i.e., regulations that create markets and reward
accessibility) generally work better than "push" regulations (i.e.,
regulations requiring conformance with regulatory standards), but both
have a place in the development of public policies that bring about
access and full inclusion for people with disabilities. Neither type of
regulation works if it is not enforced. Enforcement provides a level
playing field and a reward, rather than a lost opportunity, for those
companies that work to make their products accessible. For enforcement
to work, there must be accessibility standards that are testable and
products that are tested against them.

### Issues for Action

Seven general action items are advanced and discussed to address these
issues:

#### #1 - Maximize the effectiveness of assistive technologies and lower their cost -- in order to maximize people\'s general abilities and independence. Key strategies: Foster results-oriented R & D all the way to commercial availability. 

#### #2 - Maximize the accessibility of mainstream information and communication technology products, so that people with disabilities and seniors can use standard products as they encounter them. Key strategies: Increase funding for research, proof of concept, and commercial hardening of approaches to accessible design of mainstream products to advance understanding in this area; craft accessibility regulations so as to help employees build business cases. 

#### #3 - Ensure that access to the Internet and other virtual environments is provided, as it has been to physical places of public accommodation. 

#### #4 - Address new barriers to the accessibility of digital media caused by digital rights management (DRM), including when visual and audio rights are sold separately.

#### #5 - Base all policy regarding information and communication technology (ICT) accessibility on a realization of the importance of the business case. Where a solid business case cannot be built based on market forces alone, create accessibility regulations and effective enforcement mechanisms that provide a clear profit advantage to those who comply and a disadvantage to those who do not. 

#### #6 -- Create accessibility laws and regulations that are not technology specific, but are based on the functions of a device. Provide clear guidance as to what is sufficient to meet the standard, and allow requirements to index themselves to technologies, as they evolve, using baselines. To the extent possible, harmonize laws and regulations with those of other countries for products that are sold internationally. 

#### #7 -- Ensure that up-to-date information about accessible mainstream technology (AMT) and assistive technology (AT) is available to and being used by the public. 

## Introduction

Information and communication technologies are changing at an
ever-increasing rate. What used to be multi-year product life cycles
have now decreased in many instances to life cycles of less than a year.
Previous accessibility strategies involving the development of adaptive
technologies, or accessible versions of new technologies, are failing
due to this rapid turnover.[^1] This is exacerbated by the fact that it
is not just products that turn over, but the underlying technologies as
well. For example, analog cell phones were made accessible just as they
were being replaced with digital cell phones. Now some digital phone
formats (e.g., TDMA) are being phased out in favor of newer
technologies.[^2] This same technology churn, however, is also opening
up new opportunities for better assistive technologies and more
accessible mainstream technologies.

The National Council on Disability undertook this project to explore key
trends in information and communication technology, highlight the
potential opportunities and problems these trends present for people
with disabilities, and suggest some strategies to maximize opportunities
and avoid potential problems and barriers. Many of the changes in
technology are evolutionary, but some revolutionary changes are also
ahead. Several of these changes may even cause a re-thinking of concepts
and the definitions of such terms as "disability," "assistive
technology," and "universal design," or how these terms are used.

Several technology trends discussed in this paper present opportunities
for universally designed products, and for improved availability,
usability, and affordability of assistive technology that can have
significant impact on the quality of life for individuals with
disabilities. the more reliant society becomes on technology to perform
fundamental aspects of every-day living, how we work, communicate,
learn, shop, and interact with our environment , however, the more
imperative it is that individuals with disabilities have access to that
same technology, and the more costly will be the consequences of failure
to ensure access. As the rate at which technology evolves increases
exponentially, so does the potential for an unbridgeable technology
divide. The policies we adopt today will determine whether the
technology of the future empowers individuals with disabilities,
enabling them to work, learn, communicate, shop, and live independent,
productive lives as full and equal members of society.

### Technological Advances that are Changing the Rules

In order to understand how technological advances can lead to the need
to re-think technology and disability funding and policy, it is
important to understand just how fundamentally things are changing. Four
key technology trends have been selected for discussion in this report.
Opportunities and barriers created by these advances follow in the next
sections.

Some things in the discussion below challenge the imagination. Yet,
except where indicated otherwise, everything discussed is already
commercially available or has been demonstrated by researchers. This
section is based on a more comprehensive and periodically updated list,
complete with references and links, which can be found at
[www.trace.wisc.edu/tech](http://www.trace.wisc.edu/tech)-overview.

### Trend 1: Ever-Increasing Computational Power Plus Decreasing Size and Cost

Computational power is growing at an exponential rate. At the same time,
the size of electronic components is shrinking, decreasing product size,
power consumption, and cost. Raymond Kurzweil helped to make this growth
real to those not used to dealing in exponentials, with the following:
In 2000, \$1,000 could buy a computer that had the computational power
of an insect. By 2010, \$1,000 will purchase the computational power of
a mouse. By 2020, \$1,000 will purchase the computational power of the
human brain. By 2040, \$1,000 will purchase the computational power of
all the brains in the human race.[^3] Kurzweil has also "projected 2029
as the year for having both the hardware and software to have computers
that operate at human levels."[^4]

Personal digital assistants have shrunk from the size of paperback books
to credit card size, and now to a function that runs in the back of a
cell phone.[^5]^,^[^6] Cell phones have shrunk from something just under
the size and weight of a brick to cigarette-lighter size, most of which
is occupied by the battery. Multiple Web servers can fit on a fingernail
(sans power supply), and RJ45 (Internet) cable jacks are available that
have Web servers built directly inside the jack.[^7]

Researchers have created gears the diameter of a human hair,[^8] motors
that are a hundred times smaller than a human hair,[^9] and are now
exploring tiny cellular-scale mechanisms that would use flagella to move
about in the blood stream.[^10] The entire field of nanotechnology is
taking off, supported by major federal funding.

Although very expensive technologies are needed to create these devices,
the cost per device is dropping precipitously. Sensors that were once
hand-assembled are now created en masse, and sometimes even created in a
"printing-like" process.[^11] The cost of computing drops by a factor of
10 approximately every 4-5 years. It is not uncommon to find children's
video games that have more computing power than supercomputers of just
10-15 years prior. Scientists are now turning to light instead of wires
in microchips to keep up with the speed.[^12]

This trend towards more computational power, with decreased size and
cost, can make possible improved and entirely new types of assistive
technology. This trend is also providing capabilities in mainstream
technologies that can enable them to more easily and effectively meet
the needs of people with disabilities.

### Trend 2: Technology Advances Enabling New Types of Interfaces

The human interface is one of the most important determinants of whether
a technology product can be used by people with disabilities. Advances
in interface technology are creating new opportunities for better
assistive technologies, more accessible mainstream technologies, and
entirely new concepts for controlling both.

**Projected Interfaces.** Using a projector and camera, companies have
created products that can project anything from a keyboard to a full
display and control panel onto a tabletop, a wall or any other flat
surface. People can then touch the "buttons" in this image. The camera
tracks movements, and the buttons or keys operate as if they really
existed.[^13] One device is pocket-sized, projects a keyboard onto the
tabletop, and allows users to enter data into their PDA by typing on the
image of the keyboard on the tabletop.[^14]^,^ [^15] Other projected
interfaces use sound waves.[^16]

**Virtual Interfaces.** Going one step further, researchers have
demonstrated the ability to project an image which floats in space in
front of a person. With this glasses or goggle-based system, only the
user can see the image floating there.[^17] Some systems project the
image directly onto the retina.[^18] A pocket controller or gesture
recognition can be used to operate the controls that float along the
display. Motion sensors can cause the displays to move with the user\'s
head, or stay stationary.

**Augmented Reality.** Researchers are also using this ability to
project images to overlay them with what a person is seeing in reality,
to create an "augmented reality." One project envisions travelers who
can move about in a city in a foreign country by wearing a pair of
glasses that automatically recognizes all of the signs and translates
them. Whenever foreign travelers look at a sign, they would see a
translation of that sign (in their native language) projected over the
top of the sign.[^19] [^20]

**Virtual Reality.** Research on ultra high resolution displays has a
target of being able to display images that appear with the same
fidelity as reality. Researchers look forward to the day when the
resolution and costs drop to the point that entire walls can be
"painted" with display technology, to allow them to serve as "windows,"
work spaces, art work, or entertainment, as the user desires.
Introducing three-dimensional viewing and displays that work in 360
degrees, researchers have a goal of eventually creating walls or
environments that are indistinguishable from reality.

Realistic imaging technologies are already being used in classrooms,
primarily to teach science. The ability to virtually "shrink oneself"
can be used to explore things that would otherwise not be visible or
manipulable by humans. The ability to zoom out can provide more global
perspectives. The ability to carry out virtual chemistry experiments can
allow students to conduct the experiments that are most interesting or
educational, rather than those that are the safest (from poisoning or
explosion) or cheapest (not involving expensive chemicals or elements).
Time can also be expanded or compressed as needed to facilitate
perception, manipulations or learning.[^21]

**Hands-Free Operation and Voice Control.** There are already hands-free
telephones. New phase-array microphones have been developed that can
pick up a single person's voice and cancel out surrounding sounds,
allowing communication and voice control in noisy environments.[^22]
There are cameras that can self-adjust to track a user\'s face, allowing
face-to-face communication for those who cannot reach out to adjust
cameras.[^23] Rudimentary speech recognition is available on a \$3
chip,[^24] and speech recognition within a limited topic domain is
commonly used. IBM has a "superhuman speech recognition project," the
goal of which is to create technology that can recognize speech better
than humans can.[^25]

**Speech Output.** The cost to build speech output into products has
plummeted to the point where speech can be provided on almost anything.
All of the common operating systems today have free speech synthesizers
built into them or available for them. Hallmark has a series of greeting
cards with speech output that, at \$3.99, are just 50 cents more than
paper, non-electronic cards. Recently a standard cell phone that had
been on the market for a year received a software-only upgrade and
became a talking cell phone, with not only digitized speech talking
menus, but also with text-to-speech capability for short message service
(SMS) messages. The phone, with all speech functionality, sold for \$29
with a service contract.[^26]

**Natural Language Processing.** The capability of technology to process
human speech continues to evolve. Although full, open topic natural
language processing is not yet available, natural language processing
for constrained topics is being used on the telephone and soon may allow
people to talk successfully to products.

**Artificial Intelligent Agents.** Websites are available that allow
users to text chat with a virtual person, who will help them find
information on the site.[^27] Research on task modeling, artificial
intelligence, and natural language are targeted toward creating agents
users can interact with, helping them find information, operate
controls, etc. Often the subject of science fiction, simple forms of
intelligent agents are reaching the point in technology development of
becoming a reality in the home.

