Over the Horizon: 

Potential Impact of Emerging 

Trends in Information and 

Communication Technology on Disability 

Policy and Practice 

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 

New Opportunities.............................................................................................................. 1 

Barriers, Concerns, and Issues ........................................................................................... 2 

Issues for Action................................................................................................................. 5 

Introduction................................................................................................................................. 7 

Technological Advances that are Changing the Rules....................................................... 8 

Trend 1: Ever-Increasing Computational Power Plus Decreasing Size and Cost.............. 8 

Trend 2: Technology Advances Enabling New Types of Interfaces.................................. 9 

Trend 3: Ability to be Connected Anywhere, Anytime – With Services on Demand ..... 12 

Trend 4: Creation of Virtual Places, Service Providers, Products ................................... 14 

New Opportunities.................................................................................................................... 15 

Opportunity 1: More Accessible Mainstream Products (Simpler, More Adaptable, More 

Mainstream Benefit)................................................................................................... 15 

Opportunity 2: Better (Cheaper, More Effective) AT and New Types of AT ................. 17

Opportunity 3: Decrease net cost while increasing quality of life ................................... 20 

Barriers, Concerns, and Issues.................................................................................................. 21 

1) Technology Trends That Move Away From Accessible Interfaces Toward 

Inaccessible Interfaces ............................................................................................... 21 

2) Technology Advancing Into Forms Not Compatible with Assistive Technology....... 24 

3) Technology Advancing Into Forms Not Covered by Accessibility Rules................... 28 

4) Definitions of Disability, Assistive Technology, and Universal Design ..................... 32 

5) Central Role of the Business Case ............................................................................... 34

Issues for Action ....................................................................................................................... 37 

Closing.................................................................................................................................... 488 

References................................................................................................................................. 49 
1 

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 
 2 

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. 
 3 

• 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, elearning, 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. 
 4 

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 
 5 

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 resultsoriented 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. 
 6 

#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. 
 7 

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 rethinking 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. 
 8 

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-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. 
 9 

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 pocketsized, 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. 
 10 

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-toface 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
 11 

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 
 12 

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. 
 13 

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 
 14 

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. Etravel 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. 
 15 

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
 16 

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 
 17 

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-toface. 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 
 18 

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 healthmonitoring 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 
 19 

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 
 20 

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. 
 21 

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, 
 22 

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 builtin 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 
 23 

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 computermediated 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 
 24 

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. 
 25 

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 
 26 

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. 
 27 

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. 
 28 

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? 
 29 

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. 
 30 

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. 
 31 

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 eBook 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 
 32 

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,40still 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 
 33 

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)? 
 34 

• 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. 
 35 

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 
 36 

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. 
 37 

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 Marketplace46 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 
 38 

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 
 39 

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 
 40 

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 
 41 

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. 
 42 

#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. 
 43 

#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 
 44 

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. 
 45 

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 
 46 

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 
 47 

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. 
 48 

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. 
 49 
 50 

References 

 

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 
 51 

 

Conference KKR VIII, Retrieved October 24, 2006 from http://wwwprima.imag.fr/prima/pub/Publications/2004/BSC04/ 14 The I-tech virtual laser keyboard. Retrieved October 24, 2006 from http://www.virtual-laserkeyboard.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/visualfaq.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/ 
 52 

 

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/newjacket-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_stud

y.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/18f8cee2-0b64-41f2-893da6f2295b40c8/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 WisconsinMadison: 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. 
 53 

 

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-VoIPForum/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).