This special issue on “Designing accessible technology” includes a number of papers that have been extended and developed from their original contributions to the Cambridge Workshop on Universal Access and Assistive Technology (CWUAAT), held at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge in April 2006. CWUAAT’06 was the third of a series of workshops that are held every 2 years, with a general focus on product and solution development and the requirements for the successful design of assistive and accessible technology. This workshop is unique in bringing together contributions of leading researchers in the fields of Inclusive Design, Rehabilitation Robotics, Universal Access and Assistive Technology, in both the national and international academic communities. We believe it is exactly this juxtaposition of research from fields that would not otherwise appear on the same platform that enables the workshop to make a definitive contribution and creates a nourishing environment for new interdisciplinary insights. Along the way, the principal requirements for the successful design of assistive and accessible technology are addressed, ranging from the identification and capture of the needs of the users, through to the development and evaluation of truly usable and accessible systems for users with special needs.

The philosophy underlying inclusive design specifically extends the definition of users to include people who are excluded by rapidly changing technology, especially the elderly and ageing, and prioritises the role and value of extreme user groups in innovation and new product and service development. It also prioritises the context of use, both physical and psychological, and the complexity of interactions between products, services and interfaces in specific contexts of use, such as independent living. Universal access and assistive technology are focussing domains for these priorities. Hence, there is a need to encourage wide-ranging discussion, co-operation and collaboration within and between the universal access and assistive technology research communities in the context of inclusive design, and this special issue is also aimed to address that need.

The papers in this issue have been specifically selected to reflect the themes of Universal Access and Information and Communication Technology. However, the workshop also contained a considerable body of work more relevant to other themes, such as Engineering Design, Rehabilitation Robotics, and Understanding and Involving Users in the Design Process. These papers can be found in the complete set of CWUAAT’06 papers published by Springer-Verlag in the book ‘‘Designing accessible technology’’ edited by Pat Langdon, John Clarkson, and Peter Robinson.

The papers selected for this issue represent a range of perspectives under the broad theme of designing accessible technology, including:

  • Computer and engineering tools to support the design of products for the wider population (Persad et al.; Macdonald et al.);

  • The development of new technologies for rehabilitation and assistance (Davis et al.; Bates et al.; Petersson and Brooks);

  • Cognition and learning in the design of products (Langdon et al.); and

  • Research into the application of technologies to support older people in living and work (Hanson et al.; Dewsbury et al.).

All these perspectives are united in the common endeavour of improving the design of accessible technology for the wider community, including people with cognitive, sensory and motor impairments and consequent disabilities in society.

The first paper in this issue, “Characterising user capabilities to support inclusive design evaluation” by Umesh Persad et al. shows how it is in principle possible to set out the sensory, cognitive and motor dimensions of user capability that are important for product interaction, and then to deploy those dimensions to assess product accessibility. The key to this approach is how the relationship between user capability and the human functional demands are used with an underlying conceptual model for conducting product evaluations and estimating the number of people who are potentially excluded or have difficulty in use.

Alastair MacDonald et al. show how the analysis of 3D human motion and force can be used to calculate the biomechanical functional demand of a product in daily living. They embed this approach within a 3D CAD tool developed to assist designers, but which may also have possible applications in healthcare.

Both these papers represent continued research that attempts to match data acquired from computer and product users to the product task demands for a wider range of inclusive functional capability. The goal is to make the artifacts used in everyday life more usable and accessible to both the older and impaired population, by improving their design.

Megan Davis and her co-authors tackle the cognitively and socially disabling implications of Autism. In particular, they address children’s capabilities to attain comprehension through narration, and how this may be therapeutically enhanced by developing adaptive interactive learning software that utilises specific narrative components. This work represents a considerable experimental effort, reporting a 4 month long experimental study that is solidly embedded in current theoretical and experimental findings in this field.

In the fourth paper, Bates et al. also address the potential impact of new technological innovations on disabilities resulting from impairment. In this case the aim is to develop eye-gaze based communication and control for people with motor-control disorders. The authors present a number of detailed case-studies demonstrating how cheap eye-tracking devices could be coupled with predictive text and cursor control in a computer interface, promoting independence of living.

Petersson and Brookes utilise robotic technology to create opportunities for new enhanced therapeutic situations for children with physical impairments, and report how gestural responses from children, linked to immediately computed multi-media feedback, can be used to improve motivation and interaction with a therapist in physical therapy. Their study provides methodological insights into the difficult task of accurately eliciting the benefits of therapies based on novel technology to carers, institutions and children.

Starting from the product design perspective of what features of products make them difficult or easy to use, Langdon et al. present a synthesis of relevant literature from: the cognitive science of memory; training transfer, and human factors and usability. This context is then used to restate the question in the form of the possible effects of prior experience on the ability to learn and use a product interface. They present some initial evidence from user trials with a range of product interfaces that suggest that the influence of prior experience may be related to the degree of similarity of that experience to the product usage situation, rather than to the nature of the interface features themselves.

The last two papers are both concerned with how available new technologies for assistance can be introduced to people in the community in an acceptable form. This important area emphasises how novel technological innovation for the older and disabled populations must be ‘fit for purpose’ if it is to be accepted by users, and how this can be established through social and person-centred approaches to design. Hanson et al. show how an extensive survey of attitudes towards telecare technologies is a necessary critical stage, as either a preventative strategy or as a crisis management intervention, of service development whose implementation might be strongly affected by informants’ view.

Finally, Dewsbury et al.’s paper reports how a multi-institution, multi-disciplinary attempt to develop smart home technology led to the development of a computer-mediated communication system as a natural, usable and inclusive intervention for older people, with mundane daily needs, who may be socially isolated. Interestingly, through the use of cultural probes and ethnographic fieldwork, the researchers achieve not only novel insights into the culture of older people and appropriate technological specifications, but also address methods of design.