ED 375 596 EC 303 436 TITLE Trace Research and ...DOCUMENT RESUME EC 303 436 Trace Research and Development Center: Report of Progress, 1987-94. Wisconsin Univ., Madison. Trace Center

ED 375 596

TITLE

INSTITUTIONSPONS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 303 436

Trace Research and Development Center: Report ofProgress, 1987-94.Wisconsin Univ., Madison. Trace Center.National Inst. on Disability and RehabilitationResearch (ED/OSERS), Washington, DC.94125p.

Trace Center Reprint Service, University ofWisconsin-Madison, S-151 Waisman Center, 1500Highland Ave., Madison, WI 53705 ($5).Reports Descriptive (141)

MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.Accessibility (for Disabled); *Assistive Devices (forDisabled); *Communication Aids (for Disabled);*Communication Disorders; Computers; DeliverySystems; Hearing Impairments; Input Output Devices;Mental Retardation; Physical Disabilities; *SevereDisabilities; *Technological Advancement; TrainingMethods; Visual Impairments*Trace Research and Development Center WI

This report documents activities and projects from1987 to 1994 of the Trace Research and Development Center(Wisconsin), which addresses the communication needs of nonvocalseverely disabled children and adults. During this period the Centeralso served as a national Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centeron the topic of Access to Computers and 'electronic Devices.Introductory information includes an overview of the Center and adescription of recently released products. The main body of thedocument presents 41 individual project reports. These are groupedinto the following focus areas (with sample projects noted inparentheses): (1) movement impairment (development of improvedheadpointing computer access system); (2) sensory impairment (tactileperception and business graphics studies); (3) cognitive impairment(interface training and use by persons with cognitive disabilities);(4) cross-impairment (computer and operating system accessibilitydesign guidelines); (5) information and training programs (databaseson communication, control and computer access development anddownloading); and (6) service delivery programs (communication aidsand systems clinic). Two additional sections describe cooperative andconsultative efforts of the Center and list Trace Centerpublications. (DB)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

from the original document.***********************************************************************

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFOHMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceved from the person or organnaloonoriginating a

O Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in this docu.ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or pacY

Trace Research andDevelopment Center

Report of Progress1987-94

Trace Research and Development CenterWaisman Center and Dept. of industrial EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

The activities described in this report have been fundedin part by the National Institute on Disabilityand Rehabilitation Research, U.S. Dept. of Education.

3

Traceenter

Trace Research and Development CenterUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonS-151 Waisman Center1500 Highland AvenueMadison, WI 53705

Phone: (608) 262-6966TT/TDD: (608) 263-5408

Fax: (608) 262-8848

E-mail: [email protected]

Additional copies of this report are available throughthe Trace Center Reprint Service.

Alternative formats, including computerdisk copies, are available for individualswho have difficulty reading or handlingprint matter.

Printed on recycled paper

4

From the Director

Dear Friends and Colleagues:

This Report represents the culmination of many long efforts, and also marks the beginningof a new program of work at the Trace Center.

From 1987 to 1993, the Trace Center served as a Rehabilitation Engineering ResearchCenter on the topic of "Access to Computers and Electronic Devices." The RERC programwas sponsored by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR),U.S. Department of Education. What we've been able to achieve in that period of time hasbeen heartening, though much work remains to be done and new challenges are continuallyarising.

The attempts to build accessibility directly into computers as they are manufactured begantentatively with a meeting at the White House in 1984, but between 1987 and 1994 we sawthe effort spread substantially. Today the federal government includes computer accessibilityrequirements in its contracts for data processing equipment. The Rehabilitation Act and theAmericans with Disabilities Act. now specifically require employers and public accommoda-tions to make ilre they are electronically accessible.

Most encouraging has been the response of the computer industry itself. With the encour-agement and support of the Trace Center and other groups across the U.S., major computerbrands now include many of the accessibility features were only experimental six years ago.Those who have not yet built them into their systems "right out the box" have developed add-on software for current systems, and are addi v access features to the next generation ofsystems soon to be released.

This Report of Progress covers the Trace Center activities funded under the RERC pro-gram, and also projects sponsored by .ether funding sources. We try to maintain a balancedprogram at the Center, covcAng not only research and development but information, trainingand clinical service programs.

As 1 mentioned, this Report marks the beginning of a new challenge. In 1993 the TraceCenter began a new five-year RERC program, on the topic of "Adaptive Computers andInformation Systems." The computer has expanded from the desktop model we all know to avariety of information systems now found in libraries, shopping malls, government buildings,airports and banks as well as in the workplace and home. These dedicated informationsystems will be one of our great challenges under the new RERC.

Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhDDirector

Contents

Projects Covered in This Report vii

Overview of the Center 1

Recently Released Products 7

Project Reports

Movement Impairment Focus Area 17Development and Testing of an Instrument for

Studying Efficiency of Standard and Alternative Input Devices 19Effects of Gain on Pointing Device Performance 21Evaluation of Two Control-Display Gain Methods for a

Head-Controlled Computer Input Device 23Development of Improved Headpointing Computer Access System 25Development of Extensions for Standard Computers

and Operating Systems to Allow Access by Users with Motor Impairments 27Trace Transparent Access Module (T-TAM) for Apple and IBM Computers 29

Sensory Impairment Focus Area 31State-of-the-Art Planning Workshop on

Access to Graphics-Based Computers by Blind Users 33Access to Graphics-Based Operating Systems for Blind Individuals: "Systems 3" Model 35Tactile Perception and Business Graphics Studies:

Factors in Perception of Simple Shapes 37Tactile Perception and Business Graphics Studies:

Factors in Perception of Compound Shapes 39Tactile Perception and Business Graphics Studies:

Impact on Tactile Perception of Combining Tactile Primitives 41Access to Graphical User Interfaces Through Audio/ Tactile Screen "Snapshots" 43Effects of Control on Text Presentation 45Auditory Redundancy for Hearing Impaired Individuals 47

Cognitive Impairment Focus Area 49Identification and Quantification of Cognitive Tasks in Computer Operation 51Interface Training and Use by Young Children 53Interface Training and Use by Persons with Cognitive Disabilities 55Computer Use by Individuals with Aphasia 57

Cross-Impairment Focus Area 59Computer and Operating System Accessibility Design Guidelines 61

Guidelines for the Design of Consumer Electronic Products 63Development of Design Guidelines for Standard

Application Software to Increase Usability by Persons with Disabilities 65Campus and Library Information Systems Accessibility Manuals 67Accessibility of TDDs for Hearing Impaired Individuals With Multiple Impairments 69Development of User-, Professional- and Public-Accessible

Database Interface Techniques 71

Cooperative Electronic Library on Disability:A Model for Database Design, Compilation and Dissemination 73

General Input Device Emulating Interface (GIDEI) Standard 75Simple Electrical Transducer (SET) Standard 77Serial Wheelchair Control Interface Standard 79Case Studies on Facilitated Communication 81System for Integrating and Reporting of

Occupational Therapy Functional Assessment (OT FACT) 83

Information and Training Programs 85Development of an Accessible, Distributable

Assistive Technology Database: Hyper-ABLEDATA and DOS-ABLEDATA 87User Friendly, Disseminable Database System for

Information and Referral: Trace Cooperative Service Directory 89Databases on Communication, Control and

Computer Access: Development and Downloading 91Information Response and Referral 93Summary Information Materials Program 95Trace Center Reprint Service 97Technology Specialization (Tech Spec) Training Program 99Interdisciplinary Augmentative Communication

and Technology Training Program (InterACT) 101Trace Center Workshop Series 103

Service Delivery Programs 105Communication Aids and Systems Clinic 107Communication Development Program 109

Cooperative and Consultative Efforts 111

Trace Center Publications 113

vi

Impa

irmen

t

Pro

ject

s C

over

ed in

Thi

s R

epor

t

Sen

sory

Impa

irmen

t

(Pag

e nu

mbe

rs fo

llow

eac

h pr

ojec

t titl

e)

Cog

nitiv

e Im

pairm

ent

IC

ross

-Im

pairm

ent

info

rmat

ion

and

Foc

usF

ocus

Are

a (1

7)F

ocus

Are

a (3

1)F

ocus

Are

a (4

9)F

ocus

Are

a (5

9)I

Tra

inin

g P

rogr

ams

(85)

Inst

rum

ent f

or S

tudy

ing

Inpu

tS

tate

-of-

the-

Art

Iden

tific

atio

n an

dC

ompu

ter

and

Ope

ratin

gH

yper

-AB

LED

AT

A a

ndD

evic

es (

19)

Pla

nnin

g W

orks

hop

(33)

Qua

ntifi

catio

n of

Cog

nitiv

eS

yste

m G

uide

lines

(61

)D

OS

-AB

LED

AT

A (

87)

Tas

ks (

51)

Effe

cts

of G

ain

on P

oint

ing

Sys

tem

s 3

(35)

Con

sum

er E

lect

roni

c P

rodu

cts

Tra

ce C

oope

rativ

eD

evic

es 1

21)

Inte

rfac

e T

rain

ing

and

Use

by Y

oung

Chi

ldre

n (5

3)G

uide

lines

(63

)S

ervi

ce D

irect

ory

(89)

Fac

tors

in P

erce

ptio

n of

Tw

o T

ypes

of G

ain

for

Poi

ntin

g D

evic

es (

23)

Sim

ple

Sha

pes

(37)

Inte

rfac

e T

rain

ing

and

Use

by P

erso

ns w

ith C

ogni

tive

App

licat

ion

Sof

twar

e D

esig

nG

uide

lines

(65

)D

atab

ases

on

Com

mun

icat

ion,

Con

trol

& -

Dm

pute

rA

cces

s (9

1)F

acto

rs in

Per

cept

ion

ofD

isab

ilitie

s (5

5)Im

prov

ed H

eadp

oint

ing

Com

poun

d S

hape

s (3

9)C

ampu

s an

d Li

brar

yS

yste

m (

25)

Acc

essi

bilit

y M

anua

ls (

67)

Info

rmat

ion

Res

pons

e an

d

Impa

ct o

f Com

bini

ngC

ompu

ter

Use

by

Indi

vidu

als

with

Aph

asia

(57

)R

efer

ral (

93)

Dev

elop

men

t of E

xten

sion

s fo

rT

actil

e P

rimiti

ves

(41)

Acc

essi

bilit

y of

TD

Ds

(69)

Com

pute

rs a

nd O

pera

ting

Sum

mar

y In

form

atio

nS

yste

ms

(27)

Mat

eria

ls P

rogr

am (

95)

Aud

io/T

actil

e S

cree

nA

cces

sibl

e D

atab

ase

"Sna

psho

ts"

(43)

Inte

rfac

e T

echn

ique

s (7

1)T

race

Tra

nspa

rent

Acc

ess

Tra

ce C

ente

r R

eprin

tM

odul

e T

-TA

M (

29)

Ser

vice

(97

)E

ffect

s of

Con

trol

on

Tex

tC

oope

rativ

e E

lect

roni

cP

rese

ntat

ion

(45)

Libr

ary

on D

isab

ility

(73

)T

echS

pec

Tra

inin

gP

rogr

am (

99)

Aud

itory

Red

unda

ncy

for

GID

EI S

tand

ard

(75)

Hea

ring

Impa

ired

Indi

vidu

als

(47)

Inte

rAC

T T

rain

ing

SE

T S

tand

ard

(77)

Pro

gram

(10

1)

Ser

ial W

heel

chai

r C

ontr

olT

race

Cen

ter

Wor

ksho

pIn

terf

ace

Sta

ndar

d (7

9)S

erie

s (1

03)

Cas

e S

tudi

es o

n F

acili

tate

dC

omm

unic

atio

n (8

1)

OT

FA

CT

(83

)

Com

mun

icat

ion

Aid

s an

dS

yste

ms

Clin

ic (

107)

Com

mun

icat

ion

Dev

elop

men

t Pro

gram

(109

)

9

Overview of the Center

THE TRACE CENTER was formed in 1971 to addressthe communication needs of non-vocal severely

disabled children and adults. From the beginning thecenter worked with electronic technologies, developingone of the first microprocessor-based augmentativecommunication devices. Over the past twenty years thecenter has greatly expanded its funding base, personneland activities. The center has also expanded its scope,to deal with new technologies.

Throughout the 1980s, computers became more of afact of life for the average person, making the issue ofaccessibility for people with disabilities crucial. If bar-riers in the design of computers prevented people withdisabilities from using them, a whole segment of oursociety would be denied access to education, employ-ment and independent livingsimply because the com-puter was not built with them in mind.

This Report of Progress covers the period of 1987-94, including the period from 1987-93 when the TraceCenter served as a national Rehabilitation EngineeringResearch Center (RERC) on the topic of Access toComputers and Electronic Devices. The RERC wasfunded by the National Institute on Disability andRehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Department ofEducation, to study the obstacles to computer use, andto develop strategies for providing computer accessibil-ity"computer curbcuts."

The Trace Center's involvement with computer ac-cess dates back to the 1970s. Among its other efforts,the center was involved in a 1984 White House meetingon computer access by people with disabilities. Thismeeting led to the formation of a nationwide group ofindustry, consumer, research and government repre-sentatives. The Trace Center coordinated this group inthe task of creating guidelines for computer and operat-ing system design. The document that resulted has beenused as a basis for other guidelines, including thecomputer accessibility guidelines of the General Ser-vices Administration for Federal information technol-

ogy managers.Starting in 1993, the Trace Center has embarked on

a new five-year RERC program, focusing on AdaptiveComputers and Information Systems. In some areas,this program represents an extension of the earlierprogram, particularly as the center continues its workwith computer companies to make computers moreaccessible "right out of the box." In addition, the newRERC program will expand into the growing area ofinformation systems. With the advent of integratedaudio, video and data telecommunications in the work-place, home and community, the issue of accessibilityfor users with disabilities becomes critical. The newRERC will address technologies such as automatedteller machines, public information kiosks, and faxmachines.

Other Trace Center programsAlthough the RERC grant is the largest single source

of funding for Trace Center activities, it comprisesaround half of the center's total funding base. A varietyof other public and private funding sources ft...id otherassistive technology projects at the center. Recent ac-tivities have included: specific technical assistance tocomputer and software companies in developing acces-sible systems, cooperative efforts with disability infor-mation providers to create new database technologiesfor information and referral, and model training pro-grams in assistive technology for students at the Uni-versity of Wisconsin-Madison. These activities fundedoutside the RERC core funding are also summarized inthis report.

Trace Center programsThe Trace Center is located in the Waisman Center,

a nationally recognized center for research on develop-Mental disabilities at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The Trace Center is also closely connectedwith the University's Department of Industrial Engi-

Trace R&D Center Report of Progress, 1987-94

neering: the center's director, Gregg Vanderheiden, isa faculty member in the department, and many of thecenter's research projects are based in the department'sHuman Disabilities Laboratory. In addition, strong tieswith the Department of Kinesiology, the School ofEducation, and the Department of Communication Dis-orders have integrated Trace Center research and devel-opment activities with professional training.

Trace Center staff have diverse backgrounds, asappropriate to the interdisciplinary nature of the center'smission. The center employs people with backgroundsin electrical engineering, computer science, industrialengineering, speech and language pathology, biomedi-cal engineering, psychology, and occupational therapy.

The center achieves its goals through seven principletypes of activities:

Basic researchThe center investigates basic is-sues in thedesign ofdevices and software, including notonly products made especially for disabled consumersbut also those designed for the general marketplace.The latter receive special emphasis, as the establish-ment of "electronic curbcuts" not only can providedisabled people with greater access to the mainstreamof society, but can result in less need for wastefulretrofitting.

Research and developmentTrace Center researchis also directed toward the development of specificproducts. The center's role in development is to estab-lish groundwork and assist private companies, who takeon the responsibility for manufacturing and marketingdeveloped products. Successful commercial transfer isintegral to all development projects.

StandardsThe rehabilitation field periodically es-tablishes standards for the design and manufacture ofproducts. The Trace Center has been involved in anumber of standards projects, acting as a research andcoordination center. Establishing and promoting thesestandards ensures greater compatibility among devicesand software available to assistive technology consum-ers.

Commercial facilitationThe Trace Center workson cooperative projects with industries, research groups,and individualsprojects aimed at evaluating techno-logical concepts and moving them successfully to themarketplace. Assistance that the center provides in-cludes: technical review, design assistance, competi-tive analysis, identification of markets, locating ofdevelopment funding sources, and assistance in theformation of alliances.

Information The Trace Center serves as a focalpoint for collecting and disseminating information ontechnology for communication, control and computer

access. In addition to answering information requestsfrom professionals, consumers and the public, the cen-ter maintains and disseminates databases of products,services and publications, as well as distributing shareddata from other information centers. Database develop-ment efforts have also addressed the need for databasesto be more accessible to consumers and service provid-ers.

Training--The center is actively involved in bothpreservice and inservice training. The center's work-shop series provides several training opportunitiesaround the country each year. Programs in cooperationwith the University of Wisconsin-Madison Occupa-tional Therapy Program, Department of Communica-tion Disorders, School of Education and IndustrialEngineering program allow graduate and undergradu-ate students to earn a technology or augmentativecommunication specialization with their degree.

Clinical servicesA number of service deliveryprograms are directly connected with the Trace Center.Through these programs the center is able to use itspersonnel and expertise to directly benefit clients.

Center program structureAlthough certain Trace Center programs are re-

stricted as to the populations served, overall the centerhas as its goal to investigate factors affecting personswith all. The activities of the center during the period ofthis report were organized according to the type ofimpairment they focused on, as follows:

movement impairment focus areasensory impairment focus areacognitive impairment focus areacross-impairment focus area

In addition, the center is involved in information andtraining programs, and service delivery programs.

The approach for each of the focus areas has beendifferent. This is a result of the differences between thematurity of the areas. In some areas, the initial ground-work was laid and therefore the projects are of a moreadvanced nature. Other areas have seen less develop-ment, and therefore the nature of the center's activitieshas been more fundamental.

In the movement impairment area, a large number ofspecific access techniques are available, due to both thedevelopments in the augmentative communication fieldand specific developments in computer access hard-ware and software. The major efforts in this area,therefore, have been directed toward addressing tech-niques for accessing newer generation computers whichincorporate newer input techniques, and toward devel-oping mechanisms for evaluating and improving the

4 12

Overview of the Center

adequacy and efficiency of existing techniques forindividuals with more severe motor impairments. Therealso continues to be a heavy need or information andtechnical support for standard computer manufacturersin incorporating the results of past research into theirproducts.

The sensory impairment area focuses on both visualand hearing disabilities. Access problems for visuallyimpaired individuals are at a fairly mature stage, with awide variety of access systems available. However, theshift in computer design from character-based com-puter displays toward bit-mapped screen and graphic-based environments has presented additional technicalchallenges, requiring a new generation of screen-read-ing technologies. For this reason, the center's focus inthe visual access area has been not only on developingaccess solutions, but on coordinating information andefforts between manufacturers and researchers.

Individuals with hearing impairmentscurrently havelittle difficulty in using standard computers. The majorconcern for deaf and hearing impaired individuals stemsfrom the potential for increased use of auditory outputand speech control features both for computers and forother electronic devices. The focus in this area, there-fore, is on identifying these potential problems as wellas identifying and defining solution strategies for them.

The cognitive impairment area is less mature in termsof both research and product development. Althoughthere is a large body of literature about the variouscognitive disabilities, and some literature about specialdevice use, there has been little effort directed towardthe issue of access to standard devices and software byindividuals with different cognitive impairments. Thefocus of the Trace Center's work in this area has beento gather the best knowledge and expertise of relatedfields as they apply to the access problem, to documentthis information, and to perform some basic research toquantify the difficulty of different interfaces for indi-viduals with cognitive impairments.

Most of the projects in the cross-impairment areahave dealt with the conversion of information obtainedthrough the other impairment focus areas into formatswhich can be directly accessed by researchers, develop-ers, and.consumers in the field. Since the major focus ofthe center is on creating a more accessible world, thetarget of these activities is standard equipment andsoftware manufacturers. Efforts in this area have alsobeen directed toward the development of design manu-als and the provision of technical and research supportto manufacturers.

The information and training programs similarly arecross-impairment in function, being designed to move

information and results on a broad range of topics tothose who need them. The major focus is on disseminat-ing information on activities and trends in the entirefield, not just the specific projects of the Trace Center.

The Trace Center also works cooperatively withservice delivery programs which serve people withspecific impairments and needs. Services are providedfor augmentative communication systems, writing sys-tems and computer access.

Current Trace Center Personnel

Center DirectorGregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD

Associate DirectorRoger 0. Smith, PhD, OTR

Project ManagersPeter Borden, MAJulie Gamradt, MS, CCC-SLPDavid P. Kelso, MSMark Novak, BS, BS, PEJoni Nygard, MS, CCC-SLPRobert Radwin, PhDJoseph Schauer, BSEESteven Wiker, PhD

Project Team MembersRobert Christiaansen, MS, MS, MFANeal Ewers, BAKelly L. Ford, BAJay Hinkens, BSAndrea Johnson, OTR/LJamie Klund, MS, OTRCarla Lynch, MSJon F. Miller, PhDJamie Murray-Branch, MA, CCC-SLPKatharine H. Odell, PhDBlair Panhorst, MS, CCC-SLPKathy Longenecker Rust, MS, OTRTereza Snyder, BFAChristine Thompson, BS

Administrative StaffBonni CaparoonSharon EsserJerilyn JohnsonAndrea Joki, BSDebbie MilesKate Vanderheiden, BB A, CPA

13 5


StudentsCharlene Brandt. BS, OTRKatherine Kern, BSSeongil Lee, MSMei -Li Lin, MSJohn Mendenhall, MSMolly McMahon, MSJohn Schaab, BSBridget Powers Untersee, BSLucia H. Watson, MSNatalie Weisensel, BS

Recent funding

National Institute on Disability and RehabilitationResearch, U.S. Department of Education: Rehabilita-tion Engineering Center on Access to Computers andElectronic Equipment.

National Institute on Disability and RehabilitationResearch, U.S. Department of Education: Rehabilita-tion Engineering Research Center on Adaptive Com-puters and Information Systems.

National Institute on Disability and RehabilitationResearch, U.S. Department of Education: FeasibilityDemonstration Project for a Disseminable, DirectlyAccessible Electronic Library of NIDRR Informa-tion Resources.

Computers to Help People, Inc., Madison, WI: DirectAccess by Persons with Disabilities to Information onAssistive Technology Services: A Model Inter-StateCooperative Database (subcontract).

Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Dept. ofEducation (Personnel Preparation): TechSpecPreservice Training Program.

Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Dept. ofEducation (Personnel Preparation): InterdisciplinaryAugmentative Communication and Technology Train-ing (InterACT) program.

American Occupational Therapy Association:OT FACT Development.

University of Wisconsin-Madison cost-reimburse-ment account: Trace Center Workshops and ReprintService.

University of Wisconsin-Madison cost-reimburse-ment account: Rehabilitation Research Services.

University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics: Com-munication Aids and Systems Clinic.

Division of Adult Community Services, Dane CountyDepartment of Human Services: CommunicationDevelopment Program.

Apple Computer, Inc.: Accessible database develop-ment and information programs.

IBM Corporation: Accessible database development.

IBM Corporation: Developthent of AccessDOS soft-ware.

Ameritech Foundation: Accessibility of TDDs forHearing Impaired Individuals With Multiple Impair-ments.

Information Technology Foundation: Developmentof Guidelines for the Design of Software ApplicationPrograms to Increase Their Accessibility to Personswith Disabilities.

Technology-Related Assistance Act Program, Stateof Maine: Development of Cooperative Service Di-rectory software.

Technology-Related Assistance Act Program, Stateof Connecticut: Development of Cooperative ServiceDirectory software.

Technology-Related Assistance Act Program, Stateof Maryland: Development of Cooperative ServiceDirectory software.

Technology-Related Assistance Act Program, Stateof Utah: Development of Cooperative Service Direc-tory software.

Technology-Related Assistance Act Program, Stateof Wisconsin: Development of Cooperative ServiceDirectory software.

Disability and Business Technical Assistance Cen-ters, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilita-tion Research: Development of Cooperative ServiceDi rectory software.

614

Trace CenterRecently Released Products

,5

Recently Released Products

AccessDOS

34t

LjNot all adaptations for people with disabilities can be built intostandard computers. However, a wide variety of accommodations

can be incorporated directly into the computer design.Working with IBM Corporation the Trace Center developed a

set of accessibility features for IBM and compatible computersusing DOS. The software, called AccessDOS, lets users alter theway the keyboard and mouse operate to accommodate particularphysical needs.

AccessDOS allows many people with disabilities to use acomputer, just by letting them alter or customize the way itoperates. (See the complete list of features below.) The program isavailable as optional software; the goal is to eventually get theAccessDOS features integrated directly into the design of DOS.

Individuals can receive AccessDOS for free, simply by callingIBM at (800) 426-7282. The software comes with documentation.

The AccessDOS package, free from IBM

Access Packfor MicrosoftWindows

111:1 Aal,.4fto t

Access Pack

Computers can be made accessible to mai:), people with disabilitiesby including the necessary features or adjustments in the operating

systemthe program that controls the internal functions of the computer.In recent years, a popular operating system for IBM and compatiblecomputers has been Microsoft Windows.

Working with Microsoft Corporation, the Trace Center developed a setof accessibility features for computers using Windows. The software,

known as the Windows Access Pack, provides adjustments toaccommodate the needs of many users with disabilities. (See thecomplete list of features below.) The program is now available asoptional software; the goal is to eventually get the AccessDOSfeatures integrated directly into the design of DOS.

The Access Pack is currently being distributed byMicrosoft Corporation. The program can be downloaded fromCompuServe, GEnie, Microsoft Online and other computer bulle-tin boards, or disks can be obtained by calling Microsoft at (206)637-7098: TDD (206) 635-4948.

_FtHelp

MouseKeys...1.-oggleKeys...Keyboard Response...

SerialKeys...

ShowSounds...Time Out...

Main menu of the Access Pack software

Features of AccessDOS and Windows Access rack:

StickyKeys: Multiple key opera-tions (such as Shift-key) with asingle finger.

MouseKeys: Control of mousefunctions from the keyboard.

RepeatKeys: Control over auto-repeat of keys, preventing acciden-tal repeated keys.

SlowKeys: Adjusts amount oftime a key must be pressed beforethe computer accepts it.

BounceKeys: Prevents "bounc-ing" on keys (tremor related).

SerialKeys: Control of keyboardand mouse functions from an ex-ternal assistive device.

ToggleKeys: Audible tones toindicate the status of Caps Lock,Num Lock and Scroll Lock keys.

ShowSounds: Visual indicationfor audible warnings (beeps).

TimeOut: Turns off AccessDOSwhen the computer is unused foracertain time.

9


Trace TransparentAccess Module(T-TAM)

Hyper-ABLEDATA

jCertain people with physical disabilities cannot operate standardinput devices for commercially available computers. Many of these

individuals can, however, operate a special communication or computeraccess aid, using a control system such as an optical headpointer or singleswitch. This special aid can then be interfaced to the computer and used asan input device.

The T-TAM allows control of all keyboard and mouse functions onApple Macintosh, Apple Hos and IBM PS/2 computers. The user can inputto the T-TAM from any communication or computer access aid that has aserial port. The T-TAM provides assisted keyboard features for the stan-dard computer keyboard.

The device has been transferred to two companies for commercialproduction: Prentke Romich Company of Wooster, OH and Words+, Inc.of Lancaster, CA.

jThe Trace Center has created Hyper-ABLEDATA, a microcomputerversion of the on-line database ABLEDATA, supported by the

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. The databaselists all thecommercial assistive technology products available to consum-ers in the U.S.currently over 19,000 items.

The program runs on the user's own microcomputer. The veryeasy to use interface does not require the user to be trained in howthe system works. Hyper-ABLEDATA currently contains picturesof about 2,500 products, plus sound samples of products such asspeech synthesizers. A "blind access mode" built into the softwareallows users who cannot see the screen to operate the programcompletely independently. In this mode, control functions areexecuted from the keypad on the keyboard and all screen informa-tion is conveyed in synthesized voice.

Hyper-ABLEDATA is now available on CD-ROM and floppydisk, through the Trace Center's Reprint Service. It will also beavailable for downloading from the Internet.

..1:,003.1 Cno nwsnern

Hyper-ABLEDATA & DOS-ABLEDATAdisplay pictures of products

DOS-ABLEDATA

NOTE: The information inHyper-ABLEDATA and DOS-ABLEDATA is currently main-tamed through the ABLEDATAproject at Macro International inSilver Spring, Md., who make itavailable on-line and on CD-ROM.

jThe Trace Center has created DOS-ABLEDATA, a microcomputerversion of the on-line database ABLEDATA, supported by the

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. The databaselists all the commercial assistive technology products available to consum-ers in the U.S.currently over 19,000 items.

The DOS-ABLEDATA software was developed at a cooperative effortbetween the Trace Center, Learning Express, the University of Arkansas,and the ICAN project. The program runs on IBM PCs and compatibles,including older, lower-powered machines (80086-class) with just 640K ofRAM. DOS - ABLEDATA has been specifically designed and tested to becompatible with screen reading programs used by blind computer users.

DOS-ABLEDATA is now available on CD-ROM and floppy disk,through the Trace Center's Reprint Service. It is also available for down-loading from the Internet, and on several computer bulletin boards.

10

17


Cooperative rj New computer technologies allow large databases to be locateddirectly at the point of inquiry. Such direct access lets information

Service Directory seekers browse through the information to locate that which best meetstheir needs at very low or no cost. Direct access also allows for databasesthat are extremely user-friendly, so the novice user can locate information.

Using the Cooperative Service Directory software, information andreferral (I&R) program can create electronic "directories" of dis-ability-related services. The directories can be distributed andshared. The development of the CSD software has been a coopera-tive effort between the Trace Center and over 30 different informa-tion centers around the country. The software takes advantage offast searching software, graphical screens and hypertext techniquesto make locating information fast and easy.

The CSD software runs on Macintosh computers and IBM PCswith DOS or Microsoft Windows. Organizations participating inthe development have received software that lets them create CSDdatabases. In January of 1994, CSD databases began to be distrib-uted publicly, with the release of 11 CSDs on the Trace Center'sCo-Net CD-ROM.

CS0_11001C.SUI IMMEMMEliMiMill..Transfer Pant

CS California

.

All [Arles so CA., au *36 mem n wee Or Were U. X e....i

LCP 04A klmty CenterCAN retro:arty OWN,..11..profcs Dvok. [WarCarrInundy Dtsorers far itUrreradly Rm.., Ill tqueb0Pesasets for Wren., i saeCanftnny ..narce, In ...etaIMroe Lt.., Roos" or Col.

CaPCnrayC.1.-/In*NoCence VI Di.k.4G...- tor ir.panded lr.TyIt Ihiwa Center of Sin ear-socaMerrilrilLEDammo', 9s.rco Itindeeedemt

KO'

I

75-(star Uty MOW )0 list fliphtbotically0 list by bistans From...

:to snare se es to an *err -.

Pointing and clicking on a map listsservices by their distance from a location

Trace VoiceSampler

TraceResourceBook

uSpeech synthesizers are commonly used for conversation by non-speaking people, or for reading of text or computer screens by blind

people. The Trace Voice Sampler is computer software that containsdigitally recorded voice samples from the major types of speech synthesiz-ers. This allows comparison of voice qual it ies without the need to obtain theactual devices.

The Trace Voice Sampler is distributed as a set of disks, and is alsoincluded in the Hyper-ABLEDATA product database. Both are distributedthrough the Trace Center's Reprint Service.

The Trace ResourceBook lists all assistive technology products forcommunication, control and computer access that are currently avail-

able in the U.S. and Canada. The book provides descriptions of eachproduct, pictures where relevant, andinformation on availability. The1993-94 Edition lists dozens of typesof products, including: augmenta-tive communication devices, envi-ronmental controls, adaptiveswitches, screen enlarging software,and braille printers.

The Trace ResourceBook is avail-able through the Trace Center'sReprint Service, both in print and inalternative formats for people withdisabilities who cannot read print.

: It ,

Trace ResourceBook


Design Guidelinesfor Computers

Design GuidelinesConsumerProducts

LjiFor several years the Trace Center has served as a coordinating centerfor the Industry /Government Task Force on Computer Accessibility.

The current working document of this group is titled "Considerations in theDesign of Computers and Operating Systems to Increase their Accessibil-ity to Persons with Disabilities." Version 4.2 is being disseminated to thefield for review. It is being used by many computer manufacturers; it isknown to have been adapted and adopted as an internal reference documentby two major manufacturers. It was also used by the General ServicesAdministration in the preparation of their computer accessibility guide-lines.

The document is available through the Trace Center's Reprint Service.The full text also on the Trace Center's Co-Net CD-ROM and on the TraceCenter's Gopher server (on the Internet).

jConsumer electronic products can present many obstacles to peoplewith disabilities. The Trace Center has produced a set of guidelines

for designers of products such as televisions, radios, tape players, andmicrowave ovens to accommodate the needs of consumers with disabili-ties. These guidelines discuss the full range of needs of persons withphysical, sensory and cognitive disabilities and discuss possible solutions.Most solutions suggested are low- or no-cost. The usefulness of certainmodifications to non-disabled consumers is stressedsuch as location andease of use for controls.

The guidelines are treated as a working document, sent out to consumers,researchers and manufacturers for comment. This effort is carried out in

cooperation with the Assistive De-vicLs Division of the Electronic In-dustries Foundation and the Con-sumer Prockiets Technical Group ofthe Human Factors Society.

Accessible Design of ConsumerProducts is available from the TraceCenter's Reprint Service, on theTrace Center's Co-Net CD-ROM,and via Internet on the Trace Center'sGopher server.

8

7

2

3

O

INKns1

r and .1 krk,fa* knon

Design for a more accessible control knob, from the Guidelines

Design Guidelinesfor StandardApplicationSoftware

jAlthough many special adaptations for computers are available, insome cases, a feature of standard commercial software (word proces-

sor, spreadsheet, etc.) causes a problem, clashing with the adaptation.Software developers need to be aware of these conflicts, and to considerincluding ease-of-use features for people with disabilities.

The Trace Center is now working with the Information TechnologyAssociation (formerly ADAPSO) to develop a support document on thedesign of standard software to maximize its accessibility. A preliminary"White Paper" for the software guidelines is now being distributed. ITAand Microsoft Corporation have provided the document to their affiliatedsoftware developers, and the Trace Center distributes it through its ReprintService.

12

19


Campus ComputerLaboratoryAccessibilityManual

LibraryInformationSystemsAccessibilityManual

General InputDevice EmulatingInterface(GIDEI) Standard

ijMany institutions of higher education are recognizing a need to maketheir computing facilities accessible to students and staff with dis-

abilities. In response to this need, the Trace Center has developed adocument titled "Checklists for Implementing Accessibility in ComputerLaboratories at Colleges and Universities." It covers generic implementa-tions of equipmentwith steps delineated by time and money required tocarry them outand also procedures for assisting individuals who requiremore specialized equipment. An actual set of checklist forms is provided,on which staff can mark steps as they are implemented.

The Trace Center distributes the document through its Reprint Service,on the Co-Net CD-ROM, and via Internet on a Gopher server.

1:3Libraries are more likely now than ever to find themselves serving asignificant number of patrons with disabilities. In addition, library

services have changed to incorporate more electronic information systems,including microcomputers, computerized card catalog systems, and on-line and CD-ROM information databases. To comply with federal legisla-tion mandating equity of access to public accommodations for disabled andnon-disabled personsand to ensure that patrons with disabilities need notregard computers as barriers instead of aids to their successful library uselibraries need to plan for and implement accessibility measures.

The Trace Center has created a set of checklists to serve as a tool forlibraries trying to make sure they are electronically accessible. Titled"Checklists for Making Library Automation Accessible to Patrons withDisabilities," the document covers generic implementations of equip-mentwith steps delineated by time and money required to carry themoutand also procedures for assisting individuals who require morespecialized equipment. The Trace Center distributes the document throughits Reprint Service, on the Co-Net CD-ROM, and via Internet on a Gopherserver.

1:3Certain people with physical disabilities cannot operate standardinput devices for commercially available computers. Many of these

individuals can, however, operate a special communication or computeraccess device, using a control system such as an optical headpointer or asingle switch. The special device in turn can be interfaced to the computerand used to perform keyboard and mouse functions.

A general input device emulating interface (either hardware or software)is used to convert the serial output from the special input device to thestandard (keyboard and mouse) input signals for the computer. The TraceCenter has developed an input/output standard for GIDEIs, so that anyGIDEI can be used with any special input device. This standard also pavesthe way for GIDEIs to be built into standard, off-the-shelf computers.

The GIDEI Standard is now part of the three commercial products: theTrace Transparent Access Module (T-TAM) the Ke:nx and Darci Toocomputer interfaces. The GIDEI is also a part of the "SerialKeys" featurein the Windows Access Pack and AccessDOS, two recently developeddisability access software packages for IBM PC and PS/2 computers.

13


Simple ElectricalTransducer (SET)Standard

Tech Spec

CurriculumPackages

OT FACT

The OT FACT software package

TiThe Trace Center first became involved in the standardization area inorder to deal with the problems surrounding user interfaces to com-

munication, control, and computer access aids. At the time, there wereapproximately 65 specialized switch-type interfaces (single switches,multiple switches, matrix keyboards) commercially available. Unfortu-nately, no two manufacturers, chose the same connectors or connector pinassignments for their controls. As a result, clinicians were restricted to theuse of only a small number of these interfaces, since the interfaces were notinterchangeable across aids without rewiring either the interface or the aid.

The Trace Center initiated an effort and, working with manufacturersand researchers from North America, Europe and Japan, developed aSimple Electrical Transducer Interconnection Standard (SET standard).Since its introduction, about 80% to 90% of controls and devices addressedby the SET have conformed to most or all of the specifications.

LiAdvances in assistive and rehabilitation technology have challengedprofessional training curricula to keep up. Many professional training

programs in fields such as occupational therapy need to modify or addcourses to their programs in order to include topics such as augmentativecommunication, selection and positioning of device interfaces, or high-technology seating and mobility systems.

As part of a model technology curriculum project known as TechSpec,the Trace Center has created curriculum packages for teaching technologyskills in postsecondary professional training programs. Descriptions of theoverall program are part of the packages, as are curriculum guides forspecific courses. The TechSpec curriculum packages are available at costthrough the Trace Center's Reprint Service. Educational programs are freeto use and adapt any Trace Center material in the packages for their specificprofessional technology training needs.

LIAlthough there are many sophisticated systems for assessing specificaspects of human functional performance, there has been a need for

some way to integrate and report the results of assessment across the fullrange of human function. In 1985 the Standardized Assessment Committeeof the American Occupational Therapy Association initiated developmentof a profession-wide standardized assessment. The Trace Center has led aset of projects in this effort. The result is a system known as OT FACT(Occupational Therapy Functional Assessment Compilation Tool).

OT FACT has been designed as microcomputer software, for IBM PCs,PS/2s and compatibles. The software uses a technique called Tailored Sub-branching Scoring. It steps the user through the stages of the assessment,following the nodes of a decision tree. The program solicits scores from theuser, tabulates and totals scores automatically, keeps records, and auto-matically charts results graphically. The resulting functional performanceprofile of a client can be used to summarize functional performance, justifytherapy plans, and document the client's change in status over time.

The AOTA is disseminating OT FACT. Version 1.0 for IBM PCs wasreleased in 1990; Version 1.1 in 1992. Version 2.0, for Macintosh andMicrosoft Windows, is currently being developed.

14 21

Project Reports

22

Movement Impairment Focus Area

Movement impairments have a wide range ofcauses.These different causes result in different types

and degrees of impairment. Head injury, spinal cordinjury, loss of or dysfunctional limbs, cerebral palsy,poliomyelitis, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis,amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, andsevere arthritis are some of the causes. In general, anindividual's impairment could be characterized by oneor more of the following categories:

Reduced control: the individual's motor control orrange of movements has been reduced. Arthritis, polio-myelitis, and mid-level spinal cord injuries commonlyresult in this type of impairment.

Restricted control: the individual has normal motorcontrol but only over part of their body. High spinalcord injuries (normal control of head but no controlbelow the neck) and r,f!imbs could cause this typeof impairment.

Interference with control: other uncontrolled move-ments interfere with the individual's motor control.Cerebral Palsy and Park insonism are two causes of thistype of impairment.

Weakness: the individual has fine motor control buthas no strength or endurance. The individual may alsobe unable to move major limbs easily or at all. Multiplesclerosis, muscular dystrophy, amyotrophic lateral scle-rosis, and poliomyelitis are causes.

For individuals with movement disabilities, it is theinput mechanisms (keyboards, mice, touchpads, etc.)that present the greatest problems. Other controls (suchas on/off switches, contrast knob on monitor, buttons toeject floppy diskettes) may also prove difficult. Manydisabled individuals can use a standard keyboard buthave difficulty with multiple-key operations. Others areunable to use the standard keyboard. and must rely onspecial mechanisms for connecting alternate input sys-tems to the computer. Many such specialized interfaceshave been developed for the popular computers, alongwith adaptations to facilitate handling of disks, adjust-ment of screen control, etc.

However, advancing computer technologies are cre-ating new and more difficult problems. Individuals whoare able to use standard or adapted keyboards are oftenunable to use newer mouse-, touchpad-, or touchscreen-based systems. Furthermore, attachment points (bothphysical and software-based) that have been used toconnect these specialized interfaces in the past are notnecessarily present in the newer generations of comput-ers. In fact, for various technical reasons unrelated tothe disability market, many new computer designs haverestricted or blocked the connection points which arecurrently used by disabil: access aids. Thus, existingsolution strategies no longer work. Computer compa-nies are now aware of the problem, but the technicalreasons for the changes remain.

In the area of movement impairment, the TraceCenter has two major areas of activity:

1) Quantification and comparison testing of alter-nate input techniques and devices.

2) Development of extensions for standard comput-ers and operating systems to allow access bymotor impaired users.

Quantification and comparison testing ofalternate input techniques and devices

Since input devices such as the mouse have becomestandard on many computers, a number of alternativeinput devices for users with physical impairments havebeen developed. Before an alternative input device fora person with a motor impairment can be selected andevaluated by a therapist working with such an indi-vidual, it is necessary to have an objective measure ofperformance. Since each disability is a personal issue,to determine which strategy out of a number of potentialinterventions is most appropriate for a specific indi-vidual with special capabilities it is necessary to have aquantitative measure for comparing performance usingdevices. Furthermore, determining the optimum set-tings for a particular individual requires an objectivemeasure that is reliable and has predictive properties.

f7


The center's activities therefore have been directedtoward developing mechanisms for quantifying andthen carrying out quantitative cross-comparisons of thevarious alternative input devices and approaches.

In this activity area, technical and methodologicalgroundwork has been laid for a series of headpointingstudies, and several studies have been carried out.Although quantification of input device performance isof primary interest to researchers and developers, themeasurement instrument and protocols have potentialdirect positive impacts for people with physical dis-abilities:

improved methods for evaluating the efficacy ofspecial input devices, ultimately benefiting con-sumers through improved device design;ability to objectively compare different input strat-egies to determine which work best in which cir-cumstances; andpotential use of the research tool as a clinicalevaluation tool, allowing clinicians to more accu-rately judge what input devices and interventionswill work best for a particular client.

Development of extensions for standardcomputers and operating systems

Important features providing access for many userswith movement impairments can often be implementedin standard products. The Trace Center's movementimpairment program plan seeks to develop demonstra-tion versions of such features, and to encourage theirimplementation by computer companies.

Some of the problems that people with movementimpairments can have with standard input devices are:

difficulty pressing and releasing keys quicklyenough;difficulty pressing desired keys without accidentlypressing others;motoric or other problems the preclude operationof the mouse;inability to press two keys at the same time, makingit impossible to operate "modifier" keys such asShift;inability to use communication aids or other alter-nate interfaces in place of the standard computerkeyboard and mouse.

One way the Trace Center is addressing the need forextensions for standard computers and operating sys-tems is by creating special adaptations. These havetaken the form of software programs designed to adaptthe operation of common operating systems (the soft-ware on a computer that controls its operation). The

center has also developed external hardware deviceswhich connect to the computer. These are more com-plex, but have the advantage of not being tied to particu-lar operating system software.

The second strategy of the Trace Center for creatingextensions to standard computers is to encourage com-puter companies themselves to adopt simple adapta-tions as standard parts of their operating systems. Somecompanies have already taken steps in this direction,incorporating simple adaptationssuch as one fingeroperation of modifier keysinto their products. TheTrace Center has assisted computer companies by cre-ating model versions of such adaptations, by evaluatingadaptations created by computer companies, and byproviding information about what accessibility featuresare most needed. At present, Apple Computer shipsmany of the adaptations modelled by the Trace Centeras a standard part of the operating systems of theircomputers (Macintosh and IIgs). IBM and MicrosoftCorporation also now provide extensions to their oper-ating systems (DOS and Windows) which incorporatesimilar features. These extensions were developed bythe Trace Center for Microsoft and IBM.

The Trace Center's efforts to encourage the adoptionof accessibility features in standard computers is dis-cussed further in the "Cross-Impairment" section of thisreport (see the project report on "Computer and Oper-ating System Accessibility Design Guidelines").

18

Movement impairment Focus Area

Development and Testing of an Instrument for StudyingEfficiency of Standard and Alternative Input Devices

Project Team: Robert G. Radwin, PhD; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Mei Li Lin, MS

BackgroundPointing-based input devices such as the mouse have

become standard components of major new computersystems over the past several years, necessitating thedevelopment of alternatives for people with movementimpairments. In order to provide quantitative data bywhich particular alternative input devices or strategiescan be evaluated, a microcomputer-based research in-strument has been developed. The instrument is de-signed to measure the operation of both standard andalternative input devices, automatically logging perfor-mance data for analysis.

ApproachAn instrument for testing performance in pointing

tasks was designed for the initial phases of input deviceresearch. The instrument was designed to test standardmouse input devices and also special headpointinginput devices designed for users with disabilities. Thecapabilities of the instrument are being improved uponas other forms of input devices are tested.

The headpointer is a relative displacement devicesimilar to a mouse. It is designed for emulating a mousepointer by tracking head rotation for horizontal cursordisplacement and head extension-flexion for verticalcursor displacement.

Effective evaluative and normative procedures forthe instrument were developeci, and the instrument wastested and its capabilities to effectively measure point-ing performance determined. It is currently being usedfor headpointing comparison studies.

The instrument has been tested to determine if a Fitt' sLaw discrete target acquisition task can be used forevaluating and comparing computer input devicesinthis case, a standard mouse and a remote headpointingdevice. Performances using a conventional mouse andan ultrasonic head-pointing device intended for indi-viduals lacking normal movement ability were studied.The discrete movement task consisted of moving acursor from the center of a computer display screen toa target of varying size and radial displacement.

Ten normal subjectsperformed this task usingboth devices. Fitt's Lawadequately describedmovement behavior forboth types of pointing de-vices. The instrument wasalso tested with two sub-jects with cerebral palsy.The instrument was able tomeasure significant differ-ences between a disabledand an able-bodied subject,as well as between the sup-ported and unsupportedcondition for a subject withcerebral palsy.

mirodersfilla...

4 41"%rri.f '-14

1"Z

Instrument used to test headpointing performance

Marked improvementsin performance were ob-

919


180

HEAD-POINTERo MOUSE

900

270 °

MOVEMENT TIME (ms) vs. DIRECTION (degrees)

Average movement time plotted against dir'rtion, in polar coordinates, for both the mouse and the head-controlled pointer (10 subjects). Note that the center of the plot represents 400 ms.

served in one subject with cerebral palsy after lateraltrunk support was provided. This demonstrated that thetask would be useful as an evaluative instrument forselection and comparison of alternative pointing de-vices for individuals with movement impairments, aswell as for evaluating modifications in the workplacefor such individuals.

StatusDesign and testing of the instrument have been

completed. The instrument is being used for the point-ing device comparison studies (see next report).

Selected publicationsRadwin, R. G., Vanderheiden, G. C., & Lin, M. L.

(1990). A method for evaluating head-controlledcomputer input devices using Fitt's Law. HumanFactors, 32(4), 423-438.

20 6... 6


Effects of Gain on Pointing Device Performance

Project Team: Robert G. Radwin, PhD; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Mei Li Lin, MS.

BackgroundOne of the most powerful new techniques for access

to computers is the use of remote headpointers. Theseheadpointers can be a replacement for the mouthstickfor persons with spinal cord injuries, and, as anew inputtechnique for some individuals with cerebral palsy, canprovide rapid, low-fatigue interface methods for com-puters. Because of their relatively simple hardwaredesigns, they can also be efficiently and economicallymanufactured. As a result, a number of differentheadpointing systems have come out or are underdevelopment at the present time.

Until now, there have been no cross-comparisons of

these various devices. In addition, many individualswho can use a headpointer can also use other pointingsystems. A comparative evaluation betweenheadpointing techniques and other approaches is there-fore also required.

A research instrument has been developed for col-lecting data on input device operation performance (seeprevious project report). The instrument was put throughevaluative and normative testing. These initial studiesshowed that a discrete movement target acquisition taskbased on Fitt's Law can be useful for evaluating andcomparing headpointing performance. The instrumentis now being used for the pointing device study series.

ActualPredicted

10 2.5 4.0

INDEX OF DIFFICULTY (bits)

54

- 5 4

.15 .3 6 1.2

GAIN

Data showing the effects of varying gain on the relationship between index of difficultyand movement time for a remote headpointer

27 21


ApproachThe first studies in the series concerned the effects of

gain on subjects' performance using headpointing andstandard mouse devices. A Fitt's Law pointing task(like the one used in testing the research instrument)was used to measure subjects' performance.

The studies approached the question of gain effectsfrom three angles:

1) To determine how control-display gain influencesperformance using a head-controlled computer inputdevice.

2) To compare relative sensitivity to gain betweenhead-controlled pointers and standard hand-arm con-trolled mice, and also to examine optimal gain acrossthe two types of systems.

3) To investigate control-display gain interactionswith other task factors including target width, move-ment amplitude and direction.

StatusTen subjects participated in the studies. The results

indicated that gain had a significant effect on movementtime for both types of pointing devices and exhibitedlocal minimums. Use of optimal gain levels with thehead-controlled po'nter improved subjects' performanceby more than 21%. The results indicated that optimalgain was more important for the head - control led pointerthan for the conventional mouse in terms of moveriienttime.

Little data has been available previously concerningperformance at sub-optimal gain, or specifying optimalgain for head-pointing controlled computer input de-vices. This data is important for designing computerinterfaces that enhance performance for computer userswho have upper-extremity movement impairments andthus must depend on head-pointing devices.

Future possible areas of inquiry include: (1) varyingacceptance time (the amount of time subjects must stayon the target before they are considered to have ac-quired it); (2) clicking operations (activation of a switchto signal target acquisition) and (3) dragging operations(continuous activation of a switch from the home posi-tion to the target). Acceptance time, clicking and drag-ging are all control methods used with remoteheadpointers. All three also have analogs in the opera-tion of input devices designed for non-disabled com-puter users. These experiments will also measure per-formance across different pointing devices (mouse,trackball, headpointer, keyboard-controlled mouse) andacross disabling conditions (cerebral palsy, spinal cordinjury, multiple sclerosis, non-disabled subjects).

Selected publicationsLin, M. L., Radwin, R. G., & Vanderheiden, G. C.

(1992). Gain effects on performance using a head-controlled computer input device. Ergonomics, 35(2).

22 28


Evaluation of Two Control-Display Gain Methods for aHead-Controlled Computer Input Device

Project Team: Robert G. Radwin, PhD; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; John A. Schaab, MS

BackgroundRemote head-controlled computer input devices (i.e.

headpointers) are a frequently-used computer accessadaptation for individuals who have limited ability topress keys on a keyboard, but who have an adequaterange of head motion. Individuals who can use thistechnology include some people with spinal cord inju-ries, cerebral palsy, or degenerative muscular condi-tions. There are several commercial remote headpointerson the market.

Through the Pointing Device Study Series, the TraceCenter is identifying methods for evaluating head-pointer performance. The ultimate goals of this workinclude: the ability to compare remote headpointers toother input techniques, the ability to compare remoteheadpointer designs, and the ability to determine appro-priate control settings for headpointers.

A research instrument has been developed for col-lecting data on user performance of input devices. Thedevice was used to test the reliability of a Fitts' Lawmodel for evaluating and comparing headpointer per-formance (see previous project reports). The Fitts' Lawmodel was used to analyze the relationship of gain toperformance, and it was shown that the optimal adjust-ment of gain was significant to performance.

One of the key issues raised with gain control waswhether user performance would be dependent on thedistance from the headpointer's transmitter. Userstypically place a headpointer's transmitter in a fixedlocation (e.g. on top of the monitor) although users maynot always position themselves at the same viewingdistance. If the control system of the device is depen-dent on the distance from the transmitter users maybecome confused when selecting a preferred controlsetting because the device will respond differently atdifferent viewing distances for a selected setting.

It was hypothesized that a system which maintaineda fixed amount of cursor displacement per degree ofhead movement would be independent of thetransmitter's distance and thus be a preferred method

for controlling this computer interface. This methodwill be referred to as DiA gain.

ApproachTwo methods of controlling a headpointer's control-

display gain were examined in this study. One method,defined as A/A (angle/angle) gain, is the ratio of theangle subtended by the displacement of the cursor backto the viewing position, and the angle of head extension/flexion or rotation. This method of controlling head-pointer gain was examined in a previous study. Thesecond method, defined as D/A (displacement/angle)gain, is the ratio of the linear displacement of the cursoron the screen and the angle of head extension/flexion orrotation. The focus of this study is to determine whetheruser performance will change with viewing distance forpredetermined settings of each type of control system.In addition, the study will attempt to determine theoptimal settings for each type of control system.

The comparison study of A/A gain versus D/A gainwas performed using a single head-controlled computerinput device. The device was made to simulate eachtype of control device using the software of the Fitts'Law program.

StatusA comparison study was designed to analyze the

effect of viewing distance on user performance for eachcontrol device defined. The target acquisition taskbased on Fitts' Law as described by Radwin et al.(1990) was used to measure subject performance.Twelve subjects participated in this comparison study.The three vie :'ing distances studied were 50cm, 65 cm,and 80 cm. At each distance subjects performed the taskfor each A/A gain level of 0.5, 0.75, and 1.0. Subjectsalso performed the task for each D/A gain level of 0.5,0.67, and 1.0 cm/degree.

Preliminary results of the study are summarized inthe accompanying figure. The results indicate that thereis an interaction between viewing distance and A/A

29 23


gain. This data supports the conclusion that an operator'soptimal A/A gain setting will depend on the distancefrom the transmitter. The drawback of a constant A/Again system for a headpointer, therefore, would be thatusers may need to select a new A/A gain setting eachtime they use their computer. This method of control-ling gain is very different from other computer inter-faces such as mice or trackballs.

11500.riE

1200 -a)E

P.-

Ca)Ea)>02 300°

A/A Gain

50 65 80

Viewing Distance (cm)

The results of the D/A gain data did not detect asignificant interaction between viewing distance and D/A gain. The benefit of a control device which isindependent of viewing distance is that it allows a userto maintain consistent performance at a predeterminedsetting regardless of where they are positioned from thetransmitter. This study is continuing.

1800

1500

1200

900

600

300 -

D/A Gain

D/A Gain (cm/degree)0 0.50.676-- 1.0

--150 65 80

Viewing Distance (cm)

Average movement time (ms) plotted against subject viewing distance (cm) for both an A/A gain and a D/Again controlled head-pointer. Data is summarized for twelve subjects.

2430


Development of Improved Headpointing ComputerAccess System

Project Team: Jon R. Gunderson, PhD; Joseph M. Schauer, BS; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD

BackgroundIn 1981, the Trace Center began development of an

optical headpointing input system for computers. Thesystem was designed for use by persons who can easilyaim at a target by moving their head, but who cannoteffectively or quickly type keys using a finger, headstickor mouthstick. The user would point a small, light-weight optical detector towards an image of a keyboarddisplayed on a computer monitor. Pointing at the keyson the image would be equivalent to typing them on thestandard keyboard. In this way the user could operatestandard commercially available software on the com-puter.

The prototype system used one microcomputer andmonitor for the input system and another for the appli-cation program (the word processor, spreadsheet, etc.that the user wanted to operate). Before transfer to amanufacturer for production and distribution, the LongRange Optical Pointer (LROP) system was modified sothat only one computer was required. However, twomonitor screens were still required: one to display the

keyboard image and one to display the applicationprogram.

Feedback from users and from the manufacturerindicated that some people could operate the systembetter if it was implemented on one screen instead oftwo. For these reasons, a "One Screen" version of theoriginal LROP software was developed.

ApproachThe One Screen version of the LROP is designed for

IBM Personal Computers, using standard CGA graph-ics. To type keys, the user points the optical headpointerat the screen. The application program is then tempo-rarily interrupted while an image of the keyboard ap-pears on the screen. The user can type a string of text orother characters on the keyboard screen, and edit thisstring before sending it to the application program (thisfeature also was not present on the two-monitor sys-tem). From the keyboard screen, the user can: (1)switch to the application program for viewing, withoutsending the characters currently typed on the keyboard

° -

1111111111110111

The software displays the on-screen keyboard (left) and the application program o: the same monitor

3I. 25


screen; (2) switch to the application program and sendthe typed characters to the program; or (3) move thepointer off the screen while retaining the keyboardimage (in order to rest or think).

The One Screen version of the LROP also providesa typing acceleration system. In the ordinary keyboardimage, a list of common words appears at the top of thescreen. The user can type any of these words by select-ing it with the optical pointer. If the deSired word is noton the list, the user can enter the initial letters of thedesired word. As letters are entered the word list changes,displaying words that begin with the letters typed so far.The user can type any of these words at any time byselecting it from the list with the optical pointer. Theword lists are drawn from a 4000-word vocabulary.

StatusThe One Screen software was designed for use with

several different pointing systems. It was transferred toWords+ or Lancaster, Calif., who sold it with the LongRange Optical Pointer device. The program was soldwith the LROP until the LROP was discontinued in1991 due to changes in computer display technology.

Selected PublicationsGunderson, J. R. & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1988, June).

One screen multiplexed keyboard for transparentaccess to standard IBM PC software. Proceedings ofthe International Conference of the Association forthe Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology(ICAART).

26 32


Development of Extensions for Standard Computers andOperating Systems to Allow Access by Users with MotorImpairments

Project Team: Mark Novak, BS, BS, PE; Joseph Schauer, BSEE; Jay Hinkens, BS; GreggC. Vanderheiaen, PhD; Peter A. Borden, MA

BackgroundThe most effective technique for providing access to

computers for persons with disabilities is to have thecomputer designed in such a way that it is alreadyaccessible when manufactured. When accessibility fea-tures can be built directly into the design of the com-puter, the cost for these modifications drops to zero orclose to zero, and their availability to persons withdisabilities is universal. Of particular interest is theability of individuals with disabilities to access comput-ers in public settings, where it is difficult to modify acomputer for a particular individual.

Not all adaptations for persons with disabilities canbe built into standard computers. However, a widevariety of accommodations can be incorporated di-rectly into the computer design. The purpose of thisprogram is to develop simulations, demonstrations, oractual functioning extensions to operating systems whichcan be used to demonstrate to computer and operatingsystem manufacturers how their systems could be modi-fied to make them more accessible.

ApproachThe ultimate goal of this program is to encourage the

computer companies to take on the task of making theircomputers accessible. In some cases, the computercompany has had its own programmers implement theaccessibility features. In other cases the Trace Centerhas actually written the software or developed thehardware for transfer to the company.

The purpose of this project is to encourage theimplementation of features needed by single-finger,headstick and mouthstick typists, people with physicaldisabilities who must drive the computer using anexternal communication or computer access device,and users with hearing & vision impairments. Eightfeatures have been identified as extensions:

1 )StickyKeys: The capability to execute multiple keyoperation (such as Shift-key) with a single finger,headstick or mouthstick.

2) MouseKeys: Option of using the numeric keypadon the keyboard to perform all mouse functions on thecomputer.

3) RepeatKeys: Control over auto-repeat of keys,including the rate at which keys repeat and the durationfor which a key must be pressed before the auto-repeatcommences.

4) SlowKeys: Control over the amount of time a keymust be pressed before the computer accepts it as input.

5) BounceKeys: Elimination of "bouncing" on keys,sometimes caused by tremors. A key cannot be acti-vated more then once within a certain time frame.

!:i;

Access PackHelp

MouseKeys...ToggleKeys...Keyboard Response...

SerialKeys...

ShowSounds...Time Out...

Menu from Windows Access Pack, showingthe set of extensions

6) SerialKeys: Capability to perform all keyboardand mouse functions from an external assistive device(such as communication aid) connected to the computer'sserial port.

7) ToggleKeys: For individuals who cannot see togglekey status lights, this feature provides audible tones toindicate the status of the caps lock, num lock and scrolllock keys.

8) SiTKSounds: Visual indicator for sounds coming

27


from the system, for users who are deaf or have hearingimpairments.

At present there are many operating systems whichare either in common use or headed for common adop-tion. The Trace Center is currently developing (orassisting in the development of) modifications for thefollowing systems:

Macintosh (Apple Computer)Microsoft Windows (Microsoft Corporation, forIBM PC and PS/25MS DOS (Microsoft, IBM PC and PS/2)OS/2 (IBM)X Windows (Unix-based systems)

StatusMacintosh Environment: The Trace Center has been

working in conjunction with Apple Computer over thepast seven years, assisting them in their efforts toimplement the guidelines of the Industry /GovernmentCooperative Initiative on Computer Accessibility andlater of the GSA. These efforts have resulted in theincorporation of several changes and additions to theMacintosh to increase its accessibility by persons withdisabilities. These modifications include StickyKeys,RepeatKeys, SlowKeys and MouseKeys. These modi-fications are now shipped as a standard part of everyMacintosh and Apple has sold.

Windows Environment: The emergence of PCs withmore memory and more powerful processors, togetherwith the increased popularity of graphics-based operat-ing systems, has led IBM and Microsoft to develop newoperating systems for these computers. One such sys-tem is Windows, an operating system shell developedby Microsoft. None of the existing MS-DOS adapta-tions will work with software that is running underWindows. In addition, Windows uses a mouse as astandard input device. The Trace Center has developeda set of extensions to Windowsknown as the Win-dows Access Packwhich includes the eight featuresdiscussed above. There is also a "TimeOut" feature,allowing the access features to automatically turn offafter a certain length of time. The access pack is cur-rently being distributed by Microsoft Corporation. Theprogram can be downloaded from CompuServe, GEnie,Microsoft Online and other computer bulletin boards,or disks can be obtained by calling Microsoft at (206)637-7098 (TDD 635-4948). The Trace Center willcontinue to update the features for future versions ofWindows as appropriate, and will also assist MicrosoftCorporation in any attempts they may make to incorpo-rate these features permanently into the Windows oper-

ating system.PC-DOS/MS-DOS Environment: For several years

the Trace Center has been involved in programmingmodel access software for PC-DOS and MS-DOS, theoperating system software used in IBM PC computersand in the large number of IBM-compatible computermodels on the market. The StickyKeys and RepeatKeysfeatures have been available for several years in aprogram called 1-Finger, developed and distributed bythe Trace Center. In addition, the Trace Center agreedto work with IBM on the development of a morecomplete pe.ckage of access features for IBM comput-ers using DOS. The package, known as AccessDOS, isavailable from IBM free of charge as of May, 1991. Itincludes all of the eight key features discussed above.Individuals can receive a free copy of AccessDOS,simply by calling IBM at (800) 426-7282.

OS/2 Environment: At the present time, the OS/2operating system is gaining momentum in the businessworld. IBM included StickyKeys, RepeatKeys andSlowKeys in Version 2 of OS/2. The Trace Center willassist them in the development of these and otherfeatures for future versions of OS/2.

X Windows Environment: The X Windows inter-face is a graphical interface commonly used with theUnix operating system, widely used in government,education and industry. By providing accessibility toX Windows, many Unix systems can be made acces-sible. The Trace Center is part of the Disability AccessCommittee on X (DACX). The Trace Center serves ascoordinator for the group and is also in charge ofinitiatives for physical access issues. This work hasinvolved developing a basic access package for XWindows similar to those developed for DOS. Thispackage was recently included in Version X11,R6 ofX Windows.

Selected publicationsLee, C. C., Novak, M. E., Schauer, J. M., &

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990, Oct.). Providing accessin Windows 3.0. In Proceedings of the Eighth An-nual Closing the Gap Conference. Minneapolis, MN.

Novak, M. E., Schauer, J. M., Hinkens, J. D., &Vanderheiden, G. C. (1994 Providing computeraccess features under DOS. Proceedings of the Four-teenth Annual RESNA Conference.

Novak, M. E., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1993). Extend-ing the user interface for X Windows to includepersons with disabilities. Proceedings of the Six-teenth Annual Conference (RESNA). Las Vegas,NV.

28 3 4


Trace Transparent Access Module (T-TAM) for Apple andIBM Computers

Project Team: Mark Novak, BS, BS, PE; Joseph Schauer, BSEE; David P. Kelso, MS;Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD

BackgroundCertain people with physical disabilities cannot op-

erate standard input devices for commercially availablecomputers. Many of these individuals can, however,operate a special communication or computer accessaid, using a control system such as an optical headpointeror single switch. This special aid in turn can be inter-faced to the computer and used as an input device.

In the past, Keyboard Emulating Interfaces (KEIs)have been used to connect an aid to a computer. How-ever, newer models of computer require the use of otherstandard input devices, in particular a"mouse" pointingdevice. Thus the computer user must be able to use themouse (or an equivalent) to operate the computer. Thisrequires a General Input Device Emulating Interface(G1DEI), not just a KEI.

ApproachThegoal of this development effort has been to create

a commercially viable design for a GIDEI for AppleMacintosh, Apple Hos and IBM PS/2 computersallof which use a mouse as a standardinput device. This particular GIDEIhas been named the Trace Trans-parent Access Module (T -TAM',since it provides "transparent" ac-cess to standard commerciallyavailable computer systems.

The T-TAM is a hardware mod-ule that translates standard serialASCII code output from a commu-nication or computer access aid intothe keyboard and mouse input sig-nals required by the computer. Se-rial ASCII code was selected as theform of output from the aid, since itis by far the most common outputinterface on computer-independentaids. Serial ASCII is also the inter-face used in older KEIs.

In order to accomplish the function of a key or amouse movement, the user sends a single ASCII char-acter or string of characters to the T-TAM. Accordingto the definitions set down in the GIDEI standard, theT-TAM converts the ASCII string to the correct key-board or mouse input signal. Since most aids alsoprovide the capability to store strings of charactersunder a single selection, the user can program longercommand strings (such as moving the mouse 20 pixelsor pressing the "Print Screen" key) to correspond tosingle selections. This effectively allows the user themost direct access possible to a particular action.

The T-TAM provides connections for both Appleand IBM computersthat is, the same T-TAM can beconnected to an Apple Macintosh SE and to an IBM PS/2 Model 50 (though not at the same time). Because theinput devices comply with the same standard in AppleHos, Macintosh SE and Macintosh II computers (theApple Desktop Bus), the T-TAM can easily be usedwith any of the three. Since an adaptor is available forconnecting IBM PS/2 keyboards to the older IBM

The T-TAM unit: back panel and inside (left), and front panel

3j


SerialConnection

tr- Elocosseeto ategeosteecieeta040000,006000011)060000090400000400(90

AAC Device

SerialCable

MouseCord

KeyboardCable Computer

''`.44.4P0,AVAlablo".

ASCIIcharacterstransmittedusing GIDEI

protocolMouseCord

Mouse

affill=.1,AMMONOMOSIIIIMM11111114f.ema,11111111111111MISZ=111.1 EV=

GE111 =

Keyboard

Diagram of computer access system showing connection of T-TAM and standard input devices

PC-AT computers, the T-TAM can also be made towork with the ATs.

In addition to providing access through special inputdevices, the T-TAM provides assisted keyboard fea-tures for the standard computer keyboard. Among theseare Sticky Keys (the ability to type key combinationslike shift-key with one finger), RepeatKeys (the abilityto control the keyboard's auto-repeat feature), andMouseKeys (control of mouse functions from the key-board).

StatusThe device has been transferred to two companies for

commercial production: Prentke Romich Company ofWooster, OH and Words+, Inc. of Lancaster, CA. Bothcompanies are long-standing manufacturers of commu-

nication and computer access devices. Prentke RomichCompany started shipping T-TAMs to customers inSept., 1990; Words+ in Dec., 1990.

Selected publicationsScha,ier, J. M., Novak, M., & Vanderheiden, G. C.

(1990). Transparent access interface for Apple andIBM computers: The T-TAM. Proceedings of the13th Annual Conference of the Association for theAdvancement of Rehabilitation and Assistive Tech-nology (RESNA).

Kelso, D. P., Lee, C. C., Novak, M., Schauer, J. M., &Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990, Oct.). Transparent ac-cess interface for Apple and IBM computers: The T'TAM. In Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Closingthe Gap Conference. Minneapolis, MN.

303 6

Sensory Impairment Focus Area

ndividuals with sensory impairments, either visualI or auditory, can experience difficulty in using stan-dard commercially available computers and other elec-tronic devices. Since the types of needs and the degreeof severity of current access problems are different forusers with visual impairments than for users with hear-ing impairments, the two groups are addressed byseparate research and development programs.

Visual ImpairmentsIndividuals with visual impairments primarily need

to be provided with some mechanism to perceive thecontents of visual displays such as computer monitors.Because most computer software relies almost exclu-sively on the visual display of information, the barriersfaced by persons with visual impairmentsparticu-larly individuals who are severely visually impaired orblindare quite large. Moreover, the recent trend to-ward increased detail in visual displays, in the form oftext formatting and graphic images, is greatly compli-cating the process of providing alternate access to thisinformation. Although a wide variety of different solu-tions are currently available For providing access to thecharacter-based screen displays used by computers inthe past, there is currently only one software programdesigned to provide blind users with access to a graph-ics-based operating system.

A key reason that access systems have not beendeveloped for the new graphics-based displays is theextreme technical difficulty of deriving screen informa-tion in a form that can be easily accessed and interpretedby special Braille, voice, or tactile display systems.With older, character-based screen displays, it waspossible simply to tap into the area of the computer'smemory where the text to be displayed on the screenwas stored. A special braille, tactile or voice outputsystem could then display this information, characterfor character. Newer graphics-based computers, how-ever, do not use character-based screens, and do not

store the textual information from the screen in aconvenient location where a special device can tap intoit.

A further difficulty lies in the kind of informationdisplayed by newer computer systems. A significantportion of the information on the screen may be pre-sented through the text's formatting, arrangement andlocation with respect to graphical elements, or directlyin pictorial or graphic form. This problem is com-pounded by the fact that some of the major new operat-ing systems by Apple, Microsoft, and IBM use overlap-ping images, which makes interpretation by externaldevices extremely difficult if not impossible withoutsome cooperation from the computer and operatingsystem composing the image. Operating system "hooks"are needed to ensure that adaptive hardware and soft-ware for blind users can function successfully.

In addition to the difficulties in getting access to thescreen image, there aren't good strategies for present-ing this information to a blind individual. Better tech-niques are needed for handling the diverse formatting oftext (style, font, size, and spatial arrangement) if thesenew screens are to be properly interpreted. In addition,there is a need to identify and develop specific strategiesforallowing blind individuals to directly explore charts,diagrams, and other business and program graphics thatare being used at a rapidly increasing rate in standardbusiness and educational software.

The primary needs in the area of visual impairmentat the present time are:

1) the identification of techniques for tapping thedisplay image in the new generation computersand operating systems;

2) the identification of strategies for securing theinformation displayed on the screen before it isturned into a visual image (in order to providescreen access techniques and to develop directinterpretation stratcgies for blind individuals);

3) research into the optimum techniques and strate-

3731

Trace R&D Center Report of Progress, 1987-94.

gies for blind individuals to work with formattedtext displays;

4) research into the best formats and techniques forallowing blind individuals to perceive and ma-nipulate graphic images (in order to allow them tooperate the new generation programs and operat-ing systems).

Hearing ImpairmentsIndividuals with hearing impairments do not cur-

rently experience much difficulty in dealing with cur-rent computer and software designs. They will faceincreasing barriers, however, if the use of sound (tonesor voice) to transmit information is increased. Theprimary need in the area of hearing impairments istherefore in identifying where these barriers are likelyto arise, and in identification of alternatives for present-ing this auditory information. The primary approachcurrently being developed and advocated in that of a"ShowSounds" feature at the level of the computeroperating system. This feature would allow the user toindicate to the operating system or application softwarethat he or she needs visual indications of sounds orcaptions for spoken text.

Program PlanThe Trace Center has three major areas of activity

within the Sensory Impairment Focus Area:1) Development of Blind User Interfaces for Graphic-

Based Computer Systems. The chief activity isthis area has been the development of the experi-mental prototype "Systems 3" device for com-bined auditory-tactile access to screen informa-tion.

2) Identification and Development of System Hooksto Allow Access by Blind Individuals. This effortincludes development of operating system hooks(software connection points) for access devicessuch as the "Systems 3" device. The Trace Centeris also assisting and advising computer compa-nies in their efforts to design such hooks directlyinto their computers and operating system soft-ware.

3) Development of Auditory Access Techniques forDeaf and Hearing Impaired Users. In this area,the Trace Center has been exploring the develop-ment of a "ShowSounds flag" which would allowsoftware to be alerted to the need to presentinformation in both auditory and visual form.

In addition to these three areas of activity, the TraceCenter has carried out several other projects that di-

rectly address the needs of people with sensory impair-ments. These projects are described in the "Cross-Impairment Focus -Area" section of this report. Theyinclude: accessibility manuals for computers and con-sumer electronic devices, informational efforts on pro-viding computer access in higher education settings,and an effort to increase accessibility of TDDs to peoplewith multiple impairments.

32 38


State-of-the-Art Planning Workshop on Access toGraphics-Based Computers by Blind Users

Project Team: Charles C. Lee, M.S.; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, Ph.D.; ChristineThompson, B.S.

BackgroundThe greatest single technical obstacle to computer

access for blind individuals to arise in the past five yearsis the emergence of computers which use graphicaldisplays as a standard part of their operating systems.The existing computer access systems for blind users(both braille-output and voice-output) rely upon a char-acter-based display: one consisting primarily of alpha-numeric characters which are stored in memory ascharacters rather than as pixel images. Current accesssystems rely on the ability to recognize characters anddetermine their position by directly reading the screenmemory. This information can be sent directly to aspeech synthesizer or braille display and there trans-lated into an intelligible form.

In graphical operating systems, screen memory storespixel images, providing no source of text to send to a

synthesizer or braille display. Furthermore, informa-tion about text position is not stored in the absolute formin which it is stored in character-based systems. Theresult of this situation is that there is currently nocommercially available system for voice output accessto graphic operating systems; and only one tactilesystem, displaying images of letters rather than truebraille

There are many researchers and developers whohave tackled these access problems, and many userswith a wealth of experience in using current systems.However, information sharing has primarily occurredonly through individual contact and publications.

ApproachIn order to ascertain the state of the art in access to

graphic operating systems for blind users, it was de-

Programs andOperating System

Programs andOperating

Output Routines Output Routines

Screen ReadingASC I text Bit-Mapped(characters) Software Image of Text

Screen Memory Screen Memory(text storedas ASCII)

ASCII textact er s)(characters)

(stored asbit-image)

V

Computer Screen Speech Synthesizer Computer Screen(visual output) (auditory output) (visual output)

Traditional screen reading systems lot blind users access acharacter string which the computer oldinarily stores hn screenmemory) Wore sending to the character based screen.

I( No ASCII characters )available

1Screen Reading

Software

ASCII text(characters)

Speech Synthesizer(auditory output)

Newer computers do not have a stnng of ASCII charactersavailable lo the screen reading software. since they store a bit-mapped image of the text in their screen memory.

Diagrammatic explanation of one current computer access problem for blind users

39BEST COPY AVAILABLE

33


cided to host a planning workshop. This session wouldbring together those with a great deal of knowledge andexperience to discuss the problem, to share information,and to determine research and development priorities.

The workshop was scheduled to last three and a halfdays, to ensure that enough time was provided forsharing information and for discussion of issues. Thefour principle objectives were: I) to acquaint all of thekey individuals in the field with state-of-the-art infor-mation and ideas; 2) to identify promising access strat-egies; 3) to develop a recommended plan of action foraddressing access problems of blind and visually im-paired individuals; and 4) to identify and form collabo-rative links among individuals working in various ar-eas.

StatusThe state-of-the-art planning workshop was held in

Madison on October 4-7, 1988. Thirty-seven partici-pants were invited, including representatives from com-puter companies, special access equipment manufac-turers, consumers, and researchers. Eleven of the 32participants were blind or deaf-blind.

Results of this workshop were used to guide the GUIaccess work of the Trace Center and helped in secur.better linkages between the organizations and individu-als participating in the meeting.

Selected PublicationsLee, C. C., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1989, June). Access

to graphical computers by blind users: Results of aplanning workshop. In Proceedings of the 12th An-nual Conference of the Association for the Advance-ment of Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology(RESNA). New Orleans, LA.

Lee, C. C., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1988, June). Acces-sibility of graphically based user interface computersystems for individuals with visual impairments. InProceedings of the International Conference of theAssociation for the Advancement of RehabilitationTechnology (ICAART). Canada: Montreal.

List of participantsAdams, Frank R. (Special Needs System Development,

IBM Entry Systems Division)Bach-y-Rita, Paul, MD (Dept. of Rehab. Medicine,

University of Wisconsin-Madison)Barello, Larry (Microsoft Corporation)

Blazie, Deane (Blazie Engineering)Boyd, Larry H. (Berkeley System Design, Inc.)Brabyn, John (Smith-Kettlewell Institute)Chong, Curtis (Minneapolis, MN)Cranmer, Tim (Frankfort, KY)de I'Aune, William (Rehabilitation R&D Center, Vet-

erans Administration Medical Center)Durre, Karl P. (Computer Science Department, Colo-

rado State University)Ewers, Neal (St. Paul, MN)Foulke, Emerson (Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory,

University of Louisville, KY)Fowle, Tom (Smith-Kettlewell Institute)Gabias, Paul (Pueblo, CO)Goodrich, Gregory (Western Blind Rehabilitation Cen-

ter, Veterans Administration Medical Center, PaloAlto, CA)

Gunderson, Jon (Trace R&D Center)Holladay, David (Raised Dot Computing)Kasday, Leonard R. (AT&T Bell Laboratories)Milewski, Allen (AT&T Bell Laboratories)Lauer, Harvey (Blind Center)Lee, Charles C. (Trace R&D Center)Lewis, Paul (Telesensory Systems, Inc.)Mansoir, David (Sight Center, Cleveland Society for

the Blind)McKinley, Jan (Western Blind Rehabilitation Center,

Veterans Administration Medical Center, Palo Alto,CA)

Melrose, Sue (New Berlin, WI)Millar, Susanna (Department of Experimental Psychol-

ogy, University of Oxford, England)Navy, Caryn (Raised Dot Computing)Orman, Steve (Dept. of Rehab. Medicine, University of

Wisconsin-Madison)Parreno, Antonio (Hospital Ramony Cajal, Madrid,

Spain)Runyon, Noel (Campbell, CA)Schreier, Elliot (National Technology Center, Ameri-

can Foundation for the Blind)Thompson, Wayne (Kentucky Department for the Blind,

Technical Services Unit)van den Meiracker, Maud, PhD (COI/ECC, The Neth-

erlands)Vanderheiden, Gregg C., PhD (Trace R&D Center)

4034


Access to Graphics-Based Operating Systems for BlindIndividuals: "Systems 3" Model

Project Team: Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; John Mendenhall, MS; Kelly L. Ford, BA;Wesley L. Boyd

BackgroundGraphics-based operating systems pose severe ob-

stacles to computer users with blindness and certainother visual impairments. Such systems require the userto visually recognize and locate words, boxes, on-screen "buttons," and icons. Pointing to these images(usually with a pointing-based input devicelike a mouse)instructs the system to carry out commands. A userunable to visually orient themselves is thus unable tooperate the system.

The first challenge in allowing transparent access tosuch systems for blind users is to locate operatingsystem "access hooks": points at which screen informa-tion can be accessed in order to be sent to some alterna-tive output system such as a braille display or speechsynthesizer. A second and equally important challenge,however, is to provide a structured interface for presen-tation of the screen information so that blind users caninteract with the computer in an effective and timelyway.

ApproachThe first challenge in providing

access (outputting screen informa-tion) is being addressed as part ofother Trace Centel projects andthrough cooperative links to otherresearchers and developers. Thesecond challenge (structuring theuser interface) is being studied interms of a "Systems 3" model. Thismodel allows for three differentapproaches to screen access, whichcould coexist in eventual commer-cial implementations.

In System I , no additional spe-cial hardware component is usedfor navigating the screen. All com-mands and requests for informa-

tion are issued using the keyboard. In System 2, a touchtablet is used. The user can touch on "speed lists"areas of the tablet that correspond to menus and mes-sagesin order to specify what information is to beread back. System 2 does not provide any additionalaccess to the computer, but does provide faster access.Neither System I nor System 2 can deal directly withgraphics information. In System 3, a "virtual tactiletablet" is added to the system. This tactile tablet allowsthe user to "feel" the image on the screen by using amouse-like puck which contains a tactile array of 100vibrating pins.

A working prototype of the Systems 3 model is beingused for five purposes:

I. To solve technical problems involved in makirgSystems 3 workable. Most of the major hurdles ingetting the system operational have been cleared. How-ever, the system will have to be fine-tuned as newfeatures are added.

2. To determine if the design of Systems 3 will work

/.4111101.

Prototype of system including tactile tablet


in actual application by blind users. Several prototypeshave been given to knowledgeable blind computerusers for evaluation. The prototype has also been pre-sented at rehabilitation conferences in order to obtainprofessional and consumer feedback.

3. To refine the design to serve the purposes of blindusers and to make the system more "user-friendly" tothem. Suggestions from blind testers of the system, andothers, have resulted in design changes to make it moreuseful and easier to use.

4. To study how blind people can best obtain infor-mation from a graphics-based screen. This objective isdiscussed in the "Tactile Perception and Business Graph-ics Study Series" report. Results of these studies will beconsidered in making modifications to the system.

5. To study the feasibility of creating commercialproduction models. This objective is currently in itsinfancy. Feedback from users indicates that the systemcould be very useful as a commercial product, but manyergonomic issuesand production cost issues, espe-cially for the tactile tabletmust still be resolved.

StatusAn initial prototype of Systems 3 has been developed

in conjunction with Berkeley Systems, Inc., and withthe cooperation of Telesensory Corporation, Kurta,Inc., Apple Computer and Articulate Systems, Inc. Fourcopies of the prototype have been created and are beingused in field testing and experiments (see report on"Tactile Perception and Business Graphics Study Se-ries"). Initial field tests have been successful, but alsopoint out some of the limitations of this type of ap-proach.

One of the results has been the development andexploration of an alternate but complimentary approachwhich uses slower but higher-resolution techniques foraccess (see report on "Access to Graphical User Inter-faces Through Dynamic Screen Snapshots").

Selected publicationsVanderheiden, G. C. (1989). Nonvisual alternative dis-

play techniques for output from graphics based com-puters. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness,83(8), 383-390.

Boyd, L. H., Boyd, W. L., & Vanderheiden, G. C.(1990). Graphical user interface: Crisis, danger andopportunity. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blind-ness, 84(10), 496-502.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990). Graphic user Interfaces: Atough problem with a net gain for users who areblind. Technology and Disability, 1(1), 93-99.

Vanderheiden, G. C., Boyd, W. L., Mendenhall, J. H.,& Ford, K. (1991). Development of a multisensorynonvisual interface to computers for blind users.Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35thAnnual Meeting. San Francisco, CA.

36 A 0


Tactile Perception Studies: Factors in Perception ofSimple Shapes

Project Team: Steven Wiker, PhD; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Seongil Lee, MS

BackgroundAccess to computers for individuals who are blind

depends increasingly upon the user's ability to recog-nize and interpret non-verbal or graphic information.The need for a nonvisual mode for presenting graphicinformation led to the inclusion of a vibrotactile array inthe prototype Systems 3 device. (See Systems 3 projectreport for more thorough discussion and illustrations ofthe hardware.)

The vibrotactile array of the Systems 3 device allowsindividuals who are blind to feel shapes of graphicsappearing on the computer screen. There are severalaspects of this type of tactile presentation which can bevaried, however, and the effects of these variations inoptimizing the user's ability to derive information arenot known. The purpose of this study series is toexamine different tactile presentation modes and com-pare their relative efficacy.

ApproachThe first experiment in this series dealt with the

recognition of elemental shapes, or tactemes. Subjectsperceived the shapes using the Systems 3 computerconfiguration: a computer connected to a graphicstablet, with a hand-held puck for navigation and avibrotactile array for tactual interpretation of shapes.The tablet area corresponds to the computer screen. Theuser moves the puck around the tablet, in the processfeeling whatever image is on the computer screen.

Subjects were timed in their identification of tactemes.A basic set consisting of vertex, cross, gap and arc wasused, with each of the shapes being presented at threedifferent angles-90°, 60° and 120° (see Figure 1).

Experiments compared three variables in the opera-tion of the system:

1) Same-hand vs. cross-hand perceptionthat is,whether the vibrotactile information was presented onthe same hand with which the user moved the puck

around the shape or on the other hand. This involvedtesting using two versions of the system: one with thetactile display mounted on the mouse, and one with amoving mouse for one hand and a stationary tactiledisplay for the other hand.

2) Large vs. small stimulus sizethat is, the absolutesize of the image being perceived, as it appears on thecomputer screen. Two different sizes were compared:objects the size of the display and objects 2.25 times thesize.

3) High vs. low mapping ratiothat is, the ratio ofthe number of pixels on the screen to the pins on thevibrotactile array that correspond to those pixels. Twodifferent mapping ratios were used: 32 pixels to one pinand 8 pixels to one pin.

Each subject experienced all 24 experimental condi-tions (see Figure 2). Amount of information transmittedand subject response time were examined for effects ofdisplay mode, object size and display resolution, usingrepeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Fig. 1: Set of tactile primitives, with angle variations

4337


StatusThis study has been completed and the data ana-

lyzed. Results consistently showed that tactile imagesize does have a significant effect upon individuals'ability to correctly recognize shapes and shape ele-ments, with the larger size being easier to identify.Similarly, the lower pixel-to-pin mapping ratio pro-duced better recognition.

No significant performance difference, however,was found with ipsilateral (same-hand) versos con-tralateral (opposite hand) tactile feedback. This wouldindicate that there would not be any significant perfor-mance difference between a system with the tactilearray mounted on the movable puck and one with the

puck held in one hand and the array felt with the other.If this finding holds true with more complex shapes, itcould mean a lower-cost approach for the developmentof the System 3 product by a commercial vendor.

Selected publicationsWiker, S. F., Vanderheiden, G. C., & Lee, S. (1991).

Development of tactile mice for blind access tocomputers: Importance of stimulation locus, objectsize, and vibrotactile display resolution. Proceed-ings of the Human Factors Society 35th AnnualMeeting. San Francisco, CA.

Paradigm forExperiment I

Tactile Mouse Mouse and StationaryTactile Display

Graphic LineSegments

Intersect at 60°


Intersect at 90°


Intersect at I20°

8:1

Pixel-to-PinMapping

32:1Pixel - to-Pin

Mapping

Cursor-SizedObject

Object is 2.25Times Cursor

Arca

Fig. 2: Paradigm of experiment

44

38


Tactile Perception Studies: Factors in Perception ofCompound Shapes


BackgroundAccess to computers for individuals who are blind

depends increasingly upon the user's ability to recog-nize and interpret non-verbal or graphic information.Theneed for a nonvisual mode for presenting graphic infor-mation led to the inclusion of a vibrotactile array in theprototype Systems 3 device. (See Systems 3 projectreport for more thorough discussion and illustrations ofthe hardware.)

The vibrotactile array of the Systems 3 device allowsindividuals who are blind to feel shapes of graphicsappearing on the computer screen. There are severalaspects of this type of tactile presentation which can bevaried, however, and the effects of these variations inoptimizing the user's ability to derive information arenot known. The purpose of this study series is toexamine different tactile presentation modesand compare their relative efficacy.

ApproachThe first experiment in this series dealt with

the recognition of elemental shapes, or tactemes(see previous project report). This second ex-periment dealt with the use of compound shapes,consisting of combinations of the tactemes usedin the first experiment (see Figure 1).

As in the first experiment, subjects perceivedthe shapes using the Systems 3 computer con-figuration: a computer connected to a graphicstablet, with a hand-held puck for navigation anda vibrotactile array for tactual interpretation ofshapes. The tablet area corresponds to the com-puter screen. The user moves the puck aroundthe tablet, in the process feeling whatever imageis on the computer screen.

Subjects were timed in their identification ofthe compound shapes. A set of ten shapes wasused (see Figure 1).

As in the first experiment, three variables in theoperation of the system were compared:

1) Same-hand vs. cross-hand perceptionthat is,whether the vibrotactile information was presented onthe same hand with which the user moved the puckaround the shape or on the other hand. This involvedtesting using two versions of the system: one with thetactile display mounted on the mouse, and one with amoving mouse for one hand and a stationary tactiledisplay for the other hand.

2) Large vs. small stimulus sizethat is, the absolutesize of the image being perceived, as it appears on thecomputer screen. Two different sizes were compared:objects the size of the display and objects 2.25 times thesize.

O<

Fig. l: Shape primitives (top); compound shapes (bottom)

45 39


3) High vs. low mapping ratiothat is, the ratio ofthe number of pixels on the screen to the pins on thevibrotactile array that correspond to those pixels. Twodifferent mapping ratios were used: 32 pixels to one pinand 8 pixels to one pin.

Procedures and experimental paradigm were similarto the first experiment, but using the 10 compoundshapes, presented in three serial blocks for a total of 30presentations. Unlike the experiment involving tactemes,no angular deviations of shapes were included in thestimulus set.

StatusThis study has been completed and the data ana-

lyzed. Results reflected the findings of the first study,showing that the effects of the three examined variableswere similar for the compound shapes as for the el-emental shapes (tactemes). Results consistently showedthat tactile image size does have a significant effectupon individuals' ability to correctly recognize shapes,with the larger size being easier to identify. Similarly,the lower pixel-to-pin mapping ratio produced better

recognition.As in the first experiment, no significant perfor-

mance difference was found with ipsilateral (same-hand) versus contralateral (opposite hand) tactile feed-back (see Figure 2). This would indicate that therewould not be any significant performance differencebetween a system with the tactile array mounted on themovable puck and one with the puck held in one handand the array felt with the other. This could mean alower-cost approach for the development of the System3 product by a commercial vendor. It also would allowfor use of tactile displays too large to mount on a mouse,should such displays become feasible from technologi-cal and cost standpoints.

Selected publicationsWiker, S. F., Vanderheiden, G. C., & Lee, S. (1991).

Development of tactile mice for blind access tocomputers: Importance of stimulation locus, objectsize, and vibrotactile display resolution. Proceed-ings of the Human Factors Society 35th AnnualMeeting. San Francisco, CA.

'100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

SIZE = CURSOR AREA SIZE = 2.25 X CURSOR AREA

LOW HIGH

IPSILATERAL

CONTRALATERAL

LOW

Pixel-to-Pin Resolution

40

Fig. 2: Data on response accuracy show the similarity of ipsi- and contralateral approaches


Tactile Perception Studies: Impact on Tactile Perceptionof Combining Tactile Primitives


BackgmundAccess to computers for individuals who are blind

depends increasingly upon the user's ability to recog-ilize and interpret non-verbal or graphic information.Theneed fora nonvisual mode for presenting graphic infor-mation led to the inclusion of a vibrotactile array in theprototype Systems 3 device. (See Systems 3 projectreport for more thorough discussion and illustrations ofthe hardware.)

The vibrotactile array of the Systems 3 device allowsindividuals who are blind to feel shapes of graphicsappearing on the computer screen. Experiments havebeen conducted to examine the effects of several vari-ables in how information is presented (see previousproject reports). However, additional information use-ful in the development of user interfaces can be derivedby studying the relationship of the geometry of targetshapes to rates of recognition. This information ispotentially very useful in determining how blind userscan effectively access a graphical user interface. Forexample, are there certain shapes or shape combina-tions that are more recognizable tactually? Could theseshapes or shape combinations be used in the design ofon-screen symbols and icons?

ApproachThis study used the subject data

from the first two experiments inthe study series (see previous projectreports), but examined the impactof combining particular tactileprimitives upon accurate recogni-tion of non-sense two-dimensionalgraphic images that are of compa-rable complexity to those found intactile maps currently produced forblind users.

Four simple two-dimensional shape patternsver-tex, cross gap, and arcwere used as hypotheticaltactile primitives (tactemes). These primitives werethen concatenated in a factorial fashion to create tenstimulus forms: vertex-vertex, vertex-arc, gap-arc, etc.The shapes were drawn on a computer display, andsubjects perceived the shapes using the Systems 3computer configuration: a computer connected to agraphics tablet, with a hand-held puck containing avibrotactile array. Data were examined regarding ratesat which subjects identified and misidentified the primi-tive shapes and the compound shapes.

StatusThe data have been compiled and analyzed. Results

showed that the tactile primitives and the more complexshapes were both identified very accurately. Cross andarc primitives were identified more accurately thanvertex and gap primitives. No significant differences incorrect identification rate among the ten complex shapescould be found.

Examination of the confusion matrices revealed thatrecognition factors in the primitives were not additivein recognition of the compound shapes. While the gap

TactilePrimitive

Vertex/\ CrossX Gap/ \ Arc( StimuliTotal

Vertex 121 2 7 14 144

Cross 4 138 2 144

Gap 16 5 118 5 144

Arc 6 3 135 144

ResponsesTotal

147 145 128 156 576

Fig. l: Confusion matrix for the tactile primitive set. Responsesare shown in columns for the stimulus presented in rows.

41


proved to be the most often confused among the singleprimitives, the presence of an arc proved to be the mosttroublesome when combined with other primitives inthe formation of the compound shapes (see Figures 1 &2).

The data point to some potential difficulties for usersattempting to distinguish certain types of shapes orshape elements with the configuration of vibrotactilearray used in the experiment. Future design of arrays forreading of graphic computer information may need to

allow for even higher resolution, greater enlargement offeatures, audio cues, or other accommodations for ex-ploration of complex shapes.

Selected publicationsLee, S., Wiker, S. F., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1993).

Interactive haptic interface: Two-dimensional formperception for blind access to computers. Proceed-ings of the Conference on Human- Computer Inter-action.

Shape

I 2^ 3 40 5 6n 7

08

/ \9

X10

# StimuliTotal

7L ir-1 45 . . 2 . . I . . 48

2 . 46 . 1 . 1 . . . . 48

3 . 45 2 . I . . . 48

4 3 I . 42 . . 2 . . . 48

5 . I 2 . 40 3 . I . 1 48

6 . 2 . . . 42 3 . . I 48

7 I . . 3 1 . 43 . . . 48

8 . 1 . . . I 46 . . 48

9 I I . . . . . . 46 48

10 . . I . . . . . 2 45 48

ResponseTotal

50 52 48 48 43 47 50 47 48 47 480

Fig. 2: Confusion matrix for the more complex stimulus set. Responsesare shown in columns for the stimulus presented in rows.

4 8

42


Access to Graphical User Interfaces ThroughAudio/Tactile Screen "Snapshots"Project Team: Rafael Arce, MS; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; John Mendenhall, MS

BackgroundAs computers rely more and more on Graphical User

Interfaces (GUI) to present information, computer ac-cess for blind users gets more complicated. Informationcontained in Graphical User Interfaces can be dividedinto two classes. Class I information is anything that canbe completely described using words. Class II informa-tion is the type of information that cannot be completelydescribed with words, for example complex line draw-ings or pictorial charts.

A fully effective nonvisual interface needs to be ableto present both types of information. The ideal solutionto this problem would be a dynamic full-page tactiledisplay, but such a system is not currently practical. TheTrace Center has investigated the use of a tactile mousefor sensing of graphical screens, through the develop-ment of the "System 3" model. The vibrotactile arrayused in System 3 is fairly small, so that only a small areaaround where the cursor is on the screen is representedin the array at a time. Users explore the screen bymoving the tactile mouse around and feeling the limitedtactile display under their finger. As users move aroundthe screen, any text encountered is read aloud usingspeech synthesis.

One difficulty users of this system have encounteredis that the amount of the screen presented at any time issmall compared to the complete screen image. Twoparticular observations with the System 3 device were:

1) Class II information interpreted with the systemwas commonly static information, often an overview ofthe layout of the screen. Changing material tended to beClass I information, which the user would find easier toaccess with a keyboard-based verbal interface. Al-though some sort of presentation of Class II informationis essential, the continuously changeable, dynamic tac-tile presentation was not crucial to all users.

2) Some users had difficulty visualizing the tactileimage because of the resolution of the tactile display. Inmost cases, an image was easier to interpret using a full-page raised-line drawing than with the vibro-tactile

display.These user observations support the idea that a good

raised line drawing could be more effective than adynamically changing vibrotactile display, even if theraised line drawing does not immediately reflect everychange in the display (which may or may not be verbalin nature).

ApproachTo test a different approach to accessing both Class

I and Class II information, a "Dynamic SnapShot"access system was developed. The basic operation ofthe system is as follows:

1. The user comes across an image that he or shewants to explore.

2. The user employs the SnapShot software to "grab"the part of the screen to be explored.

3. The image is sent to a raised-line printer where atactile raised-line picture is created.

4. The raised line image is placed precisely on a touchtablet.

5. The user feels the image on the picture while his orher finger movement is tracked by the tablet and theposition of the finger is mapped to the screen.

6. When the user comes across any text, :t is read asthe user moves over it. Text can be presented using aspeech synthesizer or a Braille code display.

The Dynamic SnapShot system runs in MicrosoftWindows. Its software routines for accessing screeninformation for speech output are based on the GUIAccess toolkit created by Berkeley Systems of Berke-ley, California.

The Dynamic SnapShot approach addresses twobasic problems encountered with the low resolutionvibrotactile display: (1) difficulty with image interpre-tation, and (2) small amount of information presented ata time. It presents a full screen, high resolution tactilepicture of the display with full access to Class 1 informa-tion and created ease of recognition for Class II images.Any part of the screen can be specified to occupy the

43

/19


whole tablet, so that the user can zoom into any desiredgraphic.

The Dynamic Snapshot software also presents "vir-tual buttons," areas of the touch tablet which the usercan press to activate certain program options. Thisreduces the need for the user to memorize a variety ofkeystrokes, each invoking a different function. Whenthe user's finger passes over a button area, the programannounces the function of that button and the user canelect to activate it by pressing on the touch tablet.Functions of the virtual buttons include various optionsfor screen image capture, text reading mode (line, wordor character), saving screen image to disk, and zoom in/out.

The system also allows the user to store and recallscreen images from particular applications, so thatpreviously created tactile printouts can be used withtheir appropriate screen contexts.

Status .

A functioning prototype of the Dynamic SnapShotsystem has been created, working under MicrosoftWindows 3.1. A variety of technical problems havebeen resolved, allowing the system to function effec-

tively so that its basic design can be tested.Several persons who are blind have experimented

with the Dynamic SnapShot prototype. The tests weremostly qualitative, aimed at comparing the system withprevious interfaces the users had experimented with.They were asked to explc're several images that containa certain level of Class I and II information, such as floorplans, maps, and charts.

Feedback from testers indicated that the system didhave some advantages over the smaller vibrotactiledisplay used in System 3. Users appreciated the overallresolution and bandwidth presented by the whole-pagetactile image. The users felt more active in the explora-tion (both hands may be used) and had a better idea atall times of where they were located in relation to thecomplete picture. All this resulted in their being able togain a broader view of the image more quickly.

As well as providing a platform for testing theSnapShot approach to accessing the GUI, the systemmay have educational applications. Testers suggestedthat the system would be a very effective way ofproviding tactile maps quickly and accurately. Themajor disadvantage at this point is speed: it can takethree to six minutes to create the tactile image.

ComputerO

Sun

ELI Touch Tablet 0

O SpeechSynthesizer

User's fingerposition

Touch Tablet Tracking Mechanism.(1) The absolute position is read fromthe tablet. (2) This position is changedaccording to the screen arearepresented in the raised line image.(3) Database of screen information issearched tor any text on this position.(4) Speech synthesizer speaks text.

The Dynamic SnapShot system tracks the user's finger movement and reads text accordingly.

44 J0


Effects of Control on Text Presentation

Project Team: Jon R. Gunderson, PhD

BackgroundMany research and development efforts directed

toward computer access for blind individuals haveconcentrated on providing access to standard comput-ers and operating systems. However, relatively fewhave concentrated on isolating the factors involved inoptimizing the interface for the blind uses' In order tocreate the most effective access systems, more needs tobe understood about how different variables in textpresentation interact in actual situations of use. As thenewer systems evolve to include ever-increasing soundcapabilities and built-in speech, it will be important tohave information in hand as to the appropriate charac-teristics of a speech synthesizer for use by individualswho are blind.

There are many speech synthesizers and "screenreading" software programs on the market, designed toprovide this kind of access. Many of these systemsprovide control over variables such as speech rate.However, there are questions that remain unansweredregarding which speech rates areuseful for different types of tasks.Furthermore, there are questionsregarding how the comprehensionof accelerated synthesized speechdiffers from the comprehension ofother forms of accelerated speech,including fast human speech. Theanswers to these questions will en-able developers to optimize theirhardware and software, and shouldalso encourage the development oftypes of control that currently donot exist or are too rudimentary.

ApproachThe main medium for people

with visual impairments to accesscomputer systems is through elec-

tronic speech synthesizers. Visually impaired computerusers frequently increase the rate (words per minute) oftheir synthesizers in order to be able to read screeninformation more rapidly. They may double or eventriple the speed of ordinary speech. To the casuallistener, the increased-rate speech sounds unintelli-gible. This research program is attempting to evaluatethe factors in how this accelerated is successfully under-stood.

Current acceleration algorithms for speech synthe-sizers are simply linearthat is, the duration of eachphoneme is shortened. This research program will alsoexamine how people compress their verbal speechwhen speaking quickly, and attempt to develop modelsfor a human-based compression algorithm they may ( I )make accelerated synthesized speech easier to under-stand and (2) make it possible to accelerate to greaterrates with full intelligibility. Speech samples of com-pressed human and synthesized speech are being com-pared and their characteristics analyzed.

apir *411180011,

-1, N°--

Synthesized speech is analyzed to evaluate compression techniques

r) BEST COPY AVAILABLE45


StatusOne explanation regarding visually impaired com-

puter users' ability to understand high-speed synthe-sized speech is a general improvement in their speechperception system, allowing them to recognize speechat faster rates. The results of the experiments in thisproject area have validated this hypothesis. There wasa significant difference in the percentage of correctwords identified and word confusions between inexpe-rienced and experienced listeners of accelerated syn-thesized speech. The distribution of scores for percent-age of correct words for the experienced group wasbimodal, indicating a number of factors which need tobe identified for the understanding of the perception ofaccelerated synthesized speech. Results of these studieshave been published in the journal of the Human Fac-tors Society.

Selected publicationsGunderson, J. (1991). Limits of intelligibility of accel-

erated synthesized speech by inexperienced sightedlisteners. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society35th Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA.

46


Auditory Redundancy for Hearing Impaired Individuals

Project Team: Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Mark Novak, BS, BS, PE

BackgroundCurrently, people with hearing impairments have

little or no difficulties in using computers. The use ofsound as a standard feature has been minimal, usuallyno more than a "beep." If the beep is accompanied bysome visual event, no problem is encountered. If thebeep is not accompanied by a visual event, the deafperson may miss the cue, may deduce what change orerror has occurred, or may use a simple sound alertdevice with a flashing light to detect the sound.

However, the increasing sophistication of syntheticand digital speech technologies has made it easier andmore desirable for computer companies to considerincorporating voice output into their products. Thiswould probably take the form of standard voice featuresin the operating system (such as voice output of errormessages) or available voice features that could be"called" from the operating system by application pro-grams.

ApproachAs a first step in addressing these problems, a pro-

posal has been made for the incorporation of a"Show Sounds" flag in standard computer operatingsystems. Such a flag would appear along with othercontrol settings for the operating system. The flagwould provide a means for the user to signal cooperat-ing software and operating systems that the user cannothear any sounds emitted by the computer. Programs andoperating systems could then accompany any beepswith some type of visual event on the computer screen.Simple beeps might correspond to a flashing of themenu bar or screen border. More complex tonal outputcould be presented to the user in some type of graphicthat would appear on the screen.

The ShowSounds flag also presents the possibility of"closed captioning" for computer programs. This couldwork in two ways. First, cooperating programs thatused speech output could check the ShowSounds flag

Model '1

ApplicationProgram

Visual equivalentsfor sounds and

speech

Model v2

OperatingSystem

Ouery sent to Op Sys.regarding Flag

ApplicationProgram

Visual equivalentsfor sounds andspeech -for

Op. Sys. lunctions

Visual equivalentsfor sounds andspeech -for

App. Prog [unctions

Model v3

FutureOperating

System

Request forsound/speechsent to Op. Sys.

ApplicationProgram


speech -forOp. Sys. functions


speech -forApp Prog. lunclions

Three models for the implementation of a ShowSounds .17(4,

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

47


through the operating system. If the flag were set, thenthe program could display a caption along with anyvoice output. The second closed captioning method willbe possible once computers have standard text-to-speechcapabilities (in which case application programs cansimply send a string of text to the operating system inorder to have it spoken). In this scenario, an applicationprogram would simply tell the operating system to saysomething; the operating system itself would check theShow Sounds flag and automatically provide closedcaptioning. This would eliminate the need for programsto be individually equipped for closed captioning (butwould not preclude this option).

The implementation of the recommendations couldbe carried out in stagesin fact they would need to be,since later stages require built-in text-to-speech capa-bilities which are not yet a standard part of any com-puter operating system. The stages for implementationwould be:

1) Inclusion of a Show Sounds flag in the controlsettings of the operating system;

2) Implementation of visual events to correspond tobeeps triggered by the operating system;

3) Provision of closed captions for any voice orcomplex sound events necessary for use of theoperating system;

4) Provision of closed captioning tools for use bythird party developers;

5) Provision of auto-captioning capability.In addition, application programs can begin to check

for the ShowSounds flag and provide visual cues to anyauditory events. The application programs most likelyto make use of such a flag would be programs designedfor education or specifically for the disability field.However, government legislation regarding computeraccess may encourage the use of the ShowSounds flagby business software vendors as they incorporate soundinto their products.

StatusThe proposed ShowSounds flag has so far been

moved forward in five ways. First, the Trace Center hashad discussions with Apple computer regarding theinclusion of a ShowSounds flag as a part of theirstandard control panel for sounds in future versions oftheir operating system.

Second, a ShowSounds feature was incorporatedinto the AccessDOS software package developed at theTrace Center. AccessDOS provides several importantdisability access features to IBM PC and PS/2 comput-

ers running DOS. The program is distributed free ofcharge by IBM.

Third, the Trace Center has created a set of softwareapplication program design guidelines. One of the guide-lines deals specifically with the support of a ShowSoundsflag by application programs. Several thousand copiesof the guideline document have been distributed toapplication and operating system developers.

Fourth, the Trace Center has added the ShowSoundscapability to the most recent version of its "WindowsAccess Pack," a collection of keyboard and mouseaccessibility features for IBM and compatible comput-ers using Microsoft Windows.

Fifth, the ShowSounds concept is being incorporatedinto the Seamless Human Interface Protocol beingdeveloped by the Trace Center. This protocol is in-tended to apply not only to the design of computers butalso to the design of public information systems such asautomated teller machines and information kiosks.

Selected publicationsNovak, M. E., Schauer, J. M., Hinkens, J. D., &

Vanderheiden, G. C. AccessDOS version 1.00 [com-puter program]. Boca Raton, FL: IBM Corporation.

Novak, M. E., Schauer, J. M., Hinkens, J. D., &Vanderheiden, G. C. Access Pack for MicrosoftWindows [computer program]. Redmond, WA:Microsoft Corporation.

Trace Research and Development Center. (1991). WhitePaper on the Design of Software Application Pro-grams to Increase Their Accessibility for Personswith Disabilities. University of Wisconsin-Madi-son: Trace Research and Development Center.

Vanderheiden, G. C., & Lee, C. C. (1988). Consider-ations 4.2: Results of the Industry/Government Co-operative Effort on Computer Accessibility for Dis-abled Persons. Madison: University of Wisconsin,Trace Research and Development Center.

48

Cognitive Impairment Focus Area

0 perating a computer or other electronic device isan extremely complex task, often taken for granted

by experienced users. To operate a device accurately,and to respond appropriately to system variations orerrors, novices must learn to concentrate on the overallgoal of the device operationrather than the minutesteps involved in achieving it. Expertise in deviceoperation depends on the individual's ability to developcertain skills: comparing what is known to what isexperienced; adapting a solution to fit the problem;learning from an experience to help solve future prob-lems. Unfortunately for many cognitively disabled us-ers, it is these skills of memory, problem solving,visual-motor integration, and generalization that aremost often impaired.

Since persons with cognitive disabilities vary tre-mendously both between and within diagnostic popula-tions, it is difficult and often fruitless to try to devise asingle solution strategy for any given population. Forexample, a person classified as having "moderate re-ceptive aphasia" may have a wide assortment of cogni-tive and perceptual deficits, all of which would differ-entially affect computer use. Thus, while this researchis motivated by the concerns of four target populations(language delay, learning disabilities, brain injury, andmental retardation), access issues and strategies focuson the specific skill deficits present in different patternsand degrees across the populations. The function of thisresearch is to simplify the job of the user, manufacturer,and rehabilitation specialist in compensating for factorsdetrimental to user performance.

The barriers faced by individuals with cognitiveimpairments are much more difficult to identify andreduce than those facing individuals with other types ofimpairments. Fortunately, however, the same measureswhich can be used to make computersand particu-larly computer softwaremore accessible to individu-als with mild cognitive impairments also make themeasier to use and easier to learn for the average user. As

a result, recommendations for accommodating indi-viduals with mild cognitive impairments can be quiteeasily incorporated into regular design guidelines.

The problem for individuals with severe cognitiveimpairments is somewhat different. The issue of "ac-cess to all software" becomes less important. It may notbe necessary, for example, to provide access to sophis-ticated computer programs such as spreadsheet soft-ware. At the same time, the sensitivity of the interfaceto individual needs must be considered in the design ofeach piece of software. If a computer program thatcould enhance the life of someone with cognitive im-pairments has a user interface that is too complex orconfusing, the program won't be able to benefit thatperson. This issue is particularly pressing in the area ofeducational software. Computer and software design-ers who serve special education populations need toknowby some means other than intuition or guess-workhow well their designs will suit their intendedaudience.

As computers and computer-based electronic de-vices are being incorporated more and more into ourenvironments (work, home, and community), it is in-creasingly important to make these systems as acces-sible as possible. If we can't facilitate this accessibility,our efforts to allow individuals with cognitive impair-ments to live, work and move about with increasingindependence will be hampered by the inability of theseindividuals to operate the devices in their various envi-ronments. There is also a danger that by increasing thetechnical complexity of our environment, we may infact he increasing the number of individuals who expe-rience handicaps in daily life.

Program GoalsThe Trace Center's overall program goal in the area

of cognitive impairment is to make standard computertasks accessible to persons with cognitive disabilities.This can be accomplished either by decreasing the

49


complexity of the input controls (interface) or by in-creasing the specificity of help for task planning andcomprehension (prompting). Specifically, the goals tobe addressed by this research are:

ide" fy, describe, and characterize barriers to corn-putt access, and strategies for overcoming diffi-cults ;

systematize and quantify factors which contributeto difficulty in controlling computer interfaces,and use this information to optimize the interfacesfor cognitively disabled persons;compile the best available knowledge about strat-egies for providing access to computers bycognitively disabled persons, for easy use by dis-abled persons and their families, therapists, manu-facturers, and other researchers;Conduct research which describes and predictsperformance of people with cognitive disabilitiesin operating computer input devices.

The results of these efforts are being disseminatedthrough the individual projects described here, as wellas through projects in the Cross-Impairment FocusArea, particularly design considerations documents.

The incorporation of cognitive principles into thedesign of computers and electronic devices is a newfrontier in human factors. The Trace Center's cognitiveimpairment programs are meant to help lay the ground-work for this important effort. In addition to theprogram's long-term contribution to disability accom-modation in design, the program will provide immedi-ate, short-term benefits: it will generate informationthat educators can use to better understand how cogni-tive factors may affect performance and learning withcomputer input devices.

l) 0

50


Identification and Quantification of Cognitive Tasks inComputer Operation

Project Team: Cynthia J. Cress, MS, MA; Greta French, MS; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD;Jon Miller, PhD; Roger 0. Smith, PhD; Tereza Snyder, BFA

BackgroundIn order to understand the difficulties that persons

with and without disabilities have in operating comput-ers, researchers must understand the role of various taskcomponents involved in computeroperation. This projectis concerned with the ways in which different interfaces(input mechanisms) affect the difficulty of computertasks. This is particularly important for persons withcognitive disabilities, for whom the interface may con-tribute additional procedural or memory load that inter-feres with the ability to accomplish the computer task.We need information about what skills are involved atdifferent stages of computer operation, and how differ-ent combinations of computer features affect perfor-mance in computer use.

ApproachThis project is split into three study areas, each of

which will be addressed with the three designatedsubject groups: computer-experienced adults, normally

developing children, and children with cognitive dis-abilities.

I) Qualitative and quantitative comparison of sub-ject performance with different interfaces.

2) Relationship of different aspects of interface per-formance to cognitive skills of subjects.

3) Analysis of sources of cognitive load for subjectsboth between tasks and during interface use (i.e.by subtasks within interface operation).

All of the studies are within-subject designs, with allsubjects completing experimental tasks with all rel-evant devices. Subjects serve as their own controls, andcomparisons are made both within subjects (betweendevices) and between subjects (within conditions).

Subjects use five different interfaces for computeroperation: touchscreen, mouse, keyboard, locking andnonlocking trackballs. Two computer tasks are com-pared: moving a visual object on the screen and sortingpictured objects into categories. Cognitive and percep-tual-motor skills are sampled by several standardized

and non-standardized measures, aswell as parent questionnaires.

Quantitative data collected in-clude error rate, time for taskcompletion, and time for each stageof interlace operation. Qualitativeexperimenter scoring of perfor-mance reflects the completeness,accuracy, clarity, and promptnessof responses. Additional informa-tion collected includes types of er-rors, learning patterns, and com-puter experience.

StatusAdult subjects have completed

the full protocol and a paper sum-marizing their performance char-

Subjects are required to "move" an object to its appropriate environment aeteristics has been submitted for

r; 7 51


publication. Data collection for normally developingchildren has been completed, and a brief summary ofthe results was presented at the RESNA conference in1991

Comparison of the average total times across sub-jects for each of the five interfaces showed that the samerelative order of interface speed was maintained acrosstasks, with touchscreen fastest and keyboard slowest. Interms of number of failures by interface, the lockingtrackball was the most consistently failed interfaceacross tasks, followed by the mouse and keyboard.Results also indicated that children across all ages wereable to achieve equivalent proficiencies with the inter-faces, but that younger children were more frequentlyunable to learn interface operation, even given knowl-edge of the task and minimal motor prerequisites.

Data collection for subjects with cognitive disabili-ties has also been completed, and the results analyzed.Quantitative and qualitative results of this study areaguided development of two additional project areas: (1)Interface Training and Use by Young Children, and (2)Interface Training and Use by Persons with CognitiveDisabilities. See separate project reports on these twotopics.

Selected publicationsCress, C. J. & Goltz, C. C. (1990). Cognitive factors

affecting accessibility of computers and electronicdevices. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual RESNAConference.

Cress, C. J. & Tew, J. P. (1990). Cognitive skillsassociated with the operation of various computerinterfaces. Proceedings of the Thirteenth AnnualRESNA Conference.

Cress, C. J. , French, G. J. & Tew, J. P. (1991). Age-related differences in interface control in normallydeveloping children. Proceedings of the FourteenthAnnual RESNA Conference.

52


Interface Training and Use by Young Children

Project Team: Cynthia J. Cress, MS, MA; Greta French, MS; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD;Jon Miller, PhD; Roger 0. Smith, PhD; Tereza Snyder, BFA; Julie Gamradt, MS, CCC-SLP

BackgroundGiven the relative difficulty of different computer

controls and the performance characteristics of usersidentified in initial Trace Center studies of cognitivetasks in computer operation, it is necessary to translatethese results into a form useful for application byeducators and therapists. This study area is concernedwith the process by which children who are still devel-oping the cognitive skills necessary for interface opera-tion learn to successfully control computer tasks.

ApproachThis project was derived from the quantitative analy-

sis described in the report on "Identification and Quan-tification of Cognitive Tasks in Computer Operation,"adding two primary components. First, a hierarchicaltraining sequence was derived, to compare the kinds ofinstruction necessary for children with different levelsof cognitive skills to learn interface operation. Thistraining hierarchy also allowed identification of chil-dren who are in the process of acquiring interface skillsbut who are not yet independentlyproficient. Second, informationabout children's learning and errorpatterns was incorporated intolearning profiles, to help predictchildren's long-term performancefrom short samples of behavior.

Children were given two simpledemonstrations of interface func-tion and allowed the opportunity tointuit the operation of the interfacefrom practice given this experience.If this was unsuccessful, the chil-dren were given increasing levelsof cues (from explicit demonstra-tion to graded manual contact) un-til they could successfully operatethe control. If children could not

decrease their level of cueing within the task restric-tions, the more complex movement and sorting taskswere not be given. Performance and error patterns wereassessed both over time (by task) and between children(by cognitive skill).

StatusThis project is completed. Training and learning

profile data were collected from 48 normally develop-ing preschoolers between 2.5 and 5.0 years of age.Presentations of these data were given in October, 1991at Closing the Gap (Minneapolis, MN) and the ThirdAnnual Midwest Regional RESNA Conference (Lan-sing, MI). These presentations provided evaluation andtraining guidelines for interface training with youngchildren, to assist in overcoming specific error patternsof individual children, Individual differences in learn-ing styles noted included: forgetting the sequence ofinterface operation, failure to self-correct inappropriateinterface activities (such as moving the object off screen),interference between operation methods of different

Young subject uses a louchscreen to move the image of an object

59 53


interfaces, and deterioration or incomplete grasp ofmethod for interface operation (for instance inserting"superstitious" activities to make the interface work).

Selected publicationsCress, C. J. & French, G. J. (1991, Oct.). Microcom-

puter interface training with cognitively impairedyoung children. In Proceedings of Closing the Gap,Minneapolis, MN.

Cress, C. J. (1991, Oct.). Tools and techniques forexpanding our knowledge of communication tech-nology. In Proceedings of the Third Annual MidwestRegional RESNA Conference, Lansing, MI.

54


Interface Training and Use by Persons with CognitiveDisabilitiesProject Team: Cynthia J. Cress, MS, MA; Greta French, MS; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD;Jon Miller, PhD; roger 0. Smith, PhD; Tereza Snyder, BFA; Julie Gamradt, MS, CCC-SLP

BackgroundBecause of the differences in learning styles and

skills of persons with cognitive disabilities, we cannotassume that data from nondisabled subjects will neces-sarily predict or accurately describe performance insubjects with cognitive disabilities. Consequently, in-dependent sampling of computer interface training needsto be conducted with persons who have similar levels ofselected cognitive skills to the preschool childrensampled in the previous study area. The results of thisstudy will also contribute to theories of mental retarda-tion, by examining different patterns of learning acrosstasks, etiologies and mental age measurements.

