Disability Arts Strategy Group: 
Web, Information and Technology draft discussion paper

Email: deveritt@innotts.co.uk
Telephone: 01664 568316

Title: Web, Information and Technology draft discussion paper
Creator: Dave Everitt
Subject: disability, technology, web, access, accessible, information.
Description: This paper covers areas of interest and potential interest in computing and digital technology for disabled users, with reference to the arts. It includes software, hardware, the internet, and some historical and peripheral information of particular interest. Much of this paper is designed to be a ‘pointer’ for further research and discussion, while some areas are outlined in greater depth to enable more immediate dialogue.
Publisher: Arts Council England
Contributor: Colin Hambrook
Date: 27/09/04 (replaces previous version of this date)
Type: text
Format: text/rtf
Identifier: none
Source: Disability Arts Strategy Group
Language: en-uk
Relation: none
Coverage: uk
Rights: The creator of this document grants to the Arts Council England or its agents the right to
archive and to make the document or its contents in whole or in part available through the Arts
Council, in all forms of media. The creator retains all proprietary rights, and the right to use all or
part of this document in future works, with due reference to the Arts Council.

Abstract
This is a draft discussion paper written to generate discussion and debate for Arts Council England’s Disability Strategy Group, to assist in the agreement of targets and recommendations for inclusion in the strategy. It outlines ideas about how disabled people in the arts may utilise and benefit from new technology; covering the internet and accessible information design, enabling technologies, and emerging technologies of relevance. Since disabled people do not form a homogenous whole, but have the same diversity of needs as the rest of humanity, a good deal of material includes technology that happens to be ‘enabling’ in the widest sense of the word, since the most visionary initiatives aim to make technology easier to use for everyone, or include disability access as a matter of course. Finally, it highlights possible concerns for both disabled users and service providers, and makes recommendations for further consideration or action.

1. The accessible web

‘The power of the web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.’ (Berners-Lee 200)

Type ‘disability Tim Berners-Lee access’ into Google and you will be presented with a list of websites using the above quote to support their own web accessibility philosophy (in fact, it is a good way of finding examples of well-designed, accessible sites). The web - and the information it carries - was envisaged and designed to be accessible to all. Wherever this fails, it is because those involved in making software and building websites fail to implement this vision. A clue as to why this state of affairs prevails is given in an article on deaf-blind access to the web and computing:
‘One of the causes is the limitation of the Screen Reader's performance. However, the most important cause is the fact that PC makers do not take into consideration the presence of people having problems in accessing information such as the deaf-blind.’
This Japanese article continues:
‘once we [...] can operate our PCs properly, it is like a Heaven! The benefits [include] wonderful experiences never enjoyed before. They can be immersed in the world of communication as much as they like, and can search for the information they would like to get as much as possible for a whole day without asking others’ (Kadokawa 2004)

1.1 Web accessibility guidelines

Access for all?
Tim Berners-Lee's quote should be the mantra of every company or individual building websites and the computers that access them. But it isn’t, and that’s why access is an issue. One major effort towards realising that vision exists in the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) Accessibility Guidelines, which form the basis of the code used to build accessible websites. The process of formulating standards goes through periods of evolution, but there are now some fundamental standards in place that ensure a firm foundation for present and future access to the web.

Campaigning for web standards
There are many campaigning sites and individuals on the web, some of them have (apparently) devoted their lives to exploring in interminable detail the finer points of web standards and accessibility; so that we don’t have to (Zeldman 2003, Neilsen, Web Standards Project). If you are involved in any way in building websites, these are required reading, and it is advisable to keep up with the excellent step-by-step guides, ‘fixes’ and ‘workarounds’ given to encourage the spread of the web accessibility and web standards initiatives. Their websites often include a forum where you can air your latest ‘insoluble’ problem.

Bobby and 'accessibility checking'.
Bobby is often cited as the premium ‘website access checker’, although there are others (see A-Prompt) but its results - even for sites that are pretty well accessible - can be confusing and a little overwhelming unless you know how to modify the offending code yourself. It is also better to ensure that the site is built to conform to the W3C accessibility guidelines in the first place (at whatever level - there are 3 - that you choose), then run it through Bobby to act as a prompt for anything that might have been overlooked. But beware; Bobby also highlights issues on pages that ‘may’ require attention, even when solutions have already been worked into that page; so the ‘Bobby’ user still needs to know a fair bit about the code in order to take advantage of its recommendations. It is worth pointing out that Bobby does not check for valid code, so the site may actually fail to conform to the most basic web standards, yet still manage to ‘pass’ a Bobby test (see ‘1.2 Adhering to web standards’), which means the page may display  erratically - or worse, fail to display certain elements at all - in some browsers.

1.2 Increasing access with web standards:

‘Everyone should have the ability to create and access Web content.’ (Treviranus et al 2004)

This is a topic worth a paper on its own, since - happily - the technology is in a constant state of transition towards a more intelligent and accessible web, and it takes some effort to keep up to date at each stage in the process. Existing technology requires understanding in order to implement access. Much of the information in this section is aimed at those commissioning and building websites, and presumes at least a passing knowledge of the underlying technology. If you’re doing the latter two, and do not have - or intend to acquire - this kind of knowledge, you’re in the wrong job!

The problem
Briefly, three major obstacles exist to implementing the accesibility of web languages, the first of which is by far the most pressing:
1. web designers who may produce stunning sites, but who know little about the underlying code, or are disinterested in the philosophy behind it;
2. users who have not been encouraged to implement the inbuilt access features of their own machines;
3. browser manufacturers who produce browsers with faults and incompatibilities, such as failing to implement some of the code designed to facilitate access.
Examining these issues in turn, it becomes apparent that they are all ‘fixable’.

The myth of ‘design’ v ‘access’
‘Make pages which are accessible, regardless of the browser, platform or screen that your reader chooses or must use to access your pages. This means pages which are legible regardless of screen resolution or size, or number of colors (and remember too that pages may be printed, or read aloud by reading software, or read using braille browsers). This means pages which adapt to the needs of a reader, whose eyesight is less than perfect, and who wishes to read pages with a very large font size.’ (Allsop 2000)

The requirement to ‘make’ websites accessible is a requirement that should - and indeed has - been built into web technologies all along; existing sites should - and could - already be accessible, its just that few people utilise the accessibility inherent in the existing technology. Clumsy solutions such as text-only alternatives and visually crude ‘accessible’ sites have only come to be seen as necessary because the inherent accessibility of the underlying code is overlooked or ignored in favour of visual impact and style.

However, ‘accessible’ and ‘visually stunning’ are not mutually exclusive. There are a number of web ‘gurus’ explaining why and how, and making up little tricks to do things like (for instance, for those fed up with the limited cross-platform set of fonts, but unwilling to use inaccessible images instead of fonts for - say - headings) ‘generate accessible image-headings using any font we like’ (Rosenberger 2004), but to achieve these results, a modern web designer needs to understand the underlying XHTML and CSS codes. Despite its dominance in the field, Dreamweaver alone - or, at least the visual layout portion of it - is not enough (indeed, it is not even necessary - one of the ‘big secrets’ about website building is that you don’t need any software to build sites except a text editor, an image editor, and FTP software to upload the results).

‘All professional crafts are complex. Web design is no different. HTML and CSS are complex standards, and their complexity is magnified significantly by the various differences and shortcomings of real-world web browsers.

This complexity is not an excuse for professional web designers not to learn HTML and CSS.

Designers, obviously, tend to be visual thinkers. Thus they are drawn to visually-oriented web design applications such as Dreamweaver and GoLive. But Dreamweaver and GoLive are extremely complex applications [...] they are in fact more complex than the HTML and CSS languages they are ostensibly designed to simplify. (For example, books about Dreamweaver and GoLive tend to be much thicker than books about HTML and CSS.)’ (Gruber 2003)

This isn’t to say that no-one should use visual web design tools - note the word ‘create’ in the opening quote of this section. On the contrary, everyone should also have access to the ability to build a website, and one of the W3C’s initiatives at present is to make such tools themselves accessible (Treviranus et al 2004).

Web pages with hidden meaning.
The way in which websites are commissioned, specified and built is crucial to the process of building in access from the very start:
1. the way in which material is prepared should include such refinements as textual descriptions of images; separation into sections under ordered headings; inclusion of marked sections such as acronyms, specialist terms, emphasised text; and subtler issues such as simplification and consistent positioning of navigation; use of clear symbols alongside text; ‘breadcrumbs’ or ‘you are here’ headers;
2. those building sites need to know XHTML well (HTML is rapidly being superseded), including the original meaning of the varying tags; combining this with the incredible power of CSS to give visual significance to the specificity of each tag, and to render the site in a flexible and accessible style. Websites and their style sheets should also always be run through a validation process of some kind (accessible code begins with valid code);
3. user tests, where people with varying access needs use the site, can be extremely helpful; in the human-computer interface aspect of computer science, this can mean videoing a user while their journey through the site or interface is digitally logged, watching where and why they get lost, how they solve navigation problems, etc.; however, it is quite easy to do this simply by sitting with a user and watching carefully, making notes about any issues they encounter, while listening openly to their feedback. The golden rule is that users do not ‘get it wrong’, but interface designers do! A good interface system should be self-evident and need no instructions.