**Microprocessor Controlled User Interfaces.** When products are
controlled by microprocessor running programs as they are today, they
can be programmed to operate in different ways at different times. The
use of more powerful processors, with more memory, is resulting in the
emergence of new devices that can be controlled in many different ways
and can be changed to meet user preferences or needs.

**Multi-Modal Communication.** There is a rapid diversification taking
place in the ways people can communicate. Video conferencing allows
simultaneous text, visual, and voice communications. Chat and other text
technologies are adding voice and video capabilities. In addition, the
technology to cross-translate between modalities is maturing. The
ability to have individuals talking on one end and reading on the other
is already available using human agents in the network.[^28] In the
future, the ability to translate between sensory modalities may become
common for all users.

**Direct Control from the Brain.** External electrodes in the form of a
band or cap are available today as commercial products for elementary
control directly from the brain.[^29] Research involving electrode
arrays which are both external and embedded in the brain have
demonstrated the ability to interface directly with the brain to allow
rudimentary control of computers, communicators, manipulators, and
environmental controls.

### Trend 3: Ability to be Connected Anywhere, Anytime -- With Services on Demand

New advances will soon enable people to be connected to communication
and information networks no matter where they are. People can leave
caretakers and still be a button-press away. Everything in the
environment will be connected, most often wirelessly, allowing people to
think about communication, control, and "presence" in entirely new ways.
Individuals who have trouble with wires and connectors will not need
them. Network based services can provide assistance, on demand, to
people wherever they are. These advances will create opportunities for
whole new categories of assistive technology.

**Wireless Electronics -- Connected World.** There are already wireless
headsets, computer networks, music players, and sensors. New
technologies, such as ZigBee, will allow for devices that are very
small, wirelessly connected, and draw very little power.[^30] Light
switches, for example, could run off a small ten-year battery and have
no wires coming to or from them. People would simply place a light
switch on the wall where it was convenient, at a convenient height.
Flipping the switch would control the lights as it does now. If someone
else needed the light switch in a different place, they would simply
move it by pulling it off the wall and replacing it where desired, or
placing an additional switch wherever they liked, including on their
wheelchair or lap tray.

High speed wireless networks are also evolving, and costs are dropping.
No wires will be needed between televisions, video recorders, or
anything else (except sometimes the wall, for power). A person in a
power wheelchair could have an on-chair controller connected to
everything in the house, and yet still be completely mobile.

**Virtual Computers.** Computers may disappear, and computing power will
be available in the network. Wherever a person is, he or she will be
able to use whatever display is convenient, e.g., on the wall or in a
pocket, to access any information, carry out computing activities, view
movies, listen to music, etc. Instead of making each product accessible,
things would exist as services and capabilities, which could be accessed
through a person's preferred interface.

**Control of Everything from Controller of Choice.** New universal
remote console standards have been developed that would allow products
to be controlled from other devices.[^31] Products implementing these
standards could be controlled from interfaces other than the ones on the
product. A thermostat with a touchscreen interface, or a stove with flat
buttons, for example, could be controlled from a cell phone via speech,
or from a small portable Braille device.

**Location Awareness.** GPS (Global Positioning System) devices enable
people to determine their position when outside, and are already small
enough to fit into cell phones and large wristwatches. Other
technologies, such as RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) and devices
that send signals embedded in the light emitted from overhead light
fixtures, are being explored to provide precise location information
where GPS does not work.

**Object Identification.** Tiny chips can be embedded into almost
anything to give it a digital signature. RFID chips are now small enough
that they are being embedded inside money in Japan.

**Assistance on Demand -- Anywhere, Anytime.** With the ability to be
connected everywhere comes the ability to seek assistance at any time. A
person who doesn't understand how to operate something can instantly
involve a friend, colleague, or professional assistant who can see what
he or she is looking at and help work through the problem. Someone who
needs mobility assistance could travel independently, yet have someone
available at the touch of a button. These assistants could help think
something through, see how to get past an obstacle, listen for
something, translate something, or provide any other type of assistance,
and then "disappear" immediately.

**Wearable Technology.** Today there are jackets with built-in music
players, with speakers and microphones in the collar.[^32]'[^33] There
are keyboards that fold up, and circuitry that is woven into shirts and
other clothing. There are now glasses and shoes with a built-in computer
that can detect objects within close proximity through echo location and
then send a vibrating warning signal to the wearer. The shoes also will
use a GPS System to tell the wearer where they are and which direction
they are going.

**Implantable Technology.** There are cochlear implants to provide
hearing. Heart and brain pacemakers are common. Increasing
miniaturization will allow all types of circuits to be embedded in
humans. In addition, research is continuing not only on biocompatible
materials, but also on biological "electronics."

### Trend 4: Creation of Virtual Places, Service Providers, Products

Possibly one of the most revolutionary advances in information and
communication technologies has been the development of the World Wide
Web. Although the Internet had been around for a relatively long time by
the 1990s, Web technologies allowed it to be approachable and usable by
people in a way not previously possible. It has not only given people
new ways of doing things, but has fostered the development of entirely
new social, commercial, and educational concepts. It also has allowed
for virtual "places" that exist only in cyberspace. This includes
virtual environments, virtual stores, virtual community centers, and
complete virtual communities. E-travel is allowing people to go places
and see things that once were only possible through books or
documentaries. Electronic re-creation can allow people to explore real
places, as if they were there, and at their own speed. They could wander
a famous museum, for example. The Web also provides an array of products
and services that is unmatched in physical stores in most localities.

## New Opportunities

Advances in information and communication technology will provide a
number of new opportunities for improvement in the daily lives of
individuals with disabilities, including work, education, travel,
entertainment, healthcare, and independent living. There is great
potential for more accessible mainstream technology with less effort
from industry. There is also great potential for better, cheaper, and
more effective versions of existing assistive technology (AT), and
entirely new types or classes of AT.

### Opportunity 1: More Accessible Mainstream Products (Simpler, More Adaptable, More Mainstream Benefit)

Some of the changes that will result from mainstream product design are
evolutionary continuations of current trends. Other changes will be
revolutionary, changing the nature of mainstream technologies and their
usability by people with different types of disabilities. Some examples:

**Potential for more built-in accessibility.** Almost everything today,
including cell phones, alarm clocks, microwaves, ovens, washers, and
thermostats, is being controlled by one or more microcomputers. Even
small devices like TV remote controls have a microcontroller inside.
Because most everything is and will increasingly be controlled by
programs running on increasingly powerful microprocessors, it is now
possible to design products that will follow different instructions and
behave differently for different users. Many products can already be
adjusted to accommodate disabilities. For example, cell phones have a
large print setting. Computers can be adjusted to work for people who
have tremors. People can now watch television programs with or without
captions. The Automated Postal Centers at many post offices offer
touchscreen or tactile buttons and voice output. The ability to create a
much broader range of products for the home, workplace, or public that
can adapt to meet users' needs is continually increasing, and the cost
is dropping. For example, speech is no longer a significant cost factor
and can be added with little or no hardware costs.

**Products that are simpler to use**. Although the trend today is toward
products that are ever more complex, we are on the cusp of a revolution
in human interface. The ability for *unrestricted* voice recognition and
natural language processing will come further in the future, and the
ability to use these in practical ways in limited domains (e.g.,
controlling household appliances) is already emerging. When it arrives,
the ability to simply tell products what should be done (e.g., "cook
this at 450 for an hour," or "record *Wild Kingdom*," or "wake me at
8:30") will be a tremendous advance for individuals with cognitive
disabilities or people who, for any reason, are unable to effectively
use knobs, buttons, and menus on products. The mass market appeal of
such a capability is enough to drive this into the marketplace on its
own as soon as it is ready. For individuals who cannot speak, text input
or an aid with speech output could be used.

**Interoperability: to reduce the need for built-in direct access.**
Direct access is the ability of a user to operate a product without the
need for assistive technology. Building direct access into products is
generally the most effective, least stigmatizing, most available, and
least expensive method of providing access to people with some types of
disabilities. For people with other types of disabilities, particularly
those with multiple and severe disabilities, it is sometimes not
practical to build direct access into mainstream products. The types of
interfaces required, such as dynamic Braille displays, electrodes,
sensors mounted on the wheelchair, etc., typically cannot be included as
standard parts for mainstream products. For these people, the best
approach may be to access mainstream products by controlling them with
special AT interfaces via a standard interconnection/control method.
This would require these users to have a special AT interface device.

The new and emerging wireless interconnectivity technologies and
universal remote console standards discussed earlier will enable people
needing a special interface to approach a device, link to it, and
operate it from their own interface. This could include most any device
in the home, work, or community, from a thermostat to office equipment.
Universal remote controllers could include any of the current and future
types of AT, including devices with Braille displays, sip and puff
controls, natural language interfaces, or some day, even direct-brain
interfaces. This type of connectivity in mainstream products also has
the mass market application of enabling control of products with voice
or intelligent agents.

**Flexible "any-modality" communication.** The trend toward multi-modal
communication (voice, video, chat) all using the same device, can be a
boon for individuals with sensory disabilities, especially individuals
who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, deaf-blind, or speech-impaired. If
"any-modality" communication can be implemented in mainstream
technologies with the same ubiquity as captions are on televisions,
individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing will be able to use almost
any phone. People who are deaf can use text mode. Those who are deaf but
can speak can use speech to talk, and then read the display on the phone
for text coming back to them. People who are hard of hearing can listen,
and have text displayed in parallel, or when they cannot understand.
Individuals who sign can use sign language, and individuals with
cognitive disabilities can use gestures and visual cues to facilitate
communication. If the evolving translation capabilities are added,
services in the network can change communication modality as needed.
Communicating with someone at a distance may be easier than
communicating face-to-face. Building these capabilities into mainstream
technologies also may greatly assist in the adoption and use of these
modalities by individuals who acquire disabilities as they age, by
reducing the stigma that would ordinarily be associated with using
*special* technologies.

Where these advances have demonstrable mainstream benefit, adoption will
be easier and faster. And, like closed captioning, will gain universal
acceptance and consumer demand. Only some accessibility features,
however, will have enough mainstream benefit to be introduced and be
maintained. For the rest, support and/or incentives must be provided.

### Opportunity 2: Better (Cheaper, More Effective) AT and New Types of AT

Technology advances will result in the improvement of current assistive
technologies and the introduction of entirely new types of AT. Some of
these technologies are realizable today. Some will emerge in the future.
But all should be considered when setting policy today -- due to the
very slow pace at which policy changes as compared to technology.

**Cost, size, and power.** The rapid advances being made every year in
reducing the size and increasing the power of electronic devices is
leading to smaller, less expensive, and more intelligent products. This
provides for a greater opportunity to create assistive technologies that
previously would have been too big or required too much power.