ApproachThe studied examined children's skills at mastering

the operation of five different computer controls: mouse,touchscreen, trackball, locking trackball, and keyboard.Thirty-nine normally developing children and fifteenchildren with mental retardation, with mental age mea-surements ranging from 2.5 to 5.0 M.A., used each ofthese devices to move objects on a computer screenwithin a simple game-like task. Children receivedbaseline measures of performance, criterion-based train-ing in device operation, and samplings of maintenanceand generalization of skills.

5

4

2

Interface Mastery - Children w/MR

2.5 - 3.0 3.1- 3.5 3.6 - 4.0

ntouch@erten

. mo..

treekball

lottingtzontliall

. kcyboudi

4.1 - 4.5 4.6 - 5.0Mental Age Range (in years)

(nit rfact' mastery by subjects with cognitive impainnenis

61 55


StatusStudies have been completed. Results examined

potential factors which were predicted to contribute togroup differences between normally developing chil-dren and children with mental retardation. Childrenwith mental retardation achieved lower levels of mas-tery of the devices than their M.A.-matched peers.Factors associated with this difference included lowerscores on cognitive measures of spatial problem solv-ing, and poorer performance on sensory/motor integra-tion subtests of a general developmental measure. Chil-dren with mental retardation did not perform signifi-cantly poorer on controls with highly simultaneous vs.sequential operation relative to normally developingpeers. Children with mental retardation maintained andgeneralized newly acquired control skills as well asnormally developing peers, which may have been re-lated to content familiarity and clarity of instructions.Differences in the impact of training factors on controlskills were found for amount but not specificity oftraining. While expected levels of skill acquisitionbased on data from normally developing children werenot reached by children with mental retardation, severallearning characteristics typically associated with men-tal retardation did not differentially affect performanceon these tasks.

Publications:Cress, C. J. (1992). Development of Computer Control

Skills in Children with Mental Retardation. Doctoraldissertation.

56


Computer Use by Individuals with Aphasia

Project Team: Katharine H. Odell, PhD; Michael J. Collins, PhD; Jay Hinkens, BS;Charles C. Lee, MS

BackgroundA number of studies are being conducted to examine

the reaction and performance of individuals with apha-sia in operating certain computer interfaces. Thesestudies are examine the use of certain interfaces instandard tests administered to individuals with aphasia;however, they also have implications in understandinggeneral cognitive issues in computer access.

ApproachThis project involves a series of studies to investigate

the feasibility of using microcomputers in the diagnosisand treatment of adult individuals with aphasia. Thefirst study compared the performance of subjects withaphasia on a computerized version and the standardversion of the Colored Progressive Matrices, a visual,nonverbal problem solving task. This study has beencompleted.

The second study examined the relative efficiencywith which adults with aphasia use different computer

input systems (i.e., keyboard, long range light pen,stylus, touch sensitive screen and joystick); perfor-mance on a measure of reading comprehension wascompared across all interface systems. Results of thiswork will assist in the selection of appropriate inputsystems for aphasic users. Further, analysis of responsecharacteristics using each of the interface systems willaddress the theoretical question of competition forcognitive resources: i.e., the degree of cognitive abilityrequired of aphasic users to both operate the device andproceed with the test.

A third study in the series investigated computerstrategies for the Revised Token Test (McNeil andPrescott, 1978), a measure of auditory comprehensionon which subjects with aphasia are likely to displayperseveration or self-correction tendencies. An experi-mental computerized version of the RTT gave instruc-tions to subjects by digitized voice and the subjects"moved" tokens on the computer monitor by moving afinger across a touch screen.

Touchscreen allows subjects to "move" tokens on screen incomputerized Revised Token Test

StatusStudy 1: This study has been

completed.Study 2: The reading mea-

sure for this project is a mul-tiple choice synonym identifi-cation test, with two levels ofdifficulty. A different test wasdeveloped for each interfacesystem; all tests were designedto be equivalent in grade level.Algorithms for scoring and re-sponse time data collectionwere devised. Subjects havebeen tested, and data collec-tion has been completed.

Results of a Friedman two-way ANOVA nonparametric

57

63


statistical text indicated no significant differences amongthe six response conditions (five computer inputs andpen-and-paper) in terms of accuracy. Speed of responsewas evaluated across only the computer input systems,since similar precision of response time measurementcould not be achieved for the pen and paper version ofthe test. A separate Friedman test indicated a speeddifference among the five computer conditions. Post-hoc analysis was not undertaken, but visual inspectionof the data suggested that responses were slowest in thejoystick condition.

Study 3: The software routine developed for theRevised Token Test has been completed, includingtoken movement, scoring, data collection and speechgeneration algorithms. Preliminary testing of softwarewith ten normal subjects was completed and revisionsmade to the computerized RIM

Five subjects with aphasia have been tested so far.Non-parametric statistical comparison showed no sig-nificant differences between the two versions for theoverall scores, individual subtest scores or individualscore category totals. Additional subjects will be run tomore fully substantiate these preliminary results. Theultimate aim is to validate the use of the computerizedRTT, then seek funds to support the conversion of thecurrent version to contemporary IBM and Macintoshcomputers for commercial distribution.

Selected publicationsOdell, K. H., Collins, M. J., Dirkx, T., & Kelso, D.P.

(1985). A computerized version of the colored pro-gressive matrices. In R. Brookshire, Ed., ClinicalAphasiology Conference Proceedings 1985. Minne-apolis: BRK Publications.

Collins, M. J., & Odell, K. H. (1986). Computerizationof a traditional test for nonverbal problem solving.Cognitive Rehabilitation, 4(5), 16-18.

Odell, K. H. & Miller, S. B. (1994). A comparison ofaphasic performance on the standard and an experi-mental computerized version of the Revised TokenTest. Clinical Aphasiology Conference Proceedings1994. Minneapolis: BRK Publications.

58

Cross-Impairment Focus Area

The three preceding sections of this report describeresearch and development efforts aimed mostly at

specific areas of impairment: movement, sensory andcognitive. Many Trace Center programs, however, cutacross disability areas, or relate to the needs of peoplewith multiple impairments.

In many cases, the results from multiple individualprojects from the specific impairment areas come to-gether in these cross impairment projects. For example,the generation of design guidelines to facilitate accessfor persons with one type of disability cannot be done inthe absence of considerations of their impact on otherusers with other disabilities, or on users with multipledisabilities.

The primary needs which have been identified thatare cross-impairment in nature are:

I) The need for guidelines and other types of infor-mation that industry can use to understand the accessproblems faced by persons with disabilities.

2) The need for technical support and consultation tomanufacturers. This assistance can include testing ofcompanies' individual approaches for providing acces-sibility in their designs.

3) The need to improve the design of informationsystems to accommodate people with disabilities.

4) The need to establish standard connection andinformation transfer formats to allow specialized inter-face devices to successfully connect to standard com-puter equipment.

5) The need to standardize functional assessment inorder to assess the impact of interventions, includingtechnology services.

Development of accessibility designguidelines and manuals

Although a fair amount of research at the center isbeing directed toward identif mg the het interfacetechniques for individuals with different disabilities,these advancements arc of no value unless they aretranslated into commercially manufactured devices. In

doing this, there are two approaches that can be taken.The first and easiest approach is to have the special-

ized interface devices manufactured by specialty reha-bilitation manufacturers. The other, more difficult, ap-proach is to cause the accessibility features to be builtinto the computers and electronic devices as they areoriginally manufactured. This second approach is pref-erable when possible. It represents the primary goal ofthe Trace Center's work.

In practice, of course, both approaches are necessaryin order to meet the needs of the full range of types anddegrees of disability. For individuals with mild tomoderate impairments, the adaptation's can often beincorporated into the original design of the equip-mentusually increasing the ease of use for all users.

' Individuals with more severe impairments often needadaptations which are too extensive to include directlyin the standard manufactured products. In these cases,the best approach is to have the adaptations designedand built by specialty rehabilitation manufacturers.These special adaptations, however, still need to beconnected to the standard equipment. The manufactur-ers of standard products must still be involved in orderto provide mechanisms by which the special accessdevices can be connected when necessary.

The key role of the standard product (mass market)manufacturers in this process is evident. An under-standing of the need for increased awareness led to theinitial efforts to develop information about computeraccessibility features in standard computers. In re-sponse to requests from industry for this type of infor-mation, a "White Paper" was generated by Trace Centerstaff', followed by a document titled "Considerations inthe Design of Computers and Operating Systems toIncrease Their Accessibility to Persons with Disabili-ties." The "Considerations" document was prepared byTrace Center staff working in conjunction with re-searchers, rehabilitation equipment manufacturers, andstandard computer manufacturers throughout the U.S.

In addition to being used by industry, the "Consider-

59


ations" have also been used by the government (DOE/GSA) as the basis for developing the: egulations regard-ing the purchase and lease of computers and electronicoffice equipment.

The Trace Center has also initiated three other projectssimilar to the "Considerations" document: a set ofguidelines for disability accommodation in consumerelectronic devices, a manual for implementing accessi-bility in computer laboratories in higher educationinstitutions, and a set of guidelines for accessibility ofapplication -oftware. The center has also developed aset of design goals for future generations of TDDs(Telecommunication Devices for Deaf individuals).

Technical and Researdh Support to IndustryFor industry to be able to effectively assimilate and

incorporate accessibility information in their designs,they usually need more than printed documentation. Inaddition to general discussions, we have also found thatindustry requires information on a wide range of topics,from demographics and descriptions of the differenttypes of disabilities to detail on specific accessibilitystrategies and evaluation of specific designs or ap-proaches.

In order to address the wide range of needs, threeongoing activities have been established:

I) Support of the Industry/Government CooperativeInitiative on Computer Accessibility. The Trace Centerserves as a coordinator for this coalition of industry,government, consumers and researchers.

2) Development of simulations of specific alternateaccess techniques and operating system hooks. TheTrace Center develops these software prototypes so thatindustry can use them to gain understanding and expe-rience in developing their own solutions.

3) Direct technical consultation with individualsfromcompanies. Requests range from demographics to de-scriptions of specific disability characteristics to fieldtesting of specific features.

Consumers are involved in many of these projects inorder to check ideas, evaluate designs, and providespecific quantitative information about different con-trol parameters for their disabilities.

Access to Information SystemsAlthough access to computer hardware has been a

primary concern of the Trace Center, information sys-temssuch as publicly available computerized data-bases or public information terminals and kiosksalsoposes access barriers to people with disabilities. The useof such systems places such as shopping malls andgovernment offices is on the rise, yet good strategies for

making these systems accessible have not been devel-oped. The Center is exploring these issues in partthrough its efforts at developing informational data-bases related to assistive technology and disability-related services. These design of these databases isbeing used as a test bed for new accessible informationsystem concepts.

Interconnection StandardsThe Trace Center first became involved in the stan-

dardization area in order to deal with the problemssurrounding user interfaces to communication, control,and computer access aids. The Trace Center initiated aneffort to develop a Simple Electrical Transducer Inter-connection Standard (SET standard). Today, the majormanufacturers of these types of assistive devices sup-port the standard, either directly or through adaptors,and it is estimated that between 85% and 95% of all theinterfaces sold today follow the standard.

The Trace Center has been involved in the develop-ment of a Keyboard Emulating Interface (KEI) stan-dard, to allow standardized connection of special com-munication and computer access devices to commer-cially available computers. With the addition in recentyears of new input devices, such as the mouse, access tokeyboard functions is not enough. The Trace Center hasdeveloped a General Input Device Emulating Interface(GIDEI) standard as well, to cope with the new inputdevices.

The Trace Center helped start a field-wide initiativeto establish a standard for safe control of wheelchairsvia serial output devices such as electronic communica-tion aids. This effort looks ahead to the coming devel-opment of "smart" wheelchairs that will accept externalcontrol in the form of digital data.

Improved Assessment Data ManagementThe Trace Center is involved as well in standardiza-

tion efforts in the area of service delivery. Specifically,the center has helped lead the development of a moresystematic and universal structure for integrating func-tional assessment data in occupational therapy. Severalyears of work in this area resulted in the release of asoftware package called OT FACT (Occupational

herapy Functional Assessment Compilation Tool). Asthis new protocol is established in the field, it will helpimprove the provision not only of technology-relatedservices, but of a full range of therapeutic services forpeople with disabilities.

60


Computer and Operating System Accessibility DesignGuidelinesProject Team: Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Roger 0. Smith, PhD; David P. Kelso, MS;Cynthia J. Cress, MS

BackgroundExtensive work has been done by the Trace Center

working with others in this field. A "White Paper," a"Design Guidelines" document, and an overview ofdesign considerations have all been prepared and arecurrently being used by the computer industry.

These documents, designed as working documentssubject to updating and revision, have been receivedvery well by the computer industries. At least two majorcomputer manufacturers have incorporated (often ver-batim) materials from the documents in their internalcompany documents. Three major computer corpora-tions are known to be incorporating features and solu-tion strategies from the "Considerations" into theirfuture computers and operating systems. One company,Apple Computer, has already incorporated multipledesign recommendations from these materials into thei rstandard manufactured computers. Since 1988, allMacintosh computers sold by Apple have included afeature in the standard operating system (shipped withthe computers) which allows use of the Macintosh

keyboard with a single finger, mouthstick, or headstickusing a "StickyKeys" design developed by the TraceCenter. The built-in accessibility features also allow anindividual with a headstick or poor hand control tocreate simulated mouse activity and direct the mousecursor directly from the standard computer keyboard.Finally, both Apple and IBM are also known to be usingthe "Considerations" document internally as a scoresheet against which they are evaluating new hardwareand system designs.

ApproachThe existing design guidelines have been designed

using a U.S. mail based open Task Force approach. TheTask Force is "open" in that anyone can join thegroupincluding consumers, designers, computermanufacturers, researchers, and rehabilitation equip-ment manufacturers. Membership in the group is de-fined as those individuals who remain active. All com-munication is conducted by mail; electronic versionsare available (formatted for the major computer brands),

to accommodate people with dis-abilities who can't read or handlepaper. The Task Force approachhas meant that individuals fromdifferent companies, geographiclocations, or with different disabili-

t ties can all access and participateon an equal footing. This proce-dure has worked very well to date,and has resulted in the materialsdiscussed previously. Because in-formation can also be sent anony-mously or in confidence, it has alsoallowed manufacturers and specificindividuals from corporations tofreely express concerns withoutadverse reaction from others to-

1 4r

Full report and executive summary of "Considerations"

6 61


ward that particular company. Development and reviewof content and format of the design manual is beingcarried out in this same fashion.

StatusA version 4.2 of the "Considerations" document is

currently being disseminated to the field for review. Ithas been adopted and adapted by two major computercompanies and was used in the final preparation of theGSA's guidelines. Version 5.0 is in progress.

Dissemination of the "Considerations" document(and intermediate results from this project) will be donethrough the Industry/Government Task Force on Com-puter Accessibility, and through the Trace Center'sReprint Service. These, combined with open copyingpolicy, have resulted in widespread dissemination ofmaterials to date, particularly within the computer com-panies.

Selected publicationsVanderheiden, G. C., & Lee, C. C. (1988). Consider-

ations 4.2: Results of the Industry/Government Co-operative Effort on Computer Accessibility for Dis-abled Persons. Madison: University of Wisconsin,Trace Research and Development Center.

Vanderheiden, G. C., Lee, C. C., & Scadden, L. A.(1987). Features to increase the accessibility of com-puters by persons with disabilities: Report from theindustry/government task force. Proceedings of theTenth Annual Conference on Rehabilitation Tech-nology. Washington, DC: RESNA.

62


Guidelines for the Design ofProducts

Project Team: Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD;Christine Thompson, BS

BackgroundIn addition to the need for access to computers,

people with disabilities have the need to access otherelectrical/electronic devices. An important class of thesedevices is consumer electronics. This category includestelevisions, radios, tape players, and home appliancessuch as microwave ovens and washing machines. It alsoincludes devices built into homes, such a smoke detec-tors, alarms, and doorbells. As with computers, thereare simple design modifications that can be made inorder to accommodate the needs of disabled people,without substantially adding to the cost of production orinconveniencing non-disabled people.

At this time no design guideline summary such asthat which the Trace Center has developed forcomput-ers yet exists for con-sumer electrical andelectronic 1, oducts.

ApproachDifferent types of

impairment can leadto restrictions in useof consumer elec-tronic products oreven render them un-usable by people withdisabilities. As withcomputers, there aresimple design modi-fications that can bemade in order to ac-commodate the needsof disabled people,without substantiallyadding to the cost ofproduction or incon-veniencing non-dis-abled people.

Consumer Electronic

Katherine Vanderheiden, BBA, CPA;

The purpose of this project is to create a set ofguidelines to be used voluntarily by designers andmanufacturers. These guidelines discuss the full rangeof needs of persons with physical, sensory and cogni-tive disabilities and discuss possible solutions. Not allsolutions suggested are low- or no-cost, but these aresuggested where feasible. The usefulness of certainmodifications to non-disabled consumers is stressedsuch as location and ease of use for controls.

The guidelines are treated as a working document,sent out to consumers, researchers and manufacturersfor comment. These comments, along with additionalmaterial developed at the Trace Center, will be added tofuture editions of the document.

A flat membrane or glass keypad provides notactile indication as to where the keys arc. e'en

,s ou !ninon/4_ the arrangement.

Providing a slight raised lip around the key,allows !heir location to be discerned easily bytOLICII. .1 he ridge around the key aku helpsprevent slipping off of the key when using aminithstick. reacher. etc. to press the keys.

Using indentations or hollows on the touchpadPros ides most of the advantage of ridges but iseasier to clean Hollows can be the same size ;INMc key or of a consistent small circular sizecentered on the keys.

Raised humps are tactilely discernable but it isharder to press the key without slipping off.parieularly if you are using a mouthstick, reacheror other manipulative aid

keys !NMI indents provide bto leedhackmon nisi indents on in example :those) especiallyII the keys haw dttlerein shapes Or te%1111e,

Orrespond to their function

From the doign guide: diagram explaining accessible keypad design

69 63


StatusA task force has been formed, similar to that devel-

oped for the design considerations for computers. Theinitial members of the task force include those individu-als who have contributed to computer design consider-ations, as well as individuals who have expressed aninterested in this topic to the staff of the ElectronicIndustries Association. Other individuals and organiza-tions are able to join simply by expressing an interestand contributing ideas.

A full draft of the guidelines was forwarded to thetask force for review in the fall of 1991, in cooperationwith the Assistive Devices Division of the ElectronicIndustries Association and theConsumerProducts Tech-nical Group of the Human Factors Society. The most

recent revision of the document (version 1.6) wasreleased in Dec., 1991.

The guideline document is now being used byMicrosoft Corporation as part of their Microsoft AtWork Software Adaptation Kit for developing fax ma-chines and printers compatible with Microsoft At Workarchitecture.

Selected publicationsVanderheiden, G. C., & Vanderheiden, K. (1990). Ac-

cessible Design of Consumer Products: Guidelinesfor the Design of Consumer Products to IncreaseTheir Accessibility to Persons with Disabilities orWho Are Aging. Madison: University of Wisconsin,Trace Research and Development Center.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I - Introduction

Background

Purpose of this Document

What is Accessible Design?

1

1

I

Four Ways to Make Products More Accessible 2

I. Direct Accessibility , 22. Accessibility via Standard Options or Accessories 23. Compatibility With Assistive Devices 3

4. Facilitation of Special Modifications 4The Best Approach 5

PART II - Disabilities and Specific Barriers to Accessibility

Visual Impairments 7

Hearing Impairments 8

Physical Impairments 10

Cognitive/Language Impairments 12

Seizure Disorders 13

Multiple Impairments 13

PART III - Guidelines for More Accessible Design

Structure and Organization of the Guidelines 15

Solomon's Trap 17

Resolving Conflicting Recommendations 17

SECTION I OUTPUT / DISPLAYS 19

SECTION 2 INPUT / CONTROLS 37SECTION 3 MANIPULATIONS 65SECTION 4 DOCUMENTATION 75SECTION 5 SAFETY 79

64

Left: Table ofContents fromthe designguide


Development of Design Guidelines for StandardApplication Software to Increase Usabilityby Persons with DisabilitiesProject Team: Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Christine Thompson, BS

BackgroundAlthough there are many software programs de-

signed specifically for people with disabilities, a pri-mary and growing concern is the ability of individualswith disabilities to use standard software as well. Un-less access to standard software is possible, individualswith disabilities will not he able to participate in thoseeducational, employment and community settings wherethat software is used.