The underlying architecture of the web is about information, not appearance. Some of the main features in HTML and its successor, the transitional XHTML, concern what is called ‘logical’ markup. ‘Logical’ styles give hidden meaning to a page of text, breaking it up with ‘tags’ (markers within the text) that offer structure and meaning to the page. For instance, marking a piece of text as ‘italic’ with the <i> tag conveys no meaning, apart from the fact that it appears in italic type; but marking the same piece with the <cite> tag - which may have the identical visual result of rendering the text in italic - clearly conveys that the marked text is some kind of brief quotation or the name of a book, play or other entity. Similarly, using a carefully ordered set of headings with the ‘heading’ tags (<h1>, <h2>, <h3>, etc.) allows any reader to understand where new sections begin and end. If you listen to a badly-prepared web page in a text reader, it may run without break from one section to another, reading out (for instance) what are supposed to be headings as if they were sentences. There are even tags for marking acronyms and specialist definitions, all of which are designed for the present state of technology, in which an intelligent web page can enhance both searches and end-users’ comprehension; and the near future, in which assistive technology can be made to - for instance - make a synthesised voice move and change with the meaning of the text.

Using your browser to improve access
Many users do not realise that - depending on how well the site has been built - they do not always have to rely on the web designer to ‘make the type size bigger’ or ‘change the colour’ (although the latter takes a little skill). It has always been possible for readers to quickly enlarge or reduce the type size and font of their browsers but, mainly due to Microsoft’s dominance and the ridiculous incompatibility of one particular version of its own browser, this is rarely done (specifically: in WinIE5 font sizes specified in pixels canot be enlarged or reduced in size, so where web designers themselves fail to take this into account by using another measure, like ems or point sizes, the font remains fixed in size in that browser). 

Although fairly simple to implement, many users also fail to realise the inbuilt access features of their browsers, (font sizes and faces can be pre-specified; colours and styles can be forced wherever possible to conform to the reader’s preferences - see  section 1.4, ‘CSS2’), so there is a need for education on this point.

If a site does not offer the access required, pester them. It is always worth emailing the webmaster of the site with your comments (e.g. ‘your website would not allow my browser to make the font size larger in Internet Explorer 5, Windows 2000’) - look for a link named ‘contact’, or search the page for an email address (often small, at the bottom). Failing that, send email to ‘info@’ or ‘postmaster@’ the website’s domain name (omit the preceding ‘www’). Remember to include your browser name (e.g. Internet Explorer 5.5) and version number, and the operating system (e.g. Apple Mac system 10.2, Windows XP, etc.).

Explorer is not the only browser...
The browser that comes with your machine is not the only choice, and you may find others that implement features more suited to your needs. It is always a good idea to use newer browsers because they are increasingly able to implement those web standards designed to improve access, and there are sites that offer links to download them all. Opera and Firefox are two of the most popular newer browsers available. The ‘Mozilla’-based browsers (like Firefox) attempt to respond to standards, and some are produced using the ‘open source’ model, where contributors all over the world add to the code and fix problems. Further, there is a large range of specialised and adaptive browsers (Bosher and Brewer 2001), and - expanding on the basic voice control offered by the main operating systems - the manufacturers of the Opera browser (Kan 2002) are collaborating with IBM to use the latter’s voice control technology to allow vocal input and output from a mainstream web browser (although text-to-speech is now standard anyway, the reverse has not been taken up widely by users, so this is still an exciting initiative).

1.3 Using the web for communication:

The web is much more than a place to park websites; offering collaborative ways of working, social interaction, and valuable tools for learning. Many disabled people choose to work at home, or as freelances, in order to better control their time and workload. The web is a crucial tool in this process, but email is often the furthest limit, even though technologies already exist to facilitate other more interactive and immediate forms of communication. In fact, it makes sense to ask ‘can this be acheived online?’ before the automatic reaction to ‘arrange a meeting’ commits everyone to the expense (psychological, financial, and in time) of a journey.

Collaborative software
Where it makes sense for people to meet at some point in order to collaborate on a project that involves text and image, there is also software designed to facilitate this process online. Documents can be worked on by teams, notes apended to pages, updates and sections highlighted, and each user’s input tracked. Jigsaw, used by the team involving Tim Berners-Lee is described here:
‘Jigsaw allows direct editing, saves the various edited editions of a document, and keeps track of what has been changed from one version the next. I can [...] revert to an older version if necessary. This provides everyone with a feeling of safety, and they are more inclined to share the editing of a piece of work. Jigsaw and Amaya [a special - free - browser than can also edit web pages] allow our team space to come alive as our common room, internal library and virtual coffee machine around which staff members who are in [various parts of the world] can gather.’ (Berners-Lee 2000)
Sounds a bit better than sending Word documents back and forth by email, doesn’t it? So why don’t we all work this way? Because we’re used to working the way we already work, tend to follow what everyone already does, and are understandably resistant to the time and effort it takes to change. The good news is that such a change would be well within the range of existing resources, and such a system could be introduced on the back of a particularly relevant project (this very strategy group could probably have made good use of such a system, if it were already in place).

