TECHNOLOGY DRIVEN (Rebuilt)

Introduction
The Team
Part 1
Part 2: Individual Sub-Case Studies
Take-Aways
References
Contact Us

Introduction

Technology drives so much of today’s world that it is only natural it drives accessibility as well. The tools available for creating accessible technology are more numerous than ever with modern materials and computers, and general-purpose technology like smartphones that can be used in unprecedented applications. We asked leading researchers in accessible design, on the cusp of this digital frontier, where their research is taking them, how these new tools relate to the needs of their users, and what we need to be careful to avoid. We, also through a little twist, investigate a critical key area currently limiting the forward drive of technology.

The Team

Alicia M. Gal is one of three students currently completing the inaugural year of Carleton University’s Doctor of Philosophy – Biomedical Engineering, and only Biomechanics and Biomaterial focused student. Her research interests are first of its kind for Carleton, and the sport itself, centring around performance enhancement, injury prevention, and equipment design for the sport of para-ice hockey. There is so much more to her around Carleton, here is a link to find out more: Alicia’s webpage. Alicia is a NSERC CREATE READi trainee.

Adrian L. Jessup Schneider is in in his second year of a Doctor of Philosophy in Computing at the EQUIS Lab at Queen’s University, in the fields of digital games. His research concerns exergames, particularly exergames designed to be playable by children with motor impairments such as cerebral palsy. Adrian is a NSERC CREATE READi trainee.

Elizabeth Hoskin is in her first year of a Master of Applied Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering (specialization in Biomedical Engineering) at Queen’s University. She is part of the Building and Designing Assistive Technologies Lab (BDAT), and her research interests centre around access to recreation and activities that promote health and wellness. Elizabeth is a NSERC CREATE READi trainee.

Part 1

The Theme

Using the broadest definition of technology as “the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes,” (Oxford Dictionaries, n.d.) most or all accessible and universal design can be considered a product of technology. After all, accessibility is a practical purpose, and is designed based on knowledge and theory.

However, the theme “Technology Driven” refers to designs which, themselves, are based upon or depend on other technologies. Because many of these foundational technologies use computer-based hardware or software, or mechanical mobility devices, the theme coincides with the colloquial sense of the word technology as meaning computers and mechanical devices.

The aspects of the theme that we focused on can be summarized in three sub-themes:

Exploring accessibility involving human-technology interfaces.
What considerations are needed for designing accessible technology?
How can we leverage information to improve our designs?

The Interviews

The information we most wanted from our interview subjects was the following:

Research interests: a quick description of what they have contributed to the realm of accessible technology.
Tools and methods: the technology they themselves use to assist in their own designs.
Relationship of technology and disability: how do they perceive the nature of creating accessible technology?
Interfacing information and design: hearkening back to the definition of technology, what knowledge is needed to produce accessible technology?
Ongoing concerns in accessibility: based on their experience, what areas of accessibility need further attention from designers?
Future work: where is their current accessibility research headed?

To match our theme, we required interview subjects who researched different forms of technology. Ideally, the researchers would have experience ranging from physical devices and objects (“hard” technology), to computer software (“soft” technology), and the interactions between them. The following three researchers meet that qualification.

Who We Interviewed and Why

Dr. Arya is part of the Interactive Media Group at Carleton University. Dr. Arya was seen as a beneficial non-accessibility expert providing diversity to our case study. His research involving multimodality into technology can advance the possible uses for accessible technologies. Dr. Arya’s work within gaming and education technology can be seen as the missing links, which currently limit the inclusiveness of accessibility devices. For more information on his research, check out his webpage using this link: Dr. Arya’s Webpage

Dr. Graham has 10 years of experience in video game design, specifically from a background of human computer interactions. His key contributions to the world of accessibility design include accessible games for non-traditional gamers. He has worked on games ranging from computer aided exercise to augmented reality. For more information on Dr. Graham’s work, checkout his webpage using this link: Dr. Graham’s Webpage

Dr. Girouard is a leader in bendable interface design, which specifically benefits blind users. She leads the Creative Interactions Lab at Carleton University, designing a variety of bendable interfaces including video game controllers, stylus controllers and wearable devices. For more information on Dr. Girouard’s work, checkout her webpage using this link: Dr. Girouard’s Webpage

The Questions We Asked

Please describe your research interests.
- What would you say are your biggest contributions to your field?
Is there one human sense that the technology you design utilizes over others?
Do you think that people without disabilities require technology that uses different information than technology for people with disabilities? We know that people with disabilities can’t always use the tech that people without disabilities use, but is it the other way around as well?
What sort of design processes do you follow? Are there any formal models of design you believe in?
- Are there any design approaches that are better suited to innovative technologies?
How would you describe your relationship between information and design as a researcher?
From a theoretical perspective, what do you think are some potentially higher order consequences of increasingly accessible technologies?
- Do you see any ethical concerns for the increased democratization of once inaccessible technologies?
- What precautions might be taken to mitigate the risk of these consequences or concerns?
With the technology that designers have access to always improving, it is becoming easier to design custom assistive technologies or devices for users. Do you think that this is a beneficial shift in design trends?

What We Found

Below is a summary of what we learned from each person we interviewed during Part 1 of our case study:

Dr. Arya

Key Contributions: Multimodality interfaces and technology and education

Methods and Processes: People are multimodal, so should technology (aggregation and integration human-computer interface)

Approach to User Population: Facial recognition and artificial intelligence (AI) integration into educational gaming

Dr. Graham

Key Contributions: Accessible games for non-traditional gamers

Methods and Processes: Participatory and incremental design

Approach to User Population: The user populations experiences are greatly valued

Dr. Girouard

Key Contributions: Design and applications of deformable user interfaces

Methods and Processes: User-centred, participatory, and iterative design

Approach to User Population: Understanding the needs of the user population is critical, both as background knowledge and iteratively during design.

Discussion and Interpretation

Below is a summary of our key analysis and synthesis points from Part 1 of our case study.

The forward drive for technology is there.
Lead researchers focused on accessible technology are encountering many limitations.
As next generations are developed, the transition from exclusivity to inclusivity is slowly occurring.
Collaboration with external experts may be promising for leaders experiencing limitations with accessible designs.
The ultimate goal for technology is universal user interfaces.
People are not inaccessible, technology is, and by encompassing the technology culture philosophy, we should see a shift in gears as we advance in our technology driven world.

Part 2: Individual Sub-Case Studies

Part 1 of the case study sparked interest in sub-themes for future exploration in Part 2 of the assignment. We tried our best to select topics that interested us personally, however, complemented each other such that we would cover a broad range of topics and their relationship to driving technology. The individual sub-cases were informed through readings and interview data previously collected.

Please see our individual pages for the results of our individual case studies using the below links:

Take-Aways

The key takeaways from our project are as follows:

Modern smartphones and cloud applications are powerful tools for ubiquitous assistive technology, but must be handled carefully to avoid creating bottlenecks.
Portable assistive devices are second-order accessibility, as they themselves are more accessible. Cloud computing may be able to achieve third-order accessibility.
There is a need to increase the collaboration with external experts during the design and/or modification processes involving technology and accessibility.
External experts are at the forefront making it possible for technology to be driven out of exclusivity into inclusivity, ensuring accessibility to all.

References

English Oxford Living Dictionaries. Definition of technology in English. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/technology

Contact Us

If you have questions about our case study, please feel free to write us an email: