UniversalUsability.org

This universal usability research agenda focuses on three universal usability challenges: technology variety, user diversity, and gaps in user knowledge. Skeptics caution that accommodating low-end technology, low-ability citizens, and low-skilled users will result in a lowest common denominator system that will be less useful to most users. This dark scenario, called dumbing down, is a reasonable fear, but the experience of this author supports a brighter outcome.

We believe that accommodating a broader spectrum of usage situations forces researchers to consider a wider range of designs and often leads to innovations that benefit all users. For example, web browsers, unlike word processors, reformat text to match the width of the window. This accommodates users with small displays (narrower than 640 pixels), and provides a nice benefit for users with larger displays (wider than 1024 pixels), who can view more of a web page with less scrolling. Accommodating narrower (less than 400 pixels) or wider (more than 1200 pixels) displays presents just the kind of challenge that may push designers to develop new ideas. For example, they could consider reducing font and image sizes for small displays, moving to a multi-column format for large displays, exploring paging strategies (instead of scrolling), and developing overviews.

A second skeptics' caution, called the innovation restriction scenario, is that attempts to accommodate the low end (technology, ability, or skill) will constrain innovations for the high end. This is again a reasonable caution, but if designers are aware of this concern the dangers seem avoidable. A basic HTML web page accommodates low-end users, and sophisticated user interfaces using Java applets or Shockwave plug-ins can be added for users with advanced hardware and software, plus fast network connections. New technologies can often be provided as an add-on or plug-in, rather than a replacement. As new technologies becomes perfected and widely accepted, they become the new standard. Layered approaches have been successful in the past and they are compelling for accommodating a wide range of users. They are easy to implement when planned in advance, but often difficult to retrofit.

Advocates who promote accommodation of disabled users often describe the curbcut - a scooped out piece of sidewalk to allow wheel-chair users to cross streets. Adding curbcuts after the curbs have been built is expensive, but building them in advance reduces costs because less material is needed. The benefits extend to baby carriage pushers, delivery service workers, bicyclists, and travelers with roller bags. Computer-related accommodations that benefit many users are power switches in the front of computers, adjustable keyboards, and user control over audio volume, screen brightness, and monitor position.

Automobile designers have long understood the benefits of accommodating a wide range of users. They feature adjustable seats, steering wheels, mirrors, and lighting levels as standard equipment and offer optional equipment for those who need additional flexibility.

Reaching a broad audience is more than a democratic ideal; it makes good business sense. The case for network externalities, the concept that all users benefit from expanded participation, has been made repeatedly. Facilitating access and improving usability expands markets and increases participation of diverse users whose contributions may be valuable to many. Broadening participation is not only an issue of reducing costs for new equipment. As the number of users grows, the capacity to rapidly replace a majority of equipment declines, so strategies that accommodate a wide range of equipment will become even more in demand.

With these concerns in mind, a three-part research agenda for universal usability may provoke innovations for all users.

• Technology variety: Supporting a broad range of hardware, software, and network access
• User diversity: Accommodating users with different skills, knowledge, age, gender, disabilities, disabling conditions (mobility, sunlight, noise), literacy, culture, income, etc.
• Gaps in user knowledge: Bridging the gap between what users know and what they need to know

Previous Research Agendas

There is growing attention to computing research issues related to universal access and usability. The thoughtful and focused Rand Corporation report on Universal Access to Email (Anderson, Bikson, Law and Mitchell, 1995) made it clear that "better understanding of the capabilities and limitations of current user-computer interfaces is needed." Similarly, when the National Academy of Science/National Research Council convened a panel on every-citizen interfaces, they recommended "an aggressive research program, funded by government and private sources, that examines both the human performance side of interfaces and the interface technologies, current and potential" (CSTB, 1997).

During a well-financed, but controversial study of 48 Pittsburgh area homes, 133 participants received computers, free network connections, training, and assistance with problems. Even in such optimal conditions a central limitation was the difficulties that users experienced with the services (Kraut, Scherlis, Mukhopadhyay, Manning, and Kiesler, 1996). The researchers wrote "even the easiest-to-use computers and applications pose significant barriers to the use of online services...even with help and our simplified procedure, HomeNet participants had trouble connecting to the Internet."

As attention to the issue of universal access and usability has grown, frameworks for analyzing problems have appeared. Clement and Shade (1999) suggest seven layers of analysis: carriage facilities, devices, software tools, content services, service/access provision, literacy/social facilitation, and governance. They see usability as a problem, especially for users with disabilities, and encourage consideration of the wide range of users and needs. Universal usability is sometimes tied to meeting the needs of users who are disabled or work in disabling conditions. This important research direction is likely to benefit all users. The adaptability needed for users with diverse physical, visual, auditory, or cognitive disabilities is likely to benefit users with differing preferences, tasks, hardware, etc. (Laux, McNally, Paciello, and Vanderheiden, 1996). Plasticity of the interface and presentation independence of the contents both contribute to universal usability.