Collaborative software takes some learning, but is worth considering in cases where serious work has to be covered, but where (for instance) mobility is an issue for whatever reasons, where distance mitigates against literal meetings, or even simply where time is tight and efficiency is paramount. For links to collaborative software (also known as ‘groupware’), see ‘collaborative software links’ in the References section.

Conferences, meetings
Thanks to advancements in processing power and developments in technology, ‘video conferencing’ is no longer the serious undertaking it used to be. A webcam with allied software (under £100) , or for people with visual impairments ‘chat’ or instant messaging software, are all that is required for a reasonable online ‘meeting’ (plus, a broadband connection to help smooth the functionality of a webcam). Again, this is an option that should be considered before meetings are presumed as the only way to work together, but habit dies hard. Even setting up a telephone conference is more effective, sometimes, than arranging a meeting.

1.4 Information design - making information accessible

Information design is the name given to the skills involved in making everyday information easy to understand, read, navigate and comprehend. It is a relatively recent discipline, represented - for example - by the Communication Research Institute of Australia (CRIA), and is being applied to anything from medicine bottles to road signs. The idea is that information should be generally accessible, without having to make any special effort at ‘access’, since it should be built into the best kind of information design.

Why and how inaccessible design happens
With traditional graphics skills fading, designers may be unfamiliar with basic principles at two broad levels: 1. the arrangement of elements within a space; 2. the useability of the information within that space. The anxiety for things to appear ‘cool’, ‘challenging’ or to mimic a particularly ‘now’ style pushes accessible information design down the list of priorities and places visual originality (still an important element) above the information that it is attempting to convey. The style ends up dictating the content, not the reverse.

When arranging elements within a space, simple factors such as consistency or coherent style, the careful alignment of objects and blocks of text, intelligent use of empty space; all have a history that deserves a degree of respect, since it has emerged from the accumulative experience of communicating information effectively.

Similarly, the flow of text, the intelligent use of headings and subheadings, and an intelligible document structure have all been subject to an evolutionary process that has emerged from the drive to actually get ideas across. The technical aspects of accessible web pages must work in tandem with the overall accessibility of the design itself - which is one of the main goals ‘information design’ is aiming to achieve.

The future of information access on the web
XML
At present, many websites are built with the now-outdated Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML). Web technologies are already integrating a major component of the next step: Extensible Markup Language (XML). Whereas HTML is fairly ‘fixed’, XML - being a base for defining future languages - is far more flexible, enabling information to be delivered to various devices, and exchanged across varying platforms and technologies. The transitional period between HTML and XML is covered by the hybrid language XHTML (all but identical to HTML, but slightly more strict) so, in order to make future transitions to XML-based solutions less painful, it is advisable to base new sites on XHTML (Allsopp 2004).

CSS2
Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) have been in existence since 1996, although only recently are web designers (and browsers) beginning to catch up. CSS allows for the distinction between appearance and content, and encourages those building sites to adopt more intelligent and accessible ways of structuring them. Significantly, the current version, CSS2 (introduced in 1998), also allows for the use of access solutions such as Aural Style Sheets, where the properties of CSS2 enable the document to control the text-reader’s voice to be varied in richness, pitch and other properties. Once browsers are capable of implementing these innnovations; and once users have installed these newer browsers (probably within the next 2-4 years), it promises to open up the web by enabling sites to be built and delivered in a wider range of accessible formats than is currently available.

One further quality of CSS2. Few people know how to do this (and with the older standard of CSS1 website authors - if they want - may still override the reader’s choice) but with CSS2, the reader can override the author’s style sheets, and is able to browse the web in (at least) the fonts and backgrounds that are the size, typeface and colour required for their access needs.

The Semantic Web
‘The Semantic Web is characterized by machine communication based on data with well-defined meaning, definable results, and logical deductions. However, the Semantic Web is not about artificial intelligence; it is not about making humans understandable to machines, but rather making data understandable. The Semantic Web [...] will have as much impact on the world as the first generation Web has had, once we get it right. [...] A few of the many benefits will be that anything can point to anything; documents can be self-describing; and searches will be more meaningful and finite. Steps in the right direction include RDF model/syntax/schemas, XML namespaces, XML Schemas, Dublin Core, RPMfind, and Signed XML. Tim [Berners-Lee] begged us to “Get your data models clean!”’ (Sall 1996)

Decoding the last part of the above quote to extract the most immediate task in hand: we can prepare our current web pages for the ‘Semantic Web’ by beginning to include meta-data in the correct format. The ‘Dublin Core 15’ (Dublin Core 2003) is a set of 15 pieces of meta-data that can be used to describe any document (their website heading - which will be welcomed by all frustrated ‘Googlers’ - says ‘making it easier to find information’). Adding these to existing web pages and other documents helps prepare them for the Semantic Web; it also means that such documents will be much easier to track and identify. Since this is a technical (although not difficult) task, details are omitted here, but see the beginning of this document for an example.

