Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Universal design, inclusive design, accessible design, design for all: different concepts—one goal? On the concept of accessibility—historical, methodological and philosophical aspects
KTH, School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC), Media Technology and Interaction Design, MID. Institute for Humane Technology (IHT), Sweden.
KTH, School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC), Media Technology and Interaction Design, MID.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7993-2825
KTH, School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC), Media Technology and Interaction Design, MID.
KTH, School of Computer Science and Communication (CSC), Media Technology and Interaction Design, MID.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2411-6417
2015 (English)In: Universal Access in the Information Society, ISSN 1615-5289, E-ISSN 1615-5297, Vol. 14, no 4, 505-526 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Accessibility and equal opportunities for all in the digital age have become increasingly important over the last decade. In one form or another, the concept of accessibility is being considered to a greater or smaller extent in most projects that develop interactive systems. However, the concept varies among different professions, cultures and interest groups. Design for all, universal access and inclusive design are all different names of approaches that largely focus on increasing the accessibility of the interactive system for the widest possible range of use. But, in what way do all these concepts differ and what is the underlying philosophy in all of these concepts? This paper aims at investigating the various concepts used for accessibility, its methodological and historical development and some philosophical aspects of the concept. It can be concluded that there is little or no consensus regarding the definition and use of the concept, and consequently, there is a risk of bringing less accessibility to the target audience. Particularly in international standardization the lack of consensus is striking. Based on this discussion, the authors argue for a much more thorough definition of the concept and discuss what effects it may have on measurability, conformance with standards and the overall usability for the widest possible range of target users.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2015. Vol. 14, no 4, 505-526 p.
National Category
Interaction Technologies
Research subject
Human-computer Interaction
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-151120DOI: 10.1007/s10209-014-0358-zISI: 000361003800004Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84941416980OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-151120DiVA: diva2:748555
Note

QC 20151005

Available from: 2014-09-19 Created: 2014-09-15 Last updated: 2017-12-05Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Åhman, HenrikGulliksen, Jan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Persson, HansÅhman, HenrikYngling, Alexander ArveiGulliksen, Jan
By organisation
Media Technology and Interaction Design, MID
In the same journal
Universal Access in the Information Society
Interaction Technologies

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 388 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf