Countering design exclusion through inclusive design

Keates, Simeon; Clarkson, PJ

doi:10.1145/960201.957218

Cited by 59 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fundamentally, even where the developers do such analysis, they often fail to reflect on whether the assistive input system that they have developed meets an acceptable level of interaction. It is all well and good to say that it takes x seconds to complete a task, with an error rate of y%, however the real question is whether those task completion and error rates are acceptable to the intended end users [28].…”

Section: Defining "Acceptable" Interaction For Universal Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring acceptable input: What is “good enough”?

Keates

2016

Univ Access Inf Soc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many new assistive input systems developed to meet the needs of users with functional impairments fail to make it out of the research laboratory and into regular use by the intended end users. This paper examines some of the reasons for this failure and focuses particularly on whether the developers of such systems are using the correct metrics and approaches for evaluating the functional and social attributes of the input systems they are designing. This paper further focuses on the importance of benchmarking new assistive input systems against baseline measures of useful interaction rates that take allowance of factors such as input success/recognition rate, error rate, correction effort and input time. By addressing each of these measures, a more complete understanding of whether an input system is practically and functionally acceptable can be obtained and design guidance for developers is provided.

show abstract

Section: Defining "Acceptable" Interaction For Universal Accessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring acceptable input: What is “good enough”?

Keates

2016

Univ Access Inf Soc

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Fundamentally, even where the developers do such analysis, they often fail to reflect on whether the assistive input system that they have developed meets an acceptable level of interaction. It is all well and good to say that it takes x seconds to complete a task, with an error rate of y%, but the real question is whether those task completion and error rates are acceptable to the intended end users [23]. Basically, the question that really needs to be asked is:…”

Section: Establishing a Measure Of "Acceptable" Interactionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Acceptable Interaction for Universal Access

Keates

2015

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Many new assistive input systems developed to meet the needs of users with functional impairments fail to make it out of the research laboratory and into regular use by the intended end users. This paper examines some of the reasons for this and focuses particularly on whether the developers of such systems are using the correct metrics for evaluating the functional attributes of the input technologies they are designing. In particular, the paper focuses on the issue of benchmarking new assistive input systems against a baseline measure of useful interaction rate that takes allowance of factors such as input success/recognition rate, error rate, correction effort and input time. By addressing each of these measures, a more complete understanding of whether an input system is practically and functionally acceptable can be obtained.

show abstract

“…Developers have always found it difficult to write software for people with a significantly different profile of wants and needs (Keates and Clarkson, 2002), and the majority of developers are not disabled gamers themselves. As such, games tend to be designed for 'people like me'.…”

Section: : a Brief Overview Of The Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inaccessible through oversight: the need for inclusive game design

Heron

2012

Comput Game J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Games are an important part of modern culture. The nature of most video games is such that it can be difficult for individuals with impairments to enjoy many titles. In many cases, this is not due to the games themselves presenting an impossible challenge, but because the games have been left inaccessible through the omission of common features. Mainstream titles are often accessible and inaccessible by turns. This strongly suggests that the resultant inaccessibility is an oversight rather than conscious design. Awareness building is an important process in improving the inclusivity of game titles. This in turn is important in ensuring that all members of society have an opportunity to enjoy a valuable recreational form. To this end, the essay discusses both the types of disability that could be supported and some common mechanisms by which this can be done. A short overview of several prominent game titles is included to provide real world context for the discussion. In this essay, the author argues that ensuring accessibility need not be a costly or an onerous task, and that great strides can be made by, simply adopting the existing good practice that is currently spread across mainstream titles.

show abstract

Countering design exclusion through inclusive design

Cited by 59 publications

References 3 publications

Measuring acceptable input: What is “good enough”?

Measuring acceptable input: What is “good enough”?

Defining Acceptable Interaction for Universal Access

Inaccessible through oversight: the need for inclusive game design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About