2. Enabling technology

All the main computer operating systems have a accessibility initiatives, plus other features that are included generally with the system, such as text-to-speech. For instance, the Apple Macintosh system has placed access high on its list of priorities for some time, with ‘Close View’, and voice control as standard, yet these features are woefully under-used, and many people are amazed to discover that they can already ‘tell their computer what to do’. If these features are already standard, but under-used, it might be imagined that the kind of technology currently under development is of Star-Trek like capabilities; but this is sadly not the case. The disappointing truth is that many advanced features have been available for decades, they just haven’t been commercially developed.

2.1 Existing technologies and enabling software

Current enabling soft- and hardware is already well-documented, and there are websites dedicated to helping users make a choice; so here is a sideways glance at the topic, offering some of the background for the current state of computing and some possible alternatives.

What comes with your machine
Although beyond the scope of this paper, it would be worth listing what access features the three main operating systems (Mac, PC, Linux/Unix) already contain, and what is available for very little cost; then producing a basic information sheet or web page with information that enables users to take full advantage of these inbuilt facilities before they purchase and install commercial solutions.

The computer has not developed since the 60s.
In a video now well-known to computer scientists, Doug Englebart (who invented the mouse) demonstrates online collaborative work on a document, using his mouse to manipulate text and move a live video image of his co-worker around the screen. Nothing remarkable, you might think... apart from the date of the film: 1968! Software designer and thinker Alan Kay, who has also designed ‘point and click’ visual interfaces to help ‘everyone’ to programme their computers, (Kay 2003) used this piece of film to demonstrate the lack of progress in computing, raising issues of control and lack of vision. It is depressing to discover that one of the 20th century’s most famous inventions has under-acheived to this extent; perhaps one lesson to be learned here is that you do not need the latest machine to acheive what may appear to be advanced tasks. Much of what we demand of our machines are - to the computer - like a casual stroll around the block. However, modern commercial applications tend to be ‘bloated’ by including many unused but memory-hogging features. Rethinking the way we use our older machines could have a massive impact on their useful life, but - when so much more is possible - perhaps more crucial is the low level of expectation we have been misled into accepting from ‘IT experts’, and the restricted vision of some larger software manufacturers and computer companies.

Open source - all the software you need for free
At the very simplest level, cost is often mentioned as a barrier to obtaining software, but there are alternatives to all the familiar software for everyday computing (and more), available free or at very low cost. The ‘Open Source’ movement, with dedicated groups of programmers working collaboratively across the world, are busy keeping access to computing open to as many people as possible, by producing a huge range of software; from entire replacements for the Windows operating system, to alternatives to Microsoft Office (which will read and write Microsoft Office files) and various kinds of specialist software for specific areas of computing. It is actually possible to completely equip a standard PC running the Linux operating system with Open Source software for nothing, or very little.

Emulating the imperfect - flawed ‘accessible’ computing
The scientific field of Complexity Theory has an idea called ‘lock-in’, where a system becomes the norm simply through the accumulation of sufficient numbers. The QWERTY keyboard is given as an example; originally designed to slow down fast typists who would otherwise jam the typewriter mechanism, it has become the flawed ‘standard’, and prevails even now, when other keyboard layouts would allow for easier use, forcing thousands every day to learn what is essentially a bad system. Similarly, we’ve become used to tolerating security flaws, costly updates, viruses, crashes and the like because - well because we’ve become used to it, and we assume that new computer users will also accept this apparently inevitable state of things, even though it don’t have to be that way.

It follows that expecting people who cannot use a mouse and keyboard to control a computer via an on-screen representation of... yes, the QWERTY keyboard and a mouse pointer, is not really the most accessible solution, yet some designers of past ‘accessible equipment’ thought it was. But accessible solutions can also break out of ‘bad’ lock-in. Described in one review as ‘a frontal attack on the keyboard’ (Freeway 2002) ‘Dasher’ allows users to choose from ‘fields’ of likely letters based on a language model, and learns from you as you use it. Alternatives like Dasher have been available - free - for some time, and show the way to a more creative solution based on the user’s actual needs, rather than on mimicking the already flawed interfaces of current systems. Further, and crucially, Dasher is presented as generally enabling software; not just relevant  to disabled users. This indicates that people at the forefront of computer research are simply trying to find better ways for everyone to use computers, and in the process are discovering that what eases computer use for non-disabled people is also (surprise) highly relevant to disabled users, or vice-versa; i.e that enabling technology is also likely to make computing easier for non-disabled users.

