Can the Web Be Made Accessible for People with Intellectual Disabilities?

Abstract

This article presents the findings of a research project that aimed to contribute to the social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities (ID) in the World Wide Web (the Web). The Inclusive New Media Design (INMD) project brought together thirty-oneWeb designers and developers with twenty-nine people with intellectual disabilities to explore the best practice for building Web sites accessible to the ID community. Specifically, the project took accessibility techniques identified in ID accessibility research, and investigated what would (or would not) make it possible for Web professionals to implement them. This article suggests some tentative answers to the question of whether a fully accessible Web can be built, one that includes people with ID. While the article outlines simple steps that can be taken to facilitate accessibility for people at the mild end of the ID spectrum, it also highlights a number of barriers that exist to implementing ID accessibility guidance, most notably the power holders and decision makers with whom Web designers work, who may not share the designers' commitment to accessibility.

Internet Access by People with Intellectual Disabilities: Inequalities and Opportunities

“…With regard to social attitudes, the accessibility requirements of people with ID have often been disregarded or misunderstood. One reason for this, as noted earlier, is the invisibility of this group to the general population [51]. Wehmeyer et al (2004) [52] argue that computers are 'cognitively inaccessible' for many individuals with ID and that this may be due to this group of people having rarely been included in decisions relating to computer design.…”

Bridging the digital divide for people with intellectual disability

“…Finally, some believe that the solution would be to take into account universal accessibility rules, so that everyone in the community could access the same digital environment (Blanck, 2014;Harrysson et al, 2004;Karreman, van der Geest, & Buursink, 2007;Tanis et al, 2012). Unfortunately, designers give very little consideration to these rules (Bunning, et al, 2010;Harrysson et al, 2004;Kennedy, Evans, & Thomas, 2011;Tanis et al 2012). That said, Brangier and colleagues (2010) believe that the main problem with these rules is that there are far too many (between 944 and 3000 rules).…”

“I’m a mother, but I’m also a facilitator in her every-day life”: Parents’ voices about barriers and support for internet participation among young people with intellectual disabilities

“…While some people choose the venues and sites where "everyone else" is (Löfgren-Mårtenson, 2008), others look for opportunities within the intellectual disability community (Kennedy, Evans, & Thomas, 2011). Stendal, Balandin and Molka-Danielson (2011) point out that the Internet in general, and virtual worlds (such as Second Life, a virtual world where you have your one avatar), more specifically, offer possibilities for people with intellectual disabilities (as well as other disabilities) to develop and deepen existing friendships.…”