**Inexpensive technologies.** One concern regarding the use of personal
technologies by people with cognitive disabilities is the risk that the
products will be lost or stolen. With core functions being implemented
as services on the network, and technology costs dropping precipitously,
portable devices that could support cuing and other AT functions for
those with cognitive disabilities will soon be so inexpensive that they
can be easily replaced if lost. To reach these price points, however,
the devices will have to be based on common mainstream devices. As
speech and natural language-enabled technologies and intelligent agent
software improve, mainstream products that could be used in these ways
may be possible within the next decade.

**Wearable technologies.** The trend toward wearable technologies will
obviate the need for people with disabilities to carry devices, leaving
their hands free for other tasks. This will be particularly helpful for
people who use canes, walkers, and service animals, and generally
already have at least one hand in use. People who have a cognitive
disability that makes it difficult to remember such devices, and who
might therefore leave them behind, will also benefit from wearable
technologies. Network-based services can further reduce costs by putting
the intelligence and memory in the network and allow a new device to
pick up where the last one left off, without any need for reprogramming.
Very sophisticated communication and health-monitoring technologies can
now be worn on the wrist or woven into clothes, making them less likely
to be left behind. The trend is toward less expensive products with more
functions.

**Translating and transforming AT.** Information throughout the
environment is presented at a wide range of levels of complexity, which
can create difficulties for people with cognitive disabilities. As
researchers master the ability to create technology that can translate
between languages, including translation between more complex and
simpler languages, they are developing many of the tools needed to
translate between different levels of complexity and vocabularies within
the same language. These language translation technologies could be
adapted to translate between sign languages and spoken languages.

**A potential for new intelligent AT.** With rapidly shrinking
technologies, it will not be long before it is possible to implant
imaging devices into contact lenses, so that even individuals with good
vision could have enhanced vision, automated or human-based cuing on
demand, text that could be read aloud by looking at it, etc. Such
capabilities could be a boon to individuals with language, learning, or
cognitive disabilities. Already, there are cameras that will read text
when it is photographed, and concept glasses with built-in cameras that
perform face recognition of whomever a person looks at. With the use of
heuristics with increasing computing power, it is also possible to begin
thinking about assistive technologies that would take in a complex
display of information (e.g., all of the text visible down the corridor
at the shopping mall) and present it to a person in a coherent way.

**Human augmentation.** In addition to making the world more usable by
people with disabilities, advances in technology can also help enhance
the overall abilities of people with disabilities to better interact
with the world as they encounter it. Cochlear implants have been
available for some time, as have prosthetic limbs. Research is
progressing on artificial retinas. Advances in electronic imaging,
robotics, and computer processing promise advances in all of these
areas, enhancing people's basic abilities to access the world as they
encounter it.

These new imaging and processing technologies also open the door for
providing individuals with new and different ways to mitigate their
disability. For example, an artificial eye might be able to provide
enough vision for basic mobility, but not enough to read 10-point type.
The same artificial eye, however, could have a processor and optical
character recognition capability built in that could read any text the
person looked at. The text could be read, changed to speech, and
transmitted to a tiny earpiece. The person could then see a piece of
paper well enough to pick it up, use their residual vision to direct the
"reading" of the text, and have the text read into their ear. Using
network connectivity, they could also have it translated, enhanced, or
explained if needed. Combining technologies that mimic human abilities
and provide enhanced super-human function in a single implantable
prosthesis raises new opportunities and potentials for restoring
function that go beyond the ability to restore natural vision.

**Technologies that allow the unimaginable.** Individuals are already
using direct-brain control for rudimentary communication and
manipulation activities. However, this currently requires that the skull
be opened up and electrode arrays inserted. In the future, with advanced
signal processing, it may be possible to read the signals from outside
of the skull. Or, tiny sensors smaller than a blood cell might be
injected into the bloodstream. Under computer control, they would be
directed to swim to the brain, where they would position themselves,
forming a sensor net powered by body processes or radiated power. They
would provide a map of brain activity and feed it to an external sensor
worn on glasses or earpieces and connect to a network, enabling the user
to control the environment, drive a wheelchair, communicate, look up
information, etc. No surgery would be required, and a device could fail
without disrupting the network.

**Opportunity 3: Decrease net cost while increasing quality of life.**

Although the cost of technologies is continually decreasing, the cost is
not zero. Some assistive technologies may in fact be expensive. The cost
for some types of specialized technology could run to \$10,000 or more
(much more if it needs to be surgically implanted). The cost for failing
to make technology accessible to people with disabilities, however, can
be even higher. The 2005 average cost of nursing home care, for example,
was over \$60,000 a year for a semi-private room.[^34]^,^[^35] That
leaves quite a margin for technologies that would delay entry into a
nursing home by even 6 months or that could allow a person to live in a
semi-dependent living situation.

## Barriers, Concerns, and Issues

Rapidly advancing technologies provide a host of new opportunities.
However, they raise a number of issues and concerns as well. If not
addressed, technology advances can pose new barriers to people with
disabilities, including loss of access to products they had access to
before the advances in technology.

### 1) Technology Trends That Move Away From Accessible Interfaces Toward Inaccessible Interfaces

Many of the same technological advances that show great promise of
improved accessibility also have the potential for making previously
accessible products less accessible. The following are some emerging
technology trends that are causing accessibility problems.

**Increasing complexity of devices and user interfaces.** Products
continue to have new functions, capabilities and accompanying interface
complexity added to them. A recent industry survey showed that the rate
at which consumers are returning new products has been increasing, with
the "No Defect Found" return rate running 50 percent to as high as 90
percent + (depending on product category).[^36] These data are for
mainstream customers, but the impact of increasing complexity of
products on individuals with cognitive disabilities is even greater. As
a result, people with cognitive disabilities, including many seniors
with cognitive disabilities, are finding it increasingly difficult to
find appliances or products they can operate.

**The trend toward digital controls.** One problem for people with
severe visual disabilities is the use of touch screens, soft keys, and
display-based interfaces. Instead of knobs or dials that have a fixed
function, the functions of the knobs or buttons may change from one
moment to the next. The current function controlled by the button is
usually displayed on the screen near the control. The use of scrolling
cursors on on-screen menus is increasing. Products are becoming more
complex, requiring individuals to think in terms of hierarchical menus.
This type of product interface also requires users to operate controls
with one hand while they are watching the display, which is difficult
for those with certain cognitive disabilities and those without good
motor control. In addition, these types of products provide an absolute
barrier to individuals who are blind. Many people who are blind, who
have used their own home appliances independently, are suddenly losing
the ability to use their stove, washer, or dryer, as old models have to
be replaced, and the only products now available use digital displays
instead of tactile controls.

**Devices too small and closed to physically adapt.** The move toward
miniaturization and device consolidation is leading to devices that are
increasingly difficult to handle and operate. For example, where once
there were a few very small phones, now most phones are very small and
are harder to pick up and operate. Even the remote controls on
televisions and audio equipment are getting smaller. Some have buttons
that are very close together or have flat, tactilely featureless
surfaces. While some people may prefer small products, the problem
arises when there is neither an alternate way to operate these products
nor alternate versions of the products that can be handled and used more
easily.

**Closed/Locked systems.** Problems also arise from closed systems that
do not provide any alternate control mechanism. Increasingly, concern
about security and/or digital rights management is resulting in products
that are physically closed and have closed software. That is, the
products cannot be opened, and no hardware or software can be added to
them. E-book readers that do not allow access to the book text (so that
it can be read by screen reading software) and that allow publishers to
turn off the native text reading capabilities of the e-book readers is
one example.[^37] AT cannot read the text, and the e-books' built-in
reading feature is purposely disabled by the book publisher. The result
is that, for those who cannot see or read well enough to read the visual
text, access (built-in or AT) is denied. Computers in libraries and
other shared use locations are another example of a closed system
barrier to access. The personal computer is ordinarily thought of as
being open, but it is typically \"locked down\" in a library so that
users are not able to add software, peripherals, etc. Systems that are
closed must have built-in accessibility or provide some mechanism for
access through an alternate interface. The same problem exists in
university computer labs. Information Services departments that do not
want any foreign software installed, or hardware attached to machines,
because of the risk of virus or security breaches, are yet another
common example.

**The trend toward automated and self-service devices in public
places.** The trend toward replacing ticket agents, cashiers,
information personnel, and salespersons with less expensive ticketing,
vending, cash, and information kiosks will continue as such terminals
become more intelligent. In some cases these information-transaction
machines operate alongside their human counterparts. In other cases,
humans are completely removed from the scene and replaced by such
information-transaction machines. For obvious reasons these machines are
designed so that users cannot modify them. Automatic, self-service
technology must be designed with a wide range of disabilities in mind,
or people with disabilities no longer will have access to these
ticketing, vending, cash or information services. NCD's 2006 position
paper, *Access to Airline Self-Service Kiosk Systems,* describes the
current problems people with vision impairments are experiencing in air
travel due to inaccessible self-service ticket kiosks. [^38]

**The trend away from face-to-face interaction.** This trend takes two
forms. The first is the replacement of information and support people
with automation. Interactive voice response systems (IVRs), Internet
help pages that replace product support, and the above-mentioned
information and transaction machines are examples of the move away from
face-to-face customer service. Such systems are usually designed for
individuals who do not have disabilities, and do not accommodate the
variations that people with disabilities present. Interactive voice
response systems (IVRs), for example, often are not operable in text
mode. And if the person who is deaf accesses them through a relay
operator, the additional communication delays often cause the IVRs to
time out. Inaccessible Web pages can cause a similar problem for
individuals who must rely upon technical support available solely
through this medium, with no way to contact a human being.

The move away from face-to-face interaction is not occurring solely in
information services. Education, commerce, work, and even social
interaction are moving to the Web and to computer-mediated
telecommunication forms. Universities are offering increasing numbers of
educational programs via the Internet. Companies allow or require people
to work from their homes or remote offices. Even when people are on the
same campus, interactions and some types of work activities may be
available only via computers and intranets. Some stores have been closed
and moved to the Web. Some stores and businesses exist only on the Web.

The fact that all of these activities are now computer mediated can
potentially be a great benefit to individuals who have disabilities.
Computer mediation of the information and interactions makes it easier
to translate the information into forms that people with sensory or
learning disabilities can use. Such systems can also be far more usable
by those with mobility impairments. However, if these systems and
services are not accessible, many important aspects of society, such as
education, work, and activities of daily living, will become
inaccessible. Moreover, as things such as technical support and certain
products and services become available exclusively via the Internet,
they become unavailable to those unable to access those websites.

### 2) Technology Advancing Into Forms Not Compatible with Assistive Technology 

The second major concern is that the incorporation of some new
technologies into products is causing the products to advance and change
so fast that current accessibility techniques and strategies cannot keep
pace. The rapid churn of mainstream technologies is faster than
assistive technology development, and even mainstream technologies that
are inherently accessible to a particular group can quickly churn out of
the marketplace. To complicate the situation further, the convergence of
functions is being accompanied by a divergence of implementation. The
same functions are being implemented on different products using
different technologies and/or standards, and interoperability between AT
and mainstream technology exists only in a few areas and is not strong
even there. Thus, the gap between the mainstream technology products
being introduced and the availability of assistive technologies
necessary to make them accessible will be increasing, as will the number
of technologies for which no accessibility adaptations are available.

**Convergence of function, but divergence of implementation.** Much is
said about the convergence of technologies, such as the melding of IT
and telecommunications functions into a single device. However, a
seldom-discussed issue is that the technologies, and standards used to
implement them, are diverging. Different industries are creating
converged technologies, but each is implementing them in different, and
not always compatible, ways. For example, telephony, music, messaging,
and television used to be four separate industries, each with its own
technologies. Now all four industries are morphing into the others --
but using different technologies to do so. Cellular telephones began
with voice, and then text messaging was added. The ability to play music
and share pictures came next. And now, with phones, users can download
and watch television programs or pick up broadcasts.

Instant message software began with text messaging, and then voice was
added, using a different technology than in cell phones or in VoIP
phones. Video was then added, again using a different standard. New
functions continue to be added.

Music players originally played only music, but now, using a variety of
formats, they have branched into downloading and playing television
programs. Voice communication is soon to follow, although it will
probably use existing cell phone standards or perhaps VoIP. Messaging
will likely accompany voice communication, using one of the several
incompatible text protocols.

Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) began as simply Internet-based
television. However, it, too, is rapidly expanding into music and
telecommunications. If one is developing technologies on the Internet
for broadcasting voice and video, why not also do point-to-point voice
and video, or video phone calls? This is currently being developed
within the IPTV structure -- using yet another, different set of
technologies and standards.

Even though what stands out at first glance is the convergence of
functions into single devices, a more careful look reveals the
divergence. For example, different methods, technologies and standards
are being developed for voice communication. The result is an
ever-increasing variety of technologies being used for voice, video,
text, music, and delivery of television programs. However, few of these
interoperate, and often the only common point they have is that the
voice call function will work with the PSTN (public switched telephone
network). Even within each of these domains there are competing
standards. Those forms that are critical for mainstream use (voice, and
perhaps video) will interoperate due to market pressures (i.e., any
voice networks that are formed will interoperate because hearing people
insist on being able to call each other). However, individuals who are
deaf do not have the same degree of market clout, and have fewer choices
about how they communicate with others. They may even be limited to
communications only with others who have the same type of technology, or
even the same device. Accessibility provisions designed for one medium
(text communication on phones, captions on television) may be different
or not extend to the same functions on other technology.

**Lack of interoperability.** The ability to patch mainstream technology
(with modifications or AT) is limited both by the very fast churn rate
and the increasingly closed nature of mainstream technology. Two
strategies for access should therefore be increasingly relied upon:
built-in accessibility and built-in interoperability. If mechanisms that
allow the substitution of other interfaces are provided, systems that
are otherwise \"closed\" can still be \"open\" for accessibility. For
example, products with USB connectors that can be used to connect
generic USB \"human interface devices\" (HID) interfaces, such as
keyboards and mice, allow users to easily substitute alternative
keyboards or mice. Moreover, these USB interface devices work across
hardware and operating systems. For anyone who needs more interface
modification than this, however, interoperability standards are
non-existent, weak, or not supported. Several interoperability standards
efforts have been launched but have faded and disappeared. One new
interoperability standard is the universal remote console (URC)
framework, which has been adopted as a family of ANSI standards
(ANSI/INCITS 389-2005 through 393-2005) and is currently being developed
as an ISO standard (ISO 24752). The standard allows for the operation of
electronic products (even "closed" products) via other devices, which
can present an alternate, accessible interface. However, concern by
companies over product identity (the interface is what the person sees
every day and develops a loyalty to) may hamper the adoption of such
\"alternative interface\" standards in mainstream products.

**Delay in accessibility when new technologies are announced.** The lack
of any systematic accessibility guidelines creates problems whenever any
new technology is announced. Guidelines that are technology-specific
will not be applicable to new technologies. Some recent examples:

> CAPTCHA -- When SPAM first started invading computer systems, CAPTCHAs
> were developed to help distinguish the software visitors from real
> visitors. Unfortunately, the initial and most common form was a visual
> character identification task that inadvertently prevented individuals
> who are blind from accessing any site that is protected by them. Only
> much later were alternatives developed.
>
> DVD Menus -- DVDs may contain movies with audio descriptions. However,
> audible access to the menus must also be provided in order for a user
> to take advantage of the audio description. Currently, for most DVDs,
> the user must have vision to be able to select the audio description
> from the menu.
>
> CITRIX -- This was an NT terminal service that allowed people to run
> software on thin client workstations. Used in the workplace, it
> lowered costs but provided no access for screen reader users, since
> all images and text on the screen were bitmapped images.
>
> Cell Phones -- These have quickly evolved from simple phones to
> devices with extensive menu-based functions. However, if people who
> are blind have no access to the menus, they cannot tell when they are
> making a free call or roaming at \$1 a minute, and are unable to
> determine the battery charge or signal strength. The phones have had
> all of the hardware necessary for voice output, but it was not
> implemented, even as an option, until a complaint was filed with the
> FCC. The software was then changed in a phone that had already been on
> the market for over a year and the same phone with talking menus and
> text-to-speech reading of messages became available for \$29.95 if a
> service plan was also being purchased.[^39]
>
> Hearing Aid Compatibility and Cell Phones -- When the Hearing Aid
> Compatibility Act of 1988 was passed, an exception was made for cell
> phones because they were little used at the time. As digital phones
> were introduced they created severe interference for hearing aid
> users. Because of the 1988 exception, industry did not do anything to
> make these phones compatible during the initial stage of design.
> Although some research was conducted after consumers filed an FCC
> petition in 1995 to require hearing aid compatibility, the lack of
> progress on this issue over the next five years prompted consumers to
> return to the FCC in 2000 with urgent pleas for corrective action.
> Progress on compatibility did not begin until 2003, long after the
> introduction of digital phones, when the FCC approved a schedule by
> which certain percentages of wireless phones would have to be hearing
> aid compatible. By this time 88 percent of all wireless telephone
> subscribers used digital services.

**History Repeated.** As we move forward, the same pattern is being
repeated. New technologies, without accessibility, are being introduced.
Only when their use becomes widespread do we require accessibility.
However, by then, retrofitting accessibility is more complicated, more
expensive (sometimes ***much*** more expensive), and often less
effective than if accessibility had been included in the original design
and specifications.

The same pattern is being repeated in digital homes, biometrics,
e-government, VoIP, digital rights management (DRM) in digital media,
Web 2.0, Next Generation Network (NGN), and digital television (beyond
captions and audio descriptions).

### 3) Technology Advancing Into Forms Not Covered by Accessibility Rules 

Another barrier is created when a type of product is covered under
accessibility laws, but the product or product function evolves into a
new technology and accessibility provisions no longer apply or are no
longer effective. Some examples of the ways this can happen are:

**Technology changing faster than regulations that govern it**. Current
legislative and regulatory framework is structured around particular
types of technology. Rules apply to the built environment,
transportation, telecommunications, and information technology. It is
now becoming clear that the lines between these technologies are
blurring. If two people make a phone call using the phone in their
kitchen, and one is connected to the PSTN while the other is connected
via the Internet, is it a phone call? High speed broadband Internet
services were ruled by the FCC to be information services and generally
not covered under telecommunications laws.

Recently, the FCC ruled that interconnected VoIP services (i.e., those
that connect to the PSTN), must comply with certain telecommunications
regulations, including those requiring emergency call handling and the
submission of one's facilities to electronic surveillance. Most of the
remaining telecommunications requirements, including those requiring
accessibility, however, have not been applied to these new technologies,
because the FCC has determined that VoIP is not a telecommunication
service. People who switched from their local provider to their cable
provider for phone service, using the same phones in their houses,
suddenly were no longer covered by the telecommunications accessibility
standards and protections. In the future, when people call family or
colleagues using IPTV, and share with them video documents while they
talk with them, will this be television, telecommunications, or
information technology?

If classrooms with built-in tele-collaboration walls allow the class to
take place in multiple locations, thus allowing better educational
opportunities in rural areas, is this access to a built environment,
information technology, or telecommunications?

Currently, there are gaps in our laws that require only certain things
in certain environments to be accessible. These gaps will increase as
new product types are developed. In addition, the shifting of functions
into different technology types, such as phone calls now being made over
the Internet and soon to be made using television sets, rather than just
using the PSTN, will result in functions once protected by accessibility
regulations, that are no longer protected. A model based on function
versus technology and a model that is uniform across technologies is
needed. For example, instead of regulations that apply only to
telephones, access regulations should apply to any technology used for
telecommunications.

**Access requirements tied to technologies that become obsolete, with no
requirements for access to new forms of technology**. TTYs and
captioning are two primary examples. The purpose of the TTY is to allow
individuals who are deaf to communicate in text over phone networks. In
IP networks, the TTY often doesn't work, and other IP text standards
have been developed. However, without a requirement for text
conversation technologies in IP-based voice telephony (VoIP), deaf
people may be excluded from this communication modality as the world
shifts from PSTN to VoIP. Perpetuation of the technology-specific TTY
(Baudot code) will not serve them, because of connection, transport, and
other problems. What is needed is a generic requirement for a reliable
real-time text conversation capability wherever there is voice. This can
then be combined with a requirement to interoperate with legacy PSTN
text formats and with text in other interconnected voice and text
conversation technologies. This would provide a requirement for the
function desired without tying it to past technologies. Similarly,
captions are currently encoded within the TV signal. However, that part
of the signal would not exist on IPTV or when TV shows are downloaded or
streamed from the Internet, so those regulations are ineffective.
Restricting captioning requirements to one or a few particular
transmission format(s) will result in growing gaps and for some - no
coverage.

**Funding for old paradigms implemented in new ways.** Accessibility
challenges can arise when there is a loss of funding for previously
covered services as new technologies are utilized. For example,
reimbursement for telemedicine can be problematic. Telemedicine holds
great potential for individuals with mobility disabilities --
particularly in rural areas. However, third party payers are not
reimbursing for telemedicine services the same as for in-person medical
services.