2.2 Emerging technologies with enabling potential

Much of this area has already been covered in an earlier paper on disability and technology (Everitt & Turner 2002), but the basic areas of interest are covered in this section. Emerging technology is shaped by research interests, then commercial viability or niche markets. If users wish to influence how it develops, systems of involvement need to be implemented that allow the end user to inform the development process from the very beginning.

Visualisation of complex information
‘users with cognitive disabilities may need simplified presentations of complex visualizations and users who have difficulty interacting with spatial information may need information presented or operated sequentially. On the other hand, people with reading disabilities may find visualizations easier to understand than text.’ (Chisholm 2004) 

Virtual Reality Modelling Language (VRML) is an XML-based language designed to allow complex 3D worlds to be easily delivered over the web. Although it is much quicker to download than, say, the average film clip, it has failed to take off for reasons that are not completely clear, but which may include the need for more powerful computers than were available at its inception in the mid-90s, and a lack of vision or knowledge about how to use and build sites that include VRML. We now have sufficient computing power, so it may be time to re-examine the access implications of web 3D. It is included here as a solution to certain access needs, specifically people with learning difficulties. It is also a good way of providing a simple overview to a lot of underlying complex information, and offers a 3D view with clickable objects (just like the links of a web page), with an ability to move between ordinary web pages and 3D scenes, objects or entire worlds. Once learned (and it about as easy as learning how to navigate a website, if you had never done that before) it can be an extremely intuitive method of examining, and navigating through, information (Infoscape 2004).

Pervasive computing - where did the computer go?
There is an area of reasearch in computer science at present called, or including (variously) Ambient, Pervasive or Ubiquitous computing. the idea is that the computer is invisible, and operated by sensors, video, voice and gesture control, and automatic tracking of things such as movement, light, barcode-like signs and any number of possible solutions. A previous paper covers this in detail (Quantrill 2002), so mention here will be kept to a minimum. Wireless ambient devices are already commercially available that indicate the state of whatever variables they are programmed to track without the need for overt interaction - a glance at the 'ambient orb' will do to see if my stocks are 'glowing' green, red, orange or whatever (Ambient Devices). Such subtle signals (vibration, discrete sounds, colours) might also provide appropriate feedback to physiological (or any) data without requiring the user to pay too much attention to concentrate on anything else.

Physiological computing - what am I like?
Physiological computing offers a kind of input entirely lacking from the current human-computer interaction model; one driven by our own biology. Imagine a computer than monitors your stress levels when attempting certain tasks, then remembers which things you find hardest. Or a system that enables you to tell how relaxed you are, or when your mind is in the ideal state for creative visualisation. Since all these things are indicated by such measurables as skin resistance, heart rate, brainwave activity and so on, it is possible to feed this all into software that can then be programmed to do... well, whatever you want to it to do. Current input devices (mouse, pointer, joystick, etc) are all based (borrowing from artist Char Davies, who built the interactive digital artworks Ephemere and Osmose) on what could be called an ‘I’m doing this to that’ model. Crucially, Davies’ work challenges the cultural stereotypes that are unconsciously - but commonly - reproduced in interface device design, and offers in her work a subtler means of navigation though digital space. It has to be asked ‘why don’t more computer interfaces work this way?’ and physiological computing may best be accessed by taking this idea on board:
‘The user interface ... is based on tracking the participant's breathing and balance [to] navigate through the spatial realms of the work - they breathe in to rise, out to fall... This interface was intended to pose an alternative to conventional approaches to VR, whereby the interface usually involves the hands... There may be exceptions of course, but in general, hand-held interface devices reinforce a dominating stance to the world in terms of 'I'm doing this to that'. And this not only reflects, but reinforces the conventional sensibility of our culture [...] If a joystick is involved, the work is merely repeating our habitual approach to controlling, or rather, mastering the world around us.’ (Gigliotti 2002)
‘Osmose cultivates the user-interface—a central parameter of virtual art—at a level that is still unequaled; an independent treatise could be written on this aspect alone. Osmose is a technically advanced and visually impressive simulation of a series of widely branching natural and textual spaces: a mineral/vegetable, intangible sphere. [...] in the data space [...] phosphorescing points of light glimmer in the dark in soft focus. Osmose is an immersive interactive environment, involving head mounted display [...], 3-D computer graphics, and interactive sound, which can be explored synaesthetically’ (Grau 2003)

The cyborg, prosthetic technology and other science-fact
There is much current research into ‘cyborg’ technologies that involve direct neural interaction in mobility, vision, hearing and other areas (Warwick). Much of this is already covered (Everitt 2002), and the author recently delivered two seminars including this and other relevant subjects to two groups of specialists interested in technology and disability, the contents of which could be made available if required.

