Unfortunately, the circumstantial concept by itself does not solve all problems. A well-intentioned designer or employer with a good understanding of the circumstantial concept of disability can be presented with many dilemmas when it comes to providing access.
In most cases, the main problem is not the lack of an access strategy that is technologically feasible. Increased computing power makes it possible to implement superb access technologies. Advanced input strategies that are now viable include: special keyboards, document scanning, high performance speech recognition, head tracking, eye tracking, monitoring of facial expressions and interpretation of biological electrical signals. Viable output strategies include: alternative screen technologies such as direct laser stimulation of the retina, high quality speech synthesis, multi-dimensional sound, tactile devices that stimulate the sense of touch, haptic devices that use force feedback, and robotic devices. Advanced access tools such as these have the potential to make almost any disabled individual more independent and highly competitive in the workplace.
However, the fact that a technology has been developed, or could be, does not mean that it is commercially available, much less at a reasonable price. The high cost and unavailability of access technology can pose almost insurmountable problems.
These problems are compounded by the fact that users now often use many computers. Not so long ago, it was unusual for an individual to have access to more than one computer. Now it is commonplace for a person to use several computers each day. Even when it is feasible to modify a single computer to make it accessible to an individual, modifying every computer he or she uses may not be.
Not only do individuals use multiple computers, many computers have multiple users. It quite likely that several of the computers a person uses during the day belong to some institution, such as a bank or school, and will be used by a number of people throughout the day. Devices, such as ATMs and information kiosks are really computers in disguise and pose the same problems.
Computers with multiple users present more dilemmas. Whose responsibility is it to make publicly available computers accessible? Which disabilities should be accommodated on a publicly accessible computer? How is a system made accessible without exposing it to intentional or unintentional vandalism?
The most perplexing problem is how to accommodate all of the necessary disabilities without making the computer so complex that no one can figure out how to use it. Consider information kiosks, for example. A typical information kiosk is designed with a certain ``standard'' individual in mind. This person can stand close the kiosk and can use arms and fingers to operate keys or a touch screen. She can see the information displayed on a screen, can pick up paper output and read it, and can hear voice output. The inclusive designer cannot make these assumptions. A person who uses a wheelchair may not be able to reach the relevant buttons or see the screen easily; a blind person may be not be able to choose which buttons to push for various purposes, or see the output on the monitor or in print. A deaf person may be unable to hear the tones or spoken output, or be aware that it is occurring.
For each of these problems there is a solution, but is there a solution for all of them at once? Lowering the kiosk for the paraplegic may mean that others have to stoop uncomfortably to use it. Making all the output in speech may solve some of the blind person's problems, while exacerbating those of the person who is deaf. Perhaps a kiosk could be designed that offered every kind of input and output, with monitors and buttons at various heights, comfortable for all, and every needed input and output option built in--but what would it cost?
The Archimedes Project is developing a system that we feel poses solutions to some of these dilemmas. We call this the ``Total Access System''.