Another example is artificial personal assistants. As artificial
personal assistants become real, effective, and cost-effective, will
they be reimbursable? If people can live more independent, less
expensive, and more productive lives with occasional tele-coaching or
security monitoring, would artificial assistants be covered by private
insurers or Medicare and Medicaid? Or would assistance and mentoring
services not be reimbursed unless the person moves into a nursing home?

Another constraint can arise when funding for mainstream technologies is
used to meet an AT need. If mainstream technologies can be repurposed to
meet the needs of a person who has a disability better than
purpose-built assistive technologies, will they be reimbursable to the
same extent and in the same manner as purpose-built assistive
technologies?

**Open vs. content-constrained Internet connections.** There is
currently much debate about whether those who provide Internet
connections to a house, or other location, should be able to control the
types of information sent to the house, by whom, and at what level of
quality connection. What if those who provide the connection are allowed
to decide who will be able to provide information to the house (e.g.,
video and telephony) or are allowed to limit high performance connection
to specific suppliers? If, for a given household, the access or
performance preference is determined by the Internet provider to be
Company A, and a person in that household who has a disability needs
products from Company B (because Company B carries the accessible
product), the person could be prevented from obtaining the Company B
product by the Internet provider's policy. Similarly, if the person
needs to use an alternate technology provided by Company C, he or she
may find its performance is degraded, causing accessibility problems or
even blocked access. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that
individuals may have to use their technologies from multiple locations
and not just from their homes. Absent consumer choice, a person with a
disability may not be able to call from any house but their own. Unless
the Internet operates more like the public road system, where
individuals are allowed to take any vehicle that meets safety standards
onto the road, rather than having to drive only certain companies\'
vehicles on certain roads or to certain locations, individuals who must
rely on accessible versions of technologies will run into problems.

**Digital rights management (DRM).** A very interesting sub-area in this
discussion is digital rights management. While the need to protect the
rights of those who publish things is critical, the ability to allow
access for people with disabilities must be addressed as well. If
content is to be locked so that it cannot be copied electronically, then
some mechanism for rendering it in different forms should be built into
the secure digital media players. For example, if a digital book can be
presented visually but the text can not be read by the operating system
(so that assistive technology such as screen readers could read it
aloud), then a mechanism within the book player for enlarging it and
reading it aloud should be provided. Technologically, this is not a
problem, and voice synthesizers with speed control can be, and have
been, built into the e-Book products directly. A marketing policy,
however, whereby publishing companies sell the print (visual access)
rights for a book to one distributor but the audio (spoken) rights for
the book to another, has created an obstacle. Book player companies have
been required to support a bit in their players that, when set by a book
publisher, will prevent the voice output option in the book player from
functioning. Thus, even though the book reader is capable of reading the
book to the blind person, it will not perform that function if the book
publisher sets the bit that tells the book reader to not read this book
aloud. The same book is also protected so that it cannot be read by any
other technology.

Interestingly, advances in optical character recognition and imaging
technologies may cause a shift in digital rights management. However, if
audio access is tied to marketing preferences, then the problem is
likely to persist and must be addressed. This will be especially
important with the rapidly aging population that has increasing
difficulty seeing print media.

**Assistive technologies that exceed human abilities.** It is well known
that although wheelchair users have trouble with stairs and other
obstacles, they out-perform people who are walking on smooth surfaces.
For example, in the Boston Marathon the women\'s wheelchair champion
(1:43:42) was 20 percent faster than the men\'s running champion
(2:07:14). And people who use power chairs and, sometimes, manual
chairs, must travel more slowly when walking with someone who is on
foot. We wouldn\'t think of only funding wheelchairs that went as fast
as people walk, but funding limitations have been placed on the purchase
of some communication and writing aids that went beyond basic speech or
writing capabilities. For example, there have been cases in which a
device that only provided speech output was reimbursable, but a general
purpose laptop that was cheaper, and that also provided speech output
was not reimbursable. How will this be dealt with when we get to human
augmentation, artificial vision, etc.? Like the wheelchair, these
technologies are likely to be inferior in some respects but superior in
others. Will they be considered assistive technology or performance
enhancement? In competitions, the answer is clearer, but, as we have
seen with the ADA case involving whether a golfer with a mobility
impairment could use a golf cart during competitions,[^40]still tricky.
The broader question will come with the provision of assistive
technologies for activities of daily living, education, and work. If the
devices restore function up to the level of that of people without
disabilities, there would likely be no problem. But what if in providing
devices to offset disability, the device gave super-human ability? Would
this be covered by rehabilitation programs, government programs or
insurance? What if someone with a disability wanted an enhancement in
another ability, in order to be more employable? If this could be
accomplished via training, would it be covered? Would it be covered if
it were augmentation? How is it different? Why is it different? Should
it be covered?

### 4) Definitions of Disability, Assistive Technology, and Universal Design

Rapidly evolving technologies might cause a rethinking of the
definitions of disability, assistive technology, and universal design.
At a minimum, they may change the way these words are used and how they
are interpreted in legislation, regulation, and eligibility policy.

**Definition of Disability.** If a person is blind and gets an
artificial retina/eye, is he or she no longer blind? Does it depend on
quality of vision achieved? Would one qualify for training with the new
eye if he or she can see fine but doesn\'t know how to interpret what is
seen? Does the person qualify for accommodation? Other services? Can the
person drive? Will new eye tests for driving be required? What if the
eye fails a year later? Does the person qualify for a new eye? Or does
the person have to wait for some period of months or years in a "blind"
condition before again being classified as "disabled?"

A person may, in the future, be outfitted with a cybernetic eye,
enabling the person to see general shapes for walking, to zoom in with
image stabilization to read letters, and to employ OCR to read text.
Assuming the person can now pass current eye tests and read any text, is
the person blind? Can the person drive? Does the person qualify as
blind? If the person qualified for government or insurance funding for
the original cybernetic eye, and is now no longer "disabled" will the
person qualify for an upgrade or replacement when it fails?

**Definition of Assistive Technology (AT).** Currently, there are many
definitions for "assistive technology." Some definitions focus on
products that are purpose-built for people with disabilities. Other
definitions refer to any technologies, including mainstream technologies
that are used by a person with a disability to help offset the
disability.

The definition is not always important, but may be in the case of
deciding whether funding, tax breaks, or accommodations apply. Is an
accessible mainstream product considered to be AT for this purpose? Is a
feature in a mainstream product that makes things accessible considered
to be AT or universal design (UD)? If there were an AT deduction for
people who must buy AT to offset their disability, would mainstream
technology that is accessible qualify? Some of it? All of it? None of
it? If not and it does the same thing as an AT product would -- why not?

**Universal Design / Accessible Mainstream Technologies.** Universal
design is usually defined as a process, not as a thing or outcome.
Universal design is the process of creating products that are usable by
as wide a range of people as is commercially possible.

There is telecommunication legislation that requires products to be
accessible when doing so is "readily achievable." When doing so is not
\"readily achievable,\" the legislation requires that products be
compatible with assistive technology if that is \"readily achievable.\"
So when is something directly accessible vs. accessible via AT?

Cell phones today have features such as ring-tones or special
capabilities, such as GPS navigation, that can be selected and activated
from a menu on the phone. Sometimes these features are already in the
phone. Sometimes they are downloaded into the phone only when selected.
Sometimes the user gets the feature for free (if included in the price
of the phone and service). Sometimes the user pays for the features.
Sometimes the feature is provided by the phone or service provider.
Sometimes it is provided by a third party.

Now let's assume that the feature in question is an accessibility
feature.

-   If it is in the phone -- is it an accessible product ("built-in"
    accessibility)?

-   If it is downloaded -- is it built-in or AT?

-   If the user can\'t tell that it is downloaded and it is free --
    isn't it "built-in" for all intents and purposes?

-   If the user has to pay for it -- isn't it then AT? No matter who
    provides it? (It is an add-on that must be purchased separately to
    make the phone accessible.)

-   What if other people also have use of it -- but have to pay for it?
    Would people with disabilities also have to pay for it? Is it AT
    then? Is it just another product that happens to be accessible? Is
    that true even if it is only a convenience for others but it is the
    only way that a user with a disability can use the phone?

If these questions are examined carefully, one can see that the same
feature on the same product might be considered AT or accessible design
depending on who uses it, how they use it, and who has to pay for it.

**Why do we Care?** Definitions are academic unless they are used to
legislate, to regulate, or to fund. Unfortunately, all of the above
terms are used in all of these ways (e.g., program eligibility, funding,
tax breaks, etc.).

No ready solution presents itself for this problem except perhaps to
move away from a model that focuses on types of devices and
categorization and toward a model based on function and the role of
devices.

Part of the solution may be achieved by defining terms in a way that is
specific to the context rather than expecting a "one definition fits
all" approach for each concept.

### 5) Central Role of the Business Case 

Finally, there should be a broader recognition of the importance of the
"business case." This report focuses on new technologies and how they
can benefit people with disabilities. None of these technologies will
benefit anyone unless they are built into products, made available, and
supported. And none of that will occur in any reliable or sustained
fashion unless individuals within companies can make a business case for
each feature.

Net profit is the primary reason products make it to the marketplace and
remain on the market, and the primary reason ideas carry forward from
one version of a product to other products. This is not specific to
disability issues. It is true of every aspect of every product. It is
often remarked that the problem is that companies care about nothing but
profit-- usually with a negative connotation. It is important to note
that almost all of the companies involved in information and
communication technologies are publicly traded companies, and the
"owners who care about nothing but profit" are the public stockholders.
Those who own stocks or have pensions usually ask nothing of their stock
or pension managers except that they maximize return (profit, pension
value, etc.). Environmental and sweatshop issues may sometimes impact
shareholders' decisions, but there are no stakeholder directives to
companies to "make accessible products" or "do good things for people
who have disabilities." Profit, therefore, should be viewed in the same
way one views gravity. It is neither good nor bad. It simply is. It is a
force, and a very critical force, that drives industry and makes our
economy work.

If a goal of our society is to have products that are accessible to and
usable by people with disabilities, then some way must be found to make
products that exhibit these characteristics generate significantly more
net revenue for a company than products that do not. Business cases come
from significant market demand or significant, enforced regulation --
both of which affect the bottom line or net profit.

In some cases, more accessible and usable products will have a large
enough market to generate their own business case. Where the
technologies or techniques can be demonstrated to industry and shown to
be more profitable than other design options or investments, the
features or capabilities will become available through natural market
forces. For a large portion of the population with disabilities,
however, natural market forces have not and will not result in
accessibility features in mainstream products over time.[^41] [^42]

Regulation is society's way of injecting social value into the business
equation.[^43] [^44] Regulations can make it more profitable to create
accessible products by rewarding accessibility with sales. No
regulations are effective, however, without enforcement. Without
enforcement there is no economic incentive to follow accessibility
guidelines. In fact, there is a disincentive because companies that
focus on accessibility worry that, while they are spending time and
effort on accessibility, their competitors are spending their resources
on other activities.[^45] Enforcement of accessibility regulations has
the effect of leveling the playing field. Companies that invest in
accessibility know that their competitors must also be focusing on
accessibility. Laws and regulations such as Section 508, when enforced,
provide a competitive advantage to those who have more accessible
products.

Section 508 has had a decided and positive, if somewhat limited effect
on accessibility of electronic and information technology (E&IT) and on
the willingness of E&IT companies to work with assistive technology
vendors. However, the lack of enforcement of Section 508, the inability
of purchasing agents to be able to judge the relative accessibility of
the various products in the market, and the lack of any certification of
compliance by companies have greatly reduced the potential impact of
Section 508. The current voluntary product accessibility template (VPAT)
does not provide a reliable way to determine conformance to 508, since
purchasing agents cannot tell the difference between a VPAT that has
been filled out with carefully considered information, and those that
have not. Even when accurate, the VPAT only provides information that
"relates" to each provision, but does not certify that the product meets
any of the 508 provisions. This is left to the purchasing agents who do
not have the time or the training to determine 508 compliance for each
product type they procure. As a result, the primary enforcement agent
(the purchasing agent) does not have the information necessary to know
for certain if a product meets (fully or partially) any of the Section
508 provisions. Some mechanism for providing the purchasing agent with
reliable assertions of conformance to the individualism provisions of
508 is needed for the Section 508 to be effective.

Regulations that are subject to strict enforcement and that have
significant impact also result in better compliance. Regulations that
are not enforced have little or no effect. In the electronic and
information technology field, one can watch the efforts and teams in
companies grow and shrink regularly in direct proportion to enforcement
or perceived or anticipated enforcement.

To have more accessible information and communication technologies, we
should provide the means for building a solid business case for those
companies and employees who want to have more accessible products.
Strong enforcement is one key element for this.

**Issues for Action**

There are many recommendations that could be made to minimize barriers
and maximize opportunities inherent in the technology trends discussed
above. Most can be found in other reports on this topic from NCD and
others, such as NCD's 2004 report, *Design for Inclusion: Creating a New
Marketplace*[^46] and *Within Our Reach: Findings and Recommendations of
the National Task Force on Technology and Disability*.[^47]

Seven key action items are highlighted here.

### #1 - Maximize the effectiveness of assistive technologies and lower their cost -- in order to maximize people\'s general abilities and independence. Key strategies: Foster results-oriented R & D all the way to commercial availability.

Advancing technologies provide an opportunity to improve existing
assistive technologies and to create entirely new types of AT not
previously possible. Where these assistive technologies can restore
function and allow individuals to work or live independently, or live
more independently longer, the benefits and cost savings both to the
individual and to society can be very significant. With a rapidly aging
society, improving access to technology is becoming increasingly
important. Providing access is shifting from a social issue to an
economic issue.

-   An inexpensive hand-held text reader could be developed using the
    same technologies that are rapidly shrinking in cost and size. About
    the size of a candy bar, the text reader could be held or waved over
    any text that then would be read to the user in a logical fashion. A
    pill bottle could be scanned, enabling individuals with low vision
    to confirm the dosage and check that the medication is for them. Any
    printed text could be made accessible.

-   Advanced GPS combined with RFID tags in the environment could be
    used by anyone wanting better navigation, even inside buildings. GPS
    can be found in cell phones that sell for \$69 with phone plans. One
    can envision a cell phone that could be programmed to guide anyone,
    including those with vision or cognitive disabilities, directly to
    the door of an office.

-   Many individuals who are deaf communicate primarily in sign
    language, which has syntax quite different from English syntax. As a
    result, the written text of some deaf people can have grammatical
    mistakes much different than those of native English speakers.
    Grammar-checking software checks for common grammar errors made by
    people who speak. Development of a tool that will correct the
    written grammar of individuals who rely on sign language as their
    primary mode of communication would be a great educational aid,
    improve their written communication, and open up conversation with
    non-signing speakers.

-   Practical devices to enhance the functioning of a person's language,
    learning, and cognitive disabilities have been limited to date.
    However, the sheer processing power that will soon be available,
    together with the ability to always be connected, and the shrinking
    size of devices, may make possible completely new approaches to
    providing assistance in this area.

-   When the FCC asked for comments on its proposal to provide
    additional spectrum for use by new medical devices, it noted:
    "Implanted or body-worn devices in the future could enable paralyzed
    individuals to control artificial limbs by thought, through wireless
    interfaces between brain, nerve and muscle. The vision-impaired
    might have some degree of visual ability restored with the help of a
    microchip placed in the back of the eye. Even today, implanted vagus
    nerve stimulators that send electric pulses to the brain are being
    used to treat severe chronic depression. Tremors related to
    Parkinson\'s disease are being treated with deep brain stimulation
    implants. With other new types of implants, such as insulin pumps,
    physicians could wirelessly retrieve data and then make operating
    parameter adjustments with greater ease and accuracy than with the
    more traditional wired connection technologies, and in some cases,
    changes can be effected immediately by computer control. For health
    care providers and patients, such wireless implant monitoring
    technologies have the potential to lower medical costs by extending
    the time between hospital visits and surgical procedures."

    Funding is needed to explore and develop emerging technologies that
    can be used to improve assistive technologies for people with
    disabilities.

    Advances in AT make it possible for many more people to access the
    environment as they encounter it. This is particularly important for
    those with more severe or multiple disabilities, where creating
    accessible mainstream technology that addresses their needs is not
    always possible. Aids that can provide individuals with the ability
    to see, hear, read, navigate, and control things with their thoughts
    have all been demonstrated at least on a rudimentary level.
    Maximizing the abilities of people with disabilities will reduce the
    barriers encountered in the environment. This is particularly
    important for people with severe or multiple disabilities since
    building direct access into products for people with severe or
    multiple disabilities can often be a challenge.

### #2 - Maximize the accessibility of mainstream information and communication technology products, so that people with disabilities and seniors can use standard products as they encounter them. Key strategies: Increase funding for research, proof of concept, and commercial hardening of approaches to accessible design of mainstream products to advance understanding in this area; craft accessibility regulations to help employees build business cases. 

Although assistive technologies can enhance the abilities of some people
to access and use the environment, the strategy of adapting individual
mainstream technologies is limited to those technologies that are within
an individual person's control. Even then the rapid rate of technology
advancement is moving beyond the ability of AT to keep up in many or
most areas. Far and away the most desirable situation would be for
everyone to directly access and use mainstream technologies effectively
and efficiently. People with disabilities and seniors want to use the
same products that everyone else uses. They do not want to be limited to
specialized products that are more costly and often, less functional.
This isn't always possible, but it is the most economical mechanism for
people who have limitations, and for society as a whole. In fact, given
the aging population, this is not just a social imperative but an
economic one as well. Additional funding is needed for research to
develop better strategies for building accessibility into mainstream
products and for quantifying when and where built-in accessibility can
provide a significant return on investment.

Broad application and enforcement of existing accessibility standards,
such as Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Section
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, would result in the
widespread adoption of universal design principles into the mainstream
technology marketplace. This could be accomplished by lowering the
hurdles to filing complaints, carrying out enforcement actions more
quickly, and providing expert guidance and examples. The "sufficient
techniques" approach discussed below is one way to provide such guidance
and examples. One important step would be to move from a declaration to
a certification model. That is, rather than companies simply stating
what they have done to make their product accessible, without any
warranty as to whether it meets the standards, companies would certify
which accessibility provisions the product meets and which it does not.
Purchasing agents and other customers are currently not able to evaluate
whether products meet accessibility standards because different vendors
now provide different types of information, using different terminology,
to describe features on their products. They also use different
standards for "meeting" a provision. As part of the design process,
vendors should carefully evaluate their products against accessibility
standards, and report which access provisions are met. This would make
it much easier for purchasing agents to apply accessibility provisions
in the purchasing process. Companies that can accurately evaluate the
accessibility of their products should not be forced to use third-party
certification services. As in many other areas, companies should be
allowed to self-certify, provided they furnish supporting evidence and
information sufficient to enable purchasers to know whether a product
meets a particular access standard.

Purchasing requirements ("pull" regulations) seem to fit best with the
business model. Expanding the use of Section 508-like purchase
requirements into markets other than the Federal Government, could have
a strong effect on the availability of mainstream products usable by
people who have disabilities, including those who are seniors. Expanding
beyond just E&IT is also important. Again, rather than mandating that
all products manufactured must meet accessibility standards ("push"
regulations), a better place to start might be with "pull" regulations,
where products that are purchased for use in certain environments, such
as for use by state and local governments, public schools, and entities
that receive government financial assistance, would be required to meet
accessibility regulations. This would motivate companies to add
accessibility features to their products in order to better compete in
these markets, but yet allows for the sale of products outside of these
markets. A tipping effect can occur over time in a more natural fashion.
This works better for mass market products where one product is
manufactured and sold both to the government and to the public. It does
not work as well for services or products that are built individually
for different customers. It also does not work as well for products not
used by governments, public schools, or by entities receiving government
financial assistance. "Push" regulations would be required for markets
not reached by \"pull\" regulations, or when "pull" regulations do not
prove to be effective.

### #3 - Ensure that access to the Internet and other virtual environments is provided, as it has been to physical places of public accommodation. 

### Because the Web as we know it did not exist when accessibility laws were written, this important area was not specifically mentioned in accessibility laws. Yet the world is changing rapidly and more and more education, socializing, daily living, commerce and employment are being carried out using network-based services. Some stores already appear exclusively on the Internet. Many specialty shops have disappeared altogether, especially in smaller communities. The only way to secure some types of products or services is over the Internet. Employees work remotely, connecting through the Internet. Colleges teach some courses in this fashion. Many other courses assume or require that students access information or carry out exercises via the Internet. 

Since these virtual environments did not exist at the time the original
accessibility laws such as the ADA were written, these technologies and
environments were not mentioned specifically in the Act. NCD analyzed
the issue of the ADA\'s applicability to the internet in its 2003
publication *Application of the ADA to the Internet and the Worldwide
Web*,[^48] and concluded that the ADA does apply to the internet.

Courts have not been consistent in their approach to this issue,
however, and individuals with disabilities have had to resort to
litigation for resolution of the matter. Some companies that have been
sued for inaccessible websites argue that since these virtual
environments did not exist at the time the original accessibility laws
such as the ADA were written, the intent was to cover businesses'
physical facilities only, not their websites. One such suit is pending
in the Ninth Circuit.[^49] The Internet and other virtual environments
that exist, or may evolve, such as intranets and other networks and
virtual environments, are becoming central to almost every activity in
life and a powerful tool in enabling individuals with disabilities to
live productively and independently.

### #4 - Address new barriers to the accessibility of digital media caused by digital rights management (DRM), including when visual and audio rights are sold separately. 

We are moving toward digital publication of most of our information.
This has great potential for increasing the accessibility of information
through flexibility of presentation. However, the combination of digital
rights management (an important reality), marketing practices, such as
selling visual and audio rights separately, and the lack of built-in
accessibility is causing severe access barriers. Mechanisms and/or
legislative changes are needed to address these new barriers. Opening up
media to allow it to be electronically read may introduce piracy issues;
thus, requirements for access to be built into players may be necessary.
However, allowing individuals who have disabilities to legally and
effectively access digital media using their own tools would be more
effective for some, especially individuals who are deaf, blind, or deaf
and blind, where including access features like a Braille display into
every player may not be practical. Working with vendors of mainstream
DRM devices to allow access via those special assistive technologies may
be a solution. The issue of publishers blocking access by permanently
turning off built-in accessibility features (example: "reading aloud"
features) on a book-by-book basis must also be addressed.

#5 - Base all policy regarding information and communication technology
(ICT) accessibility on a realization of the importance of the business
case. Where a solid business case cannot be built based on market forces
alone, create accessibility regulations and effective enforcement
mechanisms that provide a clear profit advantage to those who comply and
a disadvantage to those who do not.

Encourage companies to build access into their products by highlighting
instances in which accessible products lead to profit. Where it is not
clear that accessibility will lead to profit, however, a different
mechanism should be used to enable people within companies who want to
make their products more accessible to build a business case for doing
so. For features and products lacking a natural business case, society
must create regulations and enforcement mechanisms that impact profit
and provide profit advantage to those who comply and disadvantage to
those who do not. Creating conformance assertion mechanisms to make it
clear when and where a product has met individual regulatory provisions
will be key to compliance.

### #6 - Create accessibility laws and regulations that are not technology specific, but are based on the functions of a device. Provide clear guidance as to what is sufficient to meet the standard, and allow requirements to index themselves to technologies, as they evolve, using baselines. To the extent possible, harmonize laws and regulations with those of other countries for products that are sold internationally. 

Regulatory standards should be based on principles rather than
technologies or product categories. In the past, different guidelines
have been written for different technologies. One set of guidelines was
developed for telecommunications, another for ATMs, another for
information technologies, etc. Guidelines were also written differently
for categories such as "open" and "closed" information systems.

These distinctions are blurring with modern technologies. Given any set
of definitions it is possible to identify many products that fall into
gray areas. There are also products that perform various functions,
leading to a situation where one set of guidelines would apply to one
function of a product, and another set would apply to another function.

Guidelines should be function and performance based, as well as
technology neutral. Although this has a tendency to make guidelines more
abstract, which can make them harder to understand and apply, two
concepts that can help address this issue are "baselining" and
"sufficiency."

**Baselines**. Technologies today are advancing so quickly that the
standards and regulatory processes cannot keep up. In particular,
regulations should be stable over time, yet technologies are constantly
changing. The challenge is to create accessibility regulations, which
make sense today, and that will work for technology of tomorrow. On the
other hand, accessibility standards and regulations cannot be written
with only the future in mind. It is not useful to write accessibility
standards that will generate products that will be accessible someday,
but will not work with the technologies that people with disabilities
have today.

By introducing baselines, standards can be indexed to account for
technology changes over time. Essentially, baselines are sets of
technologies or features that it has been established are compatible
with assistive technologies that consumers use. Products must then be
accessible using technologies or features in the baseline. Over time,
the technologies the users have can change, allowing for a natural
progression without the need to rewrite standards. The approach is also
more predictable and is function-based rather than based on a particular
solution.

**Sufficiency**. A challenge in using more function-based standards is
that they lack specificity. Functional standards allow innovation but
can make it harder to determine if the standard has been met unless one
is an expert in the area. Another problem is the tremendous variety of
technologies. Although the essential requirements for accessibility may
remain the same, the actual techniques to implement them can vary widely
from technology to technology. What works on a fare machine, may not
work on a hand-held device. And what works on a personal workstation
where software can be downloaded and installed, may not work on a shared
public terminal, which cannot be modified by users.

With sufficiency, guidelines can be written in clear, testable form.
Techniques which are "sufficient" at this point in time to meet the
guidelines can then be established. As new techniques are created that
are sufficient to meet the guidelines, they can be evaluated,
documented, and added to the list of "sufficient" techniques without
changing the guidelines. In this manner the list of techniques which are
"sufficient" and the conditions under which they can be used can be
periodically updated to reflect changing times and changing
understandings without having to rewrite the fundamentals for
accessibility.

Different sets of "sufficient" techniques could be identified for
different categories of products. For example, techniques that involve
the use of special technologies which might be installed on a product
might be considered sufficient for a workstation, but would not be
sufficient on a public information terminal where users are not allowed
to install their own adaptive software. Using a "product line" approach
may be sufficient if users are presented with the entire product line at
the time of purchase, but not if they are only presented with a subset
of the product line (not including the accessible versions) when they
shop, nor would it be sufficient if these models were not included in
special deals, or available as part of bundles. The use of "sufficient"
techniques would not add or subtract from the guidelines, but can make
it very clear to purchasing agents, manufacturers, and others, which
techniques do or do not meet the guidelines, without the purchasing
agents, manufacturers, and others having to be experts in the field.

The use of baselines and sufficiency can also foster the development of
specific technologies, that, once available, can allow much more
flexible techniques to be sufficient. For example, if new techniques for
Web access are developed and incorporated into assistive technologies
that could handle new Web technologies it would no longer be necessary
to provide accessible alternatives to content presented using those
technologies. That technology could then be added to the baseline. When
and where all text phones can handle a new IPText format, (and all TTY
text that remains is translated into the new IPText format) then IPText
support alone could be sufficient. This approach can also facilitate
international harmonization where different levels of AT may exist for
different languages or cultures.

If done properly, even the questions of open and closed technologies can
be addressed in a way that minimizes gray areas, and when gray areas are
encountered, the impact on the consumers of a decision either way would
be minimal. That is, in those "gray" cases where it becomes unclear
whether A or B situation applies, either one would lead to a reasonable
accessibility outcome and could be chosen.

**Need for harmonization.** Key to the effectiveness of any
accessibility standards and regulations in this global economy is
harmonization. It is difficult for companies that develop a product for
multiple countries to create a single product line that addresses
conflicting regulatory standards. The key word here is "conflicting."
Standards can be different and still be harmonized. For example, one
standard could ask for noise to be 15 decibels down from the signal and
another could ask for it to be 20 decibels down. These two are
harmonized, because creating products 20 decibels down would meet both
standards. Harmonization does not mean that the standards must be the
same, only that they must not conflict. It must be possible to meet all
of the standards at the same time. But it is not necessary for all
countries to have the exact same standards or regulations. Requiring
that all standards or regulations be identical would be unfair to
developed countries (holding them back) as well as developing countries
(forcing them to adopt standards they might not be able to meet).
However, it should be possible to design products that are marketed and
sold in identical form internationally in a way that would fall within
the accessibility standards or regulations for all of the countries,
with only reasonable localization issues. It will be advantageous to all
if agencies setting accessibility policy draw on each other and use
similar language or criteria. In the area of interoperability, however,
a higher level of compatibility is required. Interoperability standards
must do more than "not conflict," they must also work with each other
and allow international interoperability, especially in the
communication technologies.

### #7 - Ensure that up-to-date information about accessible mainstream technology (AMT) and assistive technology (AT) is available to and being used by the public.

Although most of this report is focused on advances in science and
technology and how these advances will make possible the creation of new
tools, as well as the need to create these new tools, it is important to
remember that current technology is underutilized. This underutilization
applies to accessible mainstream technologies and assistive
technologies. In some cases this is because the tools are large, costly,
or not very effective. Research and development should address these
issues.

In other cases the stigma of using these technologies prevents people
from using them. The incorporation of these features into mainstream
technologies and the creation of better, smaller, less obtrusive
technologies will help address these barriers to utilization.

In some cases, underutilization is due to the cost of the products. The
creation of newer, less expensive technologies will help to address this
issue. Some people with disabilities have no funding source for
assistive technologies. Certain technologies might always cost more than
most people can afford. In this case there is a need to look beyond the
technology to social funding mechanisms. Is accessible technology
something that society should provide to people with disabilities in
order to improve quality of life? Is it something that society should
provide in order to decrease cost to society?

Many times, however, people don\'t use AT simply because they don\'t
know that such things exist. Currently, most assistive technologies are
purchased by people with disabilities or their families. Some do not buy
AT because of cost, but a very large number simply do not know that
there are technologies that could help them. They are not aware of the
features that are already in products they are using that would make the
products easier to use. They are not aware of features in products in
the marketplace that would enable them to use mainstream products.
Retail sales personnel, marketers, and advertisers are usually unaware
of accessible features in mainstream products. Assistive technologies
exist that would enable certain people with disabilities to garden,
cook, write, read, or work, but most people do not know about these
products. Information about the products may be on the Internet, and the
products may not be hard to find, but most people don\'t look for them
because they do not know they exist. Public service announcements and
other mechanisms are needed to inform the public that:

1.  Assistive technologies and accessible mainstream technologies exist;

2.  AT and AMT can enhance abilities in school, employment and
    independent living;

3.  For seniors, AT and AMT can make life easier, allow people to do
    more things (or resume doing them), and allow them to live at home
    longer with less dependence on family members;

4.  Many people use AT and AMT;

5.  A growing number of assistive technologies can be used fashionably;
    and

6.  There are many places to look for AT and AMT.

If this information is common knowledge among people who have
disabilities, their families, friends, caregivers, and medical and
health professionals, the use of existing technology and the market for
future technology will increase. The natural pressure for products that
are more accessible and include built-in accessibility features will
also significantly increase.

It should be noted that some types of assistive technology require
assistance in selection and fitting by trained health personnel. At
present, there is a shortage of individuals who are trained in the
effective selection and fitting, and training in the use of, assistive
technologies, primarily due to lack of funding. This should be addressed
with third party payers, beginning with public payers such as Medicare
and Medicaid. Services for which there is reimbursement, and long term
market stability, will naturally lead to incorporation of these subject
matters in medical and health service programs. This will, in turn, lead
to more knowledgeable health service professionals.

## Closing

Science and technology are moving forward, rapidly opening up new
opportunities and posing new challenges. In many cases, they will
redefine both the problem being addressed and the fundamental tools to
address them. Current solution strategies may no longer work and the
current way of classifying things and defining terms may, in fact, need
to be reexamined. Since public policy often moves much more slowly, it
is very important that, as new policies are created, including
accessibility standards and regulations, they are based on functional
specifications instead of being technology-specific. We should also move
aggressively to capitalize on the new opportunities that science and
technology are creating. This is important not only because of the
benefit for people with disabilities, but also because of the potential
to increase the market for technology products. Where this can be done
in a profitable way, the private sector can be depended upon to do this.
Studies are needed to identify and quantify those areas that are
profitable and get this information to industry where it is not already
active. For other important areas, there must be clear and enforced
accessibility policy. This policy should encourage all to create
accessible products (push), and reward those who practice accessible
design (pull) by providing them with a level playing field or commercial
advantage. Technology is not the answer to disabling conditions, but it
is a powerful, underutilized tool for increasing independence and
reducing costs. And, its potential to be a benefit, or to be a barrier,
is steadily increasing.

**Acknowledgements**

The National Council on Disability wishes to express its appreciation to
Gregg Vanderheiden, Ph.D. Director of the Trace Research & Development
Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, for drafting this document. NCD
also wishes to express appreciation for the research work of Steve
Jacobs, President of IDEAL Group.

## References

[]{#_Issues_for_Action .anchor}

[^1]: National Task Force on Technology and Disability. (2004). Within
    our reach: Findings and recommendations of the national task force
    on technology and disability. Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://www.ntftd.org/report.htm>

[^2]: Wireless E-911 implementation: Progress and remaining hurdles:
    Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, House, 108th
    Cong., 1 (2003). Retrieved October 24, 2006, from
    <http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/06042003hearing947/print.htm>

[^3]: Kurzweil, R. (2001). The law of accelerating returns. Retrieved
    October 24, 2006 from
    <http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0134.html>

[^4]: Kurzweil, R. (2006). Why we can be confident of Turing test
    capability within a quarter century. Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0683.html>

[^5]: Xun-chi-138-worlds-smallest-cellphone. (2006). Retrieved October
    24, 2006 from
    <http://www.mobilewhack.com/reviews/xun-chi-138-worlds-smallest-cellphone.html>

[^6]: Samsung breaks new record: Worlds smallest handset announced.
    (2005). Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://www.phoneyworld.com/newspage.aspx?n=1331>

[^7]: XPort® - embedded ethernet device server. (2006). Retrieved
    October 24, 2006 from
    <http://www.lantronix.com/device-networking/embedded-device-servers/xport.html>

[^8]: Sandia National Laboratories. (1997). New Sandia microtransmission
    vastly increases power of microengine. Retrieved October 25, 2006
    from <http://www.sandia.gov/media/microtrans.htm>

[^9]: Carey, B., & Britt, R. R. (2005). The world\'s smallest motor.
    Retrieved October 25, 2006 from
    <http://www.livescience.com/technology/050412_smallest_motor.html>

[^10]: Svidinenko. (2004). New nanorobotic ideas from Adriano
    Cavalcanti. Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://www.nanonewsnet.com/index.php?module=pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=4&pid=9>

    Avron, J. E., Gat, O. & Kenneth, O. (2004). Swimming microbots:
    Dissipation, optimal stroke and scaling. Retrieved October 24, 2006
    from
    <http://physics.technion.ac.il/~avron/files/pdf/optimal-swim-12.pdf>

[^11]: Kahn, B. (2005). Printed sensors. Retrieved October 24, 2006,
    2006 from
    <http://www.idtechex.com/products/en/presentation.asp?presentationid=215>

[^12]: Paniccia, M., Krutul, V., & Koehl, S. (2004). Intel unveils
    silicon photonics breakthrough: High-speed silicon modulation.
    \[Electronic version\]. Technology@Intel Magazine, 1-6. Retrieved
    October 24, 2006
    www.intel.com/technology/magazine/silicon/si02041.pdf.

[^13]: Borkowski, S., Sabry, S., & Crowley, J. L. (2004).
    Projector-camera pair: An universal IO device for human machine
    interaction. Paper presented at the Polish National Robotics
    Conference KKR VIII, Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://www-prima.imag.fr/prima/pub/Publications/2004/BSC04/>

[^14]: The I-tech virtual laser keyboard. Retrieved October 24, 2006
    from <http://www.virtual-laser-keyboard.com/>

[^15]: Alpern, M. Projection keyboards. Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://www.alpern.org/weblog/stories/2003/01/09/projectionKeyboards.html>

[^16]: Good, R. (2004). Use any surface as interface: Sensitive object.
    Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://www.masternewmedia.org/news/2004/11/25/use_any_surface_as_interface.htm>

[^17]: University of Washington Human Interface Technology Laboratory.
    Sci.virtual-worlds visual displays frequently asked questions
    (FAQ).<http://www.hitl.washington.edu/scivw/visual-faq.html>

[^18]: Kollin, J. (1993). A Retinal Display for Virtual-Environment
    Applications. In Proceedings of Society for Information Display,
    1993 International Symposium, Digest of Technical Papers, Vol. XXIV.
    (p. 827). Playa del Rey, CA: Society for Information Display.

[^19]: Vallino, J. (2006). Augmented reality page. Retrieved October 24,
    2006 from <http://www.se.rit.edu/~jrv/research/ar/>

[^20]: Spohrer, J. C. (1999). Information in places. \[Electronic
    version\]. IBM Systems Journal: Pervasive Computing, 38(4) Retrieved
    October 24, 2006.

[^21]: Taubes, G. (1994). Taking the data in hand\--literally\--with
    virtual reality. Science, 265(5174), 884-886.

[^22]: Andrea electronics headsets. (2005). Retrieved October 24, 2006
    from <http://www.andreaelectronics.com/>

[^23]: Logitech - leading web camera, wireless keyboard and mouse maker.
    (2006). Retrieved October 24, 2006 from <http://www.logitech.com/>

[^24]: Sensory, inc. embedded speech technologies including recognition,
    synthesis, verification, and music. (Unspecified date). Retrieved
    October 24, 2006 from <http://www.sensoryinc.com/>

[^25]: Howard-Spink, S. (Unspecified date). You just don\'t understand!
    Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://domino.watson.ibm.com/comm/wwwr_thinkresearch.nsf/pages/20020918_speech.html>

[^26]: LG VX4500 from verizon wireless offers latest in voice command
    and text-to-speech features. (2004). Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://news.vzw.com/news/2004/11/pr2004-11-29.html>

[^27]: KurzweilAI.net (click on Ramona!). (2006). Retrieved October 24,
    2006 from <http://www.kurzweilai.net/index.html?flash=1>

[^28]: Ultratec - CapTel. (2006). Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://www.ultratec.com/captel/>

[^29]: Wickelgren, I. (2003). Tapping the mind. Science, 299(5606),
    496-499.

[^30]: Zigbee alliance \-- home page. (2006). Retrieved October 24, 2006
    from <http://www.zigbee.org/en/index.asp>

[^31]: Myurc.org - home. (Unspecified date). Retrieved October 24, 2006
    from <http://www.myurc.org/>

[^32]: The raw feed: New jacket sports built-in GPS, MP3, phone. (2006).
    Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:TB1l942nXQEJ:www.therawfeed.com/2006/03/new-jacket-sports-built-in-gps-mp3.html>

[^33]: Benfield, B. (2005). Smart clothing, convergence, and a new iPAQ
    :: January 2005. Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://www.pocketpcmag.com/_archives/jan05/EuropeanConnection.aspx>

[^34]: The Metlife market survey of nursing home and home care cost
    (2006). New York, NY: Metlife Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
    from
    <http://www.metlife.com/WPSAssets/18756958281159455975V1F2006NHHCMarketSurvey.pdf>

[^35]: Genworth Financial, Inc. & National Eldercare Referral Systems,
    Inc. (2006). Genworth Financial 2006 cost of care survey: Nursing
    homes, assisted living facilities and home care providers. Retrieved
    October 25, 2006 from
    <http://www.aahsa.org/advocacy/assisted_living/reports_data/documents/Genworth_cost_study.pdf>=

[^36]: Sullivan, K., & Sorenson, P. (2004). Ease of Use/PC quality
    roundtable: Industry challenge to address costly problems
    (PowerPoint slide show). Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    <http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/8/f/18f8cee2-0b64-41f2-893d-a6f2295b40c8/SW04045_WINHEC2004.ppt>

[^37]: As we go to press, the U.S. Copyright Office has issued new rules
    that authorize the breaking of locks on electronic books so that
    blind people can use them with software and hardware that will read
    the books aloud. This does not address the problem of book readers
    that are capable of reading specific books aloud, but are disabled
    because of a publisher setting a \"do not read aloud\" flag for the
    book. It would however allow the encryption to be broken so that a
    person who is blind could use his or her own software to read the
    book aloud. The new rules expire in three years.

[^38]: National Council on Disability (2006). Position paper on access
    to airline self-service kiosk systems. Retrieved October 24, 2006
    from <http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2006/kiosk.htm>

[^39]: LG VX4500 from Verizon Wireless offers latest in voice command
    and text-to-speech features. (2004). Retrieved October 24, 2006 from
    http://news.vzw.com/news/2004/11/pr2004-11-29.html.

[^40]: In Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., 204 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2000), the
    Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Americans with
    Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. (sec)12101 et seq., permits a
    golfer with a disability to use a golf cart during a tournament.

[^41]: Trace R&D Center. (2000). Universal design research project final
    report: Understanding and increasing the adoption of universal
    design in product design. University of Wisconsin-Madison: Trace R&D
    Center.

[^42]: Peltz Strauss, K. (2006). A new civil right : telecommunications
    equality for deaf and hard of hearing Americans. Washington, D.C.:
    Gallaudet University Press.

[^43]: Vanderheiden, G. C. (2003). Access to voice-over-internet
    protocol ("VoIP"). Washington, D.C.: New Millennium Research
    Council. Vanderheiden Digital millennium paper.

[^44]: Vanderheiden, G. C. (2003). Transcript of comments at the FCC\'s
    VoIP forum on December 1, 2003. Retrieved October 25, 2006 from
    <http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/2003-12-1-FCC-VoIP-Forum/transcript.htm>

[^45]: Vanderheiden, G., & Tobias, J. (1998). Barriers, incentives and
    facilitators for adoption of universal design practices by consumer
    product manufacturers. Proceedings of the Human Factors and
    Ergonomics Society, 1, 584-588.

[^46]: <http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2004/publications.html>

[^47]: National Task Force on Technology and Disability, supra note 1.

[^48]: <http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/adainternet.htm>

[^49]: *National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp*, 452 F. Supp.2d
    946 (N.D. Cal. 2006).