3. Current and emerging concerns

Some brief key points of concern are highlighted here.

3.1 Concerns arising from current issues
1. make information accessibility part of organisational policy (the DDA and beyond);
2. explore barriers to accessing emerging technologies;
3. ensure representation by disabled users on research and development agendas;
4. examine commercial constraints to and on accessible technology.

3.2 Potential emerging issues
1. differing distributions of technology among socio-cultural groups;
2. 'the new old' - increasing numbers of older people using technology (Huber & Skidmore 2003);
3. the concept of 'disablism' and other new thinking on cultural issues (Miller et al 2004).

4. Summary and recommendations for action

‘In more recent years the emergence of new electronic-based sciences (for example robotics and cybernetics) has opened up an entirely new spectrum of assistive technologies. However, despite these developments, many innovative solutions remain beyond the reach of the very people they could help most [...] there are a number of factors that serve to limit the uptake of new assistive technologies in the UK. These are:
* a lack of collaboration and information sharing amongst researchers and developers; 
* limited consultation with users and the broader industry; 
* poor communication about new developments.’ (FAST)

The above quotation is particularly apt, and the 3 issues it raises deserve serious consideration. A previous paper for Arts Council England (Everitt 2002) also contains recommendations for disabled artists using technology, and much in that paper is relevant here, too. However, the extra points below might help focus further discussion and work.

4.1 Key points for consideration
1. improve knowledge about existing access to technology;
2. choose which emerging technologies are of most interest and keep a ‘watch’ on them;
3. develop strategies for input into research on emerging technologies;
4. make sure online data solutions are standards-compliant;
5. ensure stability and continuity of Arts Council England funded online arts/disability access guides, information points, etc.;
6. convene a working group to define meta-data for all future documents in the arts, based on the Dublin Core 15 (this already exists for education, law, and other sectors).

4.2 Possible scenarios
1. prepare for the future - imagine what might be;
2. determine what future possibilities might be created from current technology;
3. build vision about these possibilities into current strategies/groups/meetings;
4. support disabled artists to make links with computer science and R&D labs.

References:

1. The accessible web

Berners-Lee, Tim (2000). ‘Weaving the web’, Texere, London & New York.

Kadokawa, Shinichiro (2004). ‘Deaf-Blind Japanese Gain Access to World through Computers’, article in Disability World, http://www.disabilityworld.org/06-08_04/access/itage.shtml

1.1 Web accessibility guidelines

A-Prompt, downloadable offline web accessibility checker for Windows PCs: http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/

Bobby, online web page accessibility checker: http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp

Brewer, Judy (2004). Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Home Page, with details of current working parties informing the initiative: http://www.w3.org/WAI/

Neilsen, Jakob: http://www.useit.com/

Usability.gov, accessibility resources, ‘Links to information on Web accessibility, and resources for building sites that are accessible to all users regardless of disability’: http://www.usability.gov/accessibility/

W3C Web Content Accesiblity Guidelines 1.0: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/
(To see what’s coming in version 2.0, visit: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040730/)

Web Standards Project, The: http://www.webstandards.org/

Zeldman, Jeffrey (2003). ‘Designing With Web Standards’: http://www.zeldman.com/dwws/

1.2 Increasing access with web standards:

A List Apart, Accessibility articles: http://alistapart.com/topics/accessibility/

Allsopp, John (2000). ‘A Dao of Web Design’: http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/dao/index.html

Beginner’s guide to making a website: http://www.everybodyneedsawebpage.com/_wsn/page2.html

Bosher, Peter and Brewer, Judy (2001). Alternative Web Browsing, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative: http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/Browsing

Brewer, Judy (2002). W3C page, ‘Getting Started: Making a Web Site Accessible’: http://www.w3.org/WAI/gettingstarted/

Gruber, John (2003). ‘On Hand Coding’, a Review of 'Designing with Web Standards' by Jeffrey Zeldman: http://daringfireball.net/2003/05/zeldman_reloaded

Kan, Geraldine (2002). ‘IBM and Opera Software Team to Develop Multimodal Browser’: http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2002/07/20020724.dml

Rosenberger, Stewart (2004). Article on ‘A List Apart’ website, ‘Dynamic Text Replacement’: http://alistapart.com/articles/dynatext/

Treviranus, Jutta, et al (2004). ‘Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 2.0’ section 1.2 ‘Role of authoring tools in Web accessibility’: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20040224/#au-role

1.3 Using the web for communication:

Collaborative software links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_software
http://www.svpal.org/~grantbow/groupware.html
http://web.mala.bc.ca/lizhk/IDesign/collaborate.htm
Jigsaw (Tim Berners-Lee’s collaborative software): http://www.w3.org/Jigsaw/

1.4 Information design - making information accessible

Allsopp, John (2004).  ‘HTML, XHTML, semantics and the future of the web’: http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/xhtml/index.html

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (2003). ‘Dublin Core Metadata Element Set, Version 1.1: Reference Description’: http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/

Neilsen, Jakob (2004). ‘Usable information technology’: http://www.useit.com/

CRIA - Communication Research Institute of Australia inc., papers on ‘usable’ design: http://www.communication.org.au/html/papers_to_read.php?PHPSESSID=a68abc5987fdcd8783951a178d5a994a#7

CSS Zen Garden. to see Cascading Style Sheets in action, try out the various contributed styles, all of which offer a differently designed ‘skin’ to the same page of content: http://www.csszengarden.com/

Sall, Ken (1999). ‘Tim Berners-Lee: Challenges of the Second Decade’, available at: http://wdvl.internet.com/Internet/Future/berners-lee.html 

2. Enabling technology

2.1 Existing technologies and enabling software

Apple Macintosh accessibility page: http://www.apple.com/accessibility/

Dasher: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/

Englebart, Doug. See Bootstrap.org, Doug Englebart’s vision: http://www.bootstrap.org/

Freeway, Andrew. (2002). ‘Dasher: New Software by British Scientists Enables Liberation from QWERTY Keyboard’, from ‘Disability World’, http://www.disabilityworld.org/09-10_02/access/dasher.shtml

Kay, Alan (2003). Shown at Etech 2003. From a 90 minute live public demonstration, dated 1968, in the Augmentation Research Center, Stanford Research Institute, CA, of the online system Doug Englebart and group of 17 researchers had been working on since 1962. It included the first public demonstration of the mouse, but also of hypertext, audio & video collaboration over a network, and an input device using a five-finger chord key set. The ARPA network was set up a year later in 1969, and became one of the building blocks of the Internet. available at http://ftp.archive.org/movies/lisarein/oreilly/etech2003/alankay/tour.html

Microsoft Windows accessibility page: http://www.microsoft.com/enable/

Open Source Initiative, the: http://www.opensource.org

(Molly.com or Wise Womens web? - link lost - free web software links page)

2.2 Emerging technologies with enabling potential

Ambient Devices, Inc. http://www.ambientdevices.com/cat/orb/orborder.html, last accessed September 27, 2004.

Chisholm, Wendy (2004). ‘Teleconference on Making Visualizations of Complex Information Accessible for People with Disabilities’: http://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2004/06/cfp-viz.html

Everitt, D., Turner, G., with Quantrill, M. and Robson, J., (2002). ‘Arts and disability interfaces, part 1 of 4: study and recommendations’, available at http://www.ecoconsulting.co.uk/research/disability-tech.shtml

Gigliotti, C. (2002). Reverie, Osmose and Ephémère. In n.paradoxa, Vol. 9 (2002), (Eco)Logical pp. 64-73 Available at http://www.immersence.com/publications/CGigliotti-nparadoxa-N.html, las accessed September 27, 2004.

Grau, O. (2003). Charlotte Davies: Osmose. Virtual Art, From Illusion to Immersion (Revised and expanded edition) Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press (2003), pp. 193-211. Available at http://www.immersence.com/publications/OGrau-VirtualArt-N.html, last accessed 27 September, 2004.

Infoscape (2004). The Infoscape project is currently (among other things) a first-stage pilot to explore the use of VRML to present the contents of a database; the data used was the state of arts/disability activity  in the East Midlands at the time (2002). Infoscape can be seen at http://www.arts-infoscape.org

Quantrill, M. (2002). ‘Arts and disability interfaces, part 3 of 4: pervasive computing: a special report’: available at http://www.ecoconsulting.co.uk/research/disability-tech.shtml

Warwick, Kevin. (2002). Project Cyborg 2. Details available at http://www.rdg.ac.uk/KevinWarwick/html/project_cyborg_2_0.html, last accessed September 27, 2004.

Web3D Consortium - Open Standards for Real-Time 3D Communication: http://www.web3d.org/

3. Current and emerging concerns

Miller, Paul; Parker Sophia; Gillinson, Sarah (2004). ‘Disablism, How to tackle the last prejudice’, Demos, available at http://www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/disablism/

Huber, Julia and Skidmore, Paul (2003). ‘The New Old: why the baby boomers won't be pensioned off’. available at http://www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/thenewold_page280.aspx

Roulstone, Alan, et al (2004). Joseoh Rowntree funded research, ‘How Disabled People Manage In The British Workplace’, http://www.disabilityworld.org/06-08_04/employment/britishworkplace.shtml

4. Summary and recommendations for action

FAST (Foundation for Assistive Technology): http://www.fastuk.org/aboutus.php