Dr Steve Green
Dr Elaine Pearson
Special Needs Computing Research
University of Teesside
A number of groups (most notably W3C, DISinHE and many who are mindful
of the changes in the Disability Discrimination Act) are promoting the
world wide web for people with disabilities. This is not surprising as
the potential benefits of the web as an unlimited source of information
is huge. The problems associated with web sources are also equally well
understood. In particular the anarchic nature of the Internet means that
almost anyone can publish to the web and much of that material is either
of dubious quality or difficult to find. This problem is exacerbated for
people with disabilities when coupled with the more obvious problems of
reduced accessibility. Sensory deficit, including visual impairment, imposes
some very real problems because of the essentially multimedia nature of
many modern sites. Nevertheless much of the current material on the web
is essentially text-based and therefore accessible to speech-based browsers.
Special tools (e.g. WebBobby) can also check the site for compatibility
with such browsers. An area, however, that has received very little consideration
to date is the use of the web with people with cognitive disabilities
and special educational needs (SEN).
Currently the most well researched area of cognitive disability is a
form of specific learning difficulties (SLD) more commonly referred to
as dyslexia. Even here the types of problems encountered are various affecting
visual perceptions or acuity, memory or mental processing. At a simple
level some fonts and background-foreground colour combinations are particularly
difficult to read for many people with dyslexia. Black characters on a
white background using 10 point Times New Roman would be one example of
a common combination which is likely to cause difficulties. Other confusions
can occur because of inconsistent or poorly considered divisions of the
screen into panel and button areas or simply by separating related information
into different screen windows or at the two ends of a scrolling text window.
In many other areas of cognitive deficit (e.g. for people with mental
handicap, Down's syndrome, autism etc.) the problems might appear at first
glance to be very obviously one of mental immaturity affecting reading
ability and cognitive awareness. However a closer examination shows that
many cognitive disabilities are not just a matter of immature mental development
but once again one of specific learning difficulties (SLD). For example
there are a sizeable minority of people with Asperger's syndrome (a form
of autism) who can show remarkable areas of skill coupled with glaring
areas of cognitive disability. Some of these people, with special help,
can continue on to college or university. Most people with moderate or
severe cognitive disabilities may not attend college but will often attend
an adult training centre or community centre and like the rest of us are
clear targets for lifelong learning. We do them a disservice if all we
ever present is material appropriate to their reading age without considering
their social maturity, interests or self-esteem. After all we would not
expect adult literacy classes to revert to Janet and John and this principle
applies equally well to the presentation or selection of appropriate web
We have presented the problem in a very simplistic way. Clearly a more
thorough treatment of the potential areas of cognitive deficit is required
if we are to make serious inroads into the problems of web design for
all. While we cannot expect every web author to be an expert in anything
much other than (hopefully) the subject matter of the site itself, we
might propose that authors ask themselves three questions:
- Who is my site aimed at?
- What are the consequences of the design I propose for my audience?
- Are there any checks I can carry out?
If the answer to the first question is “everyone!” then we will reply
“do you really mean to all with any type of physical, sensory, perceptual
or cognitive disability, the old, the young, those whose first language
is not English or who come from another cultural background?” Obviously
not all sites are expected to be suitable for everyone and only a very
few could reasonably or economically be made available to even the majority
but we should be clear about who we are excluding. Our general principle
is that we should aim not to exclude anyone unnecessarily.
Secondly we should be aware of the problems our design will cause different
members of our audience. This presupposes that the author actually has
a web design. Assuming they do we can then proceed to consider what media
elements we will use:
- If images or video then alternate descriptions are needed for the
- If sound then subtitles, text or signs for the deaf
- If text then glossaries or appropriately differentiated pages for
the poorer readers.
Differentiation is the key to supporting those with cognitive disabilities.
It can take the form of simpler text, pictures and voice-overs to make
the reading and interaction tasks more manageable, better structured or
supported. These elements relate not only to the site content itself but
equally to its navigational and interaction features.
In answer to the third question, the best check is a good initial design.
Automated checking tools could feasibly tell us how suitable the site
is for the visually impaired, the deaf, dyslexics and various specific
cognitive or learning deficits. We can classify the reading age and assess
the level of differentiated support. However these are remedial tools
and no substitute for good design up-front. This is not to say that we
need to work with the lowest common denominator. Clearly we should not
avoid the use of visual or multimedia elements because some people have
sensory impairments any more than we avoid using text because some people
are poor readers. What we really need are a set of good design principles
which take account of these factors.
The basic principles that we should follow are those of inclusion and
differentiation. We should make our web-sites as open as possible by thinking
about and catering for the needs of different users. We should be aware
of who we include and exclude as a result of our design.
But at the end of the day why should we take the trouble? Some would
say it is because of the changes in the law. Others that “it is our moral
duty to think of those less fortunate than ourselves”. This is not our
argument. If there is a professional obligation it is to think of every
individual in our potential audience. However a much more pressing argument
is that the Internet is an open communication channel to the world. Why
should we reasonably choose to exclude anyone who can benefit from this