There are basically three components in makingstandard software accessible:

I) In some cases, access can be provided by specialadaptations which are purchased by or for the indi-vidual.

2) In other cases, access can only effectively heprovided through modifications to the design of thecomputer or operating systemmodifications whichare usually low-cost or no-cost.

3) In still other cases, it is a feature or the applicationsoftware itself which causes the problem, and access isonly possible through proper design of the applicationprogram. It is also important for applications to heaware of and support access features built into comput-ers and operating systems (as in #2 above).

The first strategy is being continually worked onthrough the research, development and marketing ofcommercially available special computer interfaces.

The second strategy is being addressed through thework of groups such as the Industry/Government TaskForce on Computer Accessibility, and through modifi-cations which have already been made by computer andoperating system designers.

The third strategy has not been widely addresseduntil recently. The Trace Center is now working withthe Information Technology Association (LTA). an as-sociation of commercial software developers, to de-velop a support document on the design of standardsoftware to maximize its accessibility.

ApproachThe design document is being developed through

interaction between ITA members, other software de-velopers, researchers, disabled consumers, and otherswith specialized expertise.

The process being used is a mail-based task force,similar to that employed to develop another document:"Considerations in the Design of Computers and Oper-ating Systems to Increase Their Accessibility to Per-sons with Disabilities." The Trace Center serves as acoordinating center for a nationwide task force whichexpands and refines the document through successiveversions. The task force is "open" in that anyone canjoin the groupincluding consumers, software devel-opers, computer manufacturers, researchers, and reha-bilitation equipment manufacturers. Membership in thegroup is defined as those individuals who remain active.All communication is conducted by mail; electronicversions are available (formatted for the major com-puter brands), to accommodate people with disabilitieswho can't read or handle paper.

The document is meant to cover the full range ofinformation needed regarding the carriers and solutionsto software access. This includes:

information on different types and degrees of dis-ability and their impact on computer use;features and program structures that are particu-larly good or beneficial for persons with differenttypes of disabilities;features and program structures that cause particu-lar problems for persons with different disabilities;suggestions and options for program design tofacilitate access; andsuggestions and options for program design tofacilitate compatibility with computer and operat-ing system access features.

71 65


StatusAn initial version of the software guidelines was

created and sent out for comment. Revisions wereincorporated, the current revision of the document (1.2)is being distributed. It will be revised again based oncomments received, with the next revision due to bereleased in late 1994. The document is being distributedin the form of a "white paper" setting forth the need forapplication software accessibility and outlining what iscurrently known about barriers and solution strategies.

The Information Technology Foundation has printed3,000 copies of the document, distributing it to themembership of the Information Technology Associa-tion and also the Software Publishers Association.

Microsoft Corporation distributed 4,700 copies to de-velopers attending their Windows NT Developers Con-ference. In addition, they took the general suggestionsfrom the White Paper and created a brief documentdescribing how they specifically applied to Windows,and provided recommendations for their implementa-tion.

Selected publicationsTrace Research and Development Center. (1991). Mak-

ing Software More Accessible to People with Dis-abilitie.c. University of Wisconsin-Madison: TraceResearch and Development Center.

Introduction 1

Part I: Why Make Application Software Accessible? 3Part II: What Problems Do People Have? And Why? 7

Disability is a Many-Splendored Thing 7Visual Impairments 8Hearing Impairments 9Physical Impairments 10Cognitive/Language Impairments 11

Seizure Disorders 12Multiple Impairments 12

Part III: Computer Accessibility 13A Cooperative Undertaking 13

The Role of Hardware and Operating System Manufacturers 14

The Role of Third-Party Access Manufacturers 14

The Role of Application Software Manufacturers 15

Part IV: What Are These Others Doing that Application SoftwareManufacturers Can Take Advantage Of? 17Access Strategies for Individuals with Visual Impairments 18

Access Strategies for Individuals with Hearing Impairments 20Access Strategies for Individuals with Physical Impairments 21

Part V: What Is It That Application Software ManufacturersShould Do? (Overview) 23

Part VI: What Are Specific Guidelines for the Design of StandardApplication Software That Would Increase its Accessibility? 29Writing to the Screen - Character-Based Programs 29Writing to the Screen - Graphics 29Cursors and Highlighting 30Screen Format and Color 31

Menus 32Buttons and Dialog Boxes 33Sound 33Keyboard 34Documentation 35General 35

Part VII: What Resources Are Available to Help Me? 37

Condensedtable of contentsfrom White Paperon applicationsoftwareaccessibility

66


Campus and Library Information Systems AccessibilityManuals

Project Team: Jane R. Berliss, AMLS; Peter A. Borden, MA; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD;Roger 0. Smith, PhD

BackgroundDisabled (and able-bodied) individuals encounter

computers and information systems in three main envi-ronments: daily living, employment, and education. Inthe education environment, there have been many com-puter access initiatives aimed at elementary and sec-ondary special education students, both in and out ofmainstream classes. By comparison, however, little hasbeen done in post-secondary education (colleges anduniversities) and adult education (schools and publiclibraries) to assure that disabled people can accesscomputers and information systems. The gap will con-tinue to widen as electronic information systems areused more and more extensively on campuses and inlibraries.

Trace Center has made a number of initial contactswith public libraries and with university computerlaboratories and disabled student service officesbothby phone and through presentations and discussionforums at conferences for these types of service prov id-

ers. Through these initial contacts, it has been deter-mined that there is a general willingness to providecompw.er access, but that lack of knowledge and lack ofresources have been the major obstacles. Informationprograms can provide a groundwork for acquiring theknowledge necessary to implement computer access. Inaddition, information can be provided on how to maxi-mally exploit available resources, allowing and encour-aging libraries and campuses to pursue more aggressivecomputer access programs.

Version 1.0 oldie checklist document

ApproachA number of steps have been taken to create and

disseminate information materials to libraries and cam-puses. Initial efforts were targeted at university cam-puses.

A document titled "Checklists for ImplementingAccessibility in Computer Laboratories at Colleges andUniversities" was developed. This document coversgeneric implementations of equipmentwith steps de-

lineated by time and money re-quired to carry them outand also

73

procedures for assisting individu-als who require more specializedequipment. An actual checklistform is provided, on which staffcan mark steps as thcy are imple-mented. The document provides athorough explanation of the stepsinvolved, along with lists of addi-tional resources to consult.

The purposes of the checklistsare: ( I ) to make it easier for admin-istrators to plan and coordinate com-puter access efforts and to set pri-orities; (2) to provide a source ofinformation and a common groundfor planning for computing centersand disabled student services of-fices; (3) to provide a comprehen-

67


sive reference for computer access needs and strateeies.Other steps in the process of creating effective informa-tion materials include pilot evaluations of computeraccess programs at several universities and presenta-tions to appropriate audiences at conferences.

The campus checklist document was followed byone aimed at libraries. Titled "Checklists for MakingLibrary Automation Accessible to People with Dis-abilities," the document has a similar structure to thecampus document, with accessibility steps described interms of cost and time required, and actual checklistforms provided. The document has material specifi-cally aimed at the needs of libraries, including provi-sions for smaller libraries. It was reviewed by librarypersonnel and revised based on their comments.

StatusThe Checklist documents were completed in draft

form and distributed for commentincluding distribu-tion at national conferences related to computers anddisability. Revisions were made, and publication ver-sions of the checklists are now available. The Check-lists are available to any interested parties, through theTrace Center Reprint Service.

In addition to the Checklist project, the Trace Centerhas played a role in cooperative efforts related tocomputer access on campuses and in libraries. TraceCenter staff are involved in Project EASI (Equal Accessto Software for Instruction), a national initiative whichis a subgroup of EDUCOM, an organization of repre-sentatives from over 500 college and university com-puting labs. With input from Trace Center staff, ProjectEASI has created two informational publications:(1) "Computers and Students with Disabilities: NewChallenges for Higher Education," a booklet that pro-vides background information and lists resources;(2) "EASI Fixes," a set of accessibility guidelines fordevelopers of software for use in post-secondary educa-tion.

Trace Center staff have presented on campus/librarycomputer access issues at several conferences, includ-ing RESNA, Closing the Gap, CAUSE (a professionalassociation for computing and information technologyin higher education), the American Library Associa-tion, EDUCOM, and the Association of HandicappedStudent Service Providers in Postsecondary Education(AHSSPPE).

Selected publicationsBerliss, J. R. (1989). Maximizing "bang-for-the-buck"

when purchasing adaptive computer equ ipment. Pro-

ceedings of the Al-ISSPPE 1989 Conference.Berliss, J. R., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1989). It's

academic: Computer accessibility issues in highereducation. Proceedings of the RESNA 12th AnnualConference.

Berliss, J. R. , Bartlett, L., Farha, R., & Knox, J. (1990,Oct.). Computer User Groups for Students withDisabilities. In Proceedings of the Closing the GapConference, Minneapolis, MN.

Berliss, J. R. (1990). Checklists for implementing ac-cessibility in Computer Labs at Colleges and Uni-versities. Madison: University of Wisconsin, TraceResearch and Development Center.

Berliss, J. R. (1992). Checklists for making libraryautomation accessible to patrons with disabilities.Madison: University of Wisconsin, Trace Researchand Development Center.

'7 4

68

Cross-impairment Focus Area

Accessibility of TDDs for Hearing Impaired IndividualsWith Multiple ImpairmentsProject Team: Julie Gamradt, MS, CCC-SLP; Joseph Schauer, BSEE; Gregg C.Vanderheiden, PhD; Laurie Fox, BSEE, OTR; Sharon Esser; Roger 0. Smith, PhD

BackgroundFor many individuals with hearing impairments, use

of a Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD) isthe only way to have access to telephone communica-tion. There is a substantial population of hearing im-paired individuals who have other impairments whicheither hamper their use of a TDD or make use of theTDD impossible for most practical purposes. Theseother impairments can include English language im-pairments, cognitive impairments, or physical impair-ments.

Although many adaptations have been developed orare in the process of being developed to make otherelectronic equipment more accessible for individualswho have impairments (e.g., adaptations of computerhardware and software), little has been done to make theTDD more accessible to he:ring impaired individualswho have other impairments. As the emphasis forcommunity integration for individuals who have mul-tiple impairments continues, the im-portance of having needed equip-ment accessible to them also in-creases. Access to phone commu-nication is basic to safety and inde-pendent living for all individualswho live in the community. Mak-ing TDDs more accessible to hear-ing impaired individuals who havemultiple impairments is a criticalissue that needs immediate atten-tion.

ApproachSince the need for improved ac-

cess to telecommunications torpeople with multiple impairmentshas not he addressed Very exten-sively in the marketplace, this

project started with needs assessment and problemidentification

First a state-of-the-art and needs-analysis meetingwas held, to identify major issues in phone communica-tion access as they affect individuals with multipleimpairments. On Nov. 12, 1990, a group of sixteenpeople met, representing researchers, TDD users, deafeducators, the TDD industry, and clinicians whoseclients have multiple impairments. The group devel-oped a list of 65 problems and potential solutions in thearea of telecommunications access. Some of the solu-tions could be implemented by changing the design ofthe standard TDD. Others would employ other telecom-munications equipment such as computers and mo-dems. The annotated list was sent out to those whoattended the meeting for additional ideas and com-ments.

The second initiative in the project was to explore thedevelopment of a software system for telephone corn-

Most TDDs today rely on a keyboard for input and an alphanumericvisual display for output

69


munications using a computer and TDD-compatiblemodem. Such software would (1) make it easy for thosewith little or no computer experience to use the com-puter for telephone communication, (2) allow the use ofexisting off-the-shelf computer adaptations for userswith physical impairments, and (3) provide a non-alphanumeric system for communication which can beused by people who have limited or no reading andspelling skills. Since all current TDDs require bothreading and spelling, this software would involve com-pletely new design requirements. The goal of this devel-opment work was to explore the technical problemsinherent in designing such a system and to examine itspractical usefulness to potential users and the peoplethey would communicate with.

StatusThe state-of-the-art meeting has been held, and the

resulting list of suggestions sent out for comment.The software development phase of the project was

carried to the proof-of-concept stage, so that commer-cial manufacturers could see how such a system mightoperate. A mockup of the system was tried with somepotential users, to investigate the feasibility of picto-telephonic communication and to identify potentialneeds and problems. The project team provided thedesign to a company which makes an augmentativecommunication software program containing some ofthe elements desired for the software. As yet there areno plans to develop it into a commercial product.

70


Development of User-, Professional- and Public-Accessible Database Interface Techniques

Project Team: Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Joseph M. Schauer, BS; David P. Kelso, MS;Tereza Snyder, BFA; Kelly Ford, BA; Roger 0. Smith, PhD

BackgroundOne of the greatest obstacles to effective, widespread

use of assistive and rehabilitative technologies has beenthe difficulty which consumers and services providersencounter in trying to find accurate and timely informa-tion about products and services. One practical solutionto this problem has been to use computerized databasesto collect, access and distribute information.

The Trace Center has been developing a cooperativemodel for collecting and disseminating information ondisability in electronic form, through its CooperativeElectronic Library program (see next project report).Electronic information, however, requires a user inter-face for presentation. Basic issues in the design of thisinterface must be resolved in order to assure the data-bases are optimally effective for all potential users. Thestrategies developed will apply not only to the particu-lar databases currently being created, but also to otherpublic information systems, such as electronic kiosks,automated teller machines, and cable-TV informationservices.

ApproachDatabase development work at the Trace Center

addresses four needs:I) The need for databases to be avail-

able through a wide variety ofchannels and media. CD-ROM, computer bulletin boards, public on-line sys-tems, and Internet are all possible ways to make disabil-ity information sources available.

2) Accessibility: The need for the database userinterface to be optimized Jar different types of impair-ments. Database users who have physical, sensory orcognitive impairments may find that features whichmake the database easy to use for ot he rs make it difficult

for them. Once again, the need is for effective, directaccess by the person with a disability.

3) Usability: lime need fur database., to be easy fornovice.% to use with little or no 0-crating. This need arises

from the need for consumers, their family, friends andservice providers to more directly access the informa-tion they need. Few of these individuals are willing orable to undergo extensive computer and database train-ing.

4) Usefidness: The need for data to be valuable tousers. Databases should contain current informationthat is of maximal use to people with disabilities, familymembers, and professional serving them.

The efforts in database interface techniques prima-rily address two needs of accessibility and usability.First, the databases must allow independent use bypeople with disabilities. Second, they must simple andobvious for all users (disabled and non-disabled), espe-cially novice users with little or no computer or data-base experience.

StatusThe need for databases to be easy for novices to use

is being met through extremely user-friendly databasedesigns. Some of the design features the Trace Centerhas worked with so far are: familiar visual analogies onscreen (such as hook pages and index cards): context-sensitive instructions; prompts to the user to seek in-structions; expanding-outline format for search terms;direct selection of choices from scrolling alphabeticallists; and location of geographic information by directselection on a map.

The need for databases to be accessible to users withdisabilities is being met through alternative interfacestrategies for databases. The Trace Center has devel-oped alternative interfaces which circumvent visual ormovement-based features that may he difficult or im-possible for users with visual or movement impair-ments. Some examples of strategies for users withvisual impairments are: text enlargement; presentationof information and instructions in synthesized voice;and control from the keyboard rather than the mouse.Users with physical impairments are accommodated

77 71


Set Text Units Row 10111-

Text Reading Row

Field Movement Row

Command List Row

Help Row

Character Word1

clear

Previous Current

Line Field

Speech Rate

Previous Current

9

Next Speech Rate

Previous Currentf2

He p

[0

Next

Keyleam

Select

_enter

J

Keyboard commands enabling users who are blind to navigate a database. This set is used in the BlindAccess Mode of Hyper-ABLEDATA. Information is read to the user by synthesized voice.

through providing alternatives to mouse movement.The goal of this effort is to implement functioning

examples of the Seamless Human Interface Protocol.This protocol, being developed by the Trace Center,defines how a user interface can integrate differentmodes for users of widely varying abilities (e.g., mouse/keyboard, large print/standard print). Under the proto-col, each mode of operation provides equivalent accessto the functions of the software, but each mode isoptimized for the needs of the users it is aimed at.

The initial effort at addressing the need for accessi-bility in database interfaces was the development of ablind access mode for the Trace Center's HyperABLEDATA software. (The Hyper-ABLEDATA pro-gram provides easy access via personal computer to theABLEDATA database of 19,000 assist ive technologyproducts.) The blind access mode provides completeindependent access to the database for users who areblind, with all c ritrol functions being accomplishedwith the numeric keypad of the keyboard, and allinformation being transmitted in synthesized voice.

A recently released prototype of a "Publications,Media and Materials" (PMM) database includes thefirst implementation of the Seamless Human interface

Protocol. The software includes seamless presentationof text from standard size up to 72 points (about one-inch characters), as well as complete access to informa-tion through synthesized voice. Keyboard alternativesto mouse actions are seamlessly integrated into theinterface.

The interface techniques being developed by theTrace Center are being applied to several databases.The contents of these are described more fully in thereport on the "Cooperative Electronic Library on Dis-ability" project.

Selected publicationsVanderheiden, G. C. (1990). Development of an ultra-

user friendly, disseminable database system for in-formation and referral. Proceedings of the NationalSymposium on Information Technology. Columbia,SC: Center for Developmental Disabilities, Univer-sity of South Carolina.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990). Development of a publicdomain, user-accessible interstate directory/databasefor assist ive technology service programs. Proceed-ings of the Thirteenth Annual RESNA Conference.

72


Cooperative Electrcnic Library on Disability: A Model forDatabase Design, Compilation and Dissemination

Project Team: Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Joseph M. Schauer, BS; David P. Kelso, MS;Tereza Snyder, BFA; Kelly Ford, BA; Peter Borden, MA; Roger 0. Smith, PhD

BackgroundOne of the greatest obstacles to effective, widespread

use of assistive and rehabilitative technologies has beenthe difficulty which consumers and services providersencounter in trying to find accurate and timely informa-tion about products and services. One practical solutionto this problem has been to collect and centralizesources of information, allowing one organization tocollect, organize and update information and then maketheir information system available for general use.

Computer technology has been extremely useful inallowing storage and retrieval of these large quantitiesof information. However, due to the constraints of thetechnology at the time systems were first developed(the late 1970s and early 1980s), most large computer-

ized databases were stored at a central location andaccessed over the phone lines using a modem. Now,new technologies (including enlarged storage andmemory, and CD-ROM) allow larger, more sophisti-cated databases to be stored on microcomputersmachines that are directly used by clinicians, educators,agencies and individuals. This allows the assistivetechnology field to take advantage of new, more diver-sified models for collecting information, presenting itto users, and distributing it as widely as possible.

ApproachThe Trace Center's database development efforts

address four primary needs:I) Availability: The need for databases to be avail-

able through a wide varietyof channels and media.

2) Accessibility: The needfor the database user inter-face to be optimized fordif-ferent types of impairments.

3) Usability: The needfor databases to be easy fornovices to use with little orno training.

4) Usefulness: The needfor data to be valuable tousers, including people withdisabilities, family mem-bers, and professional serv-ing them.

The needs of accessibil-

altosOther I ity and usability are being

addressed through the TraceCenter program of databaseinterface development (seeprevious project report). The

CDROM

LDBTACa

FloppyDisks

Computer BulietinBoards (BBSs)across country INTERNET

Cooperative Electronic 1Library

iLRJBERCI, HABIG ABLE-DATA

Cooperating sites feeding nformation Into Library(over 20 sites contributing to this prerelease 01 the Library)

Fig. I: The Cooperative Electronic Library niodel

7973


needs of availability and usefulness are being metthrough development and coordination of the Coopera-tive Electronic Library on Disability., an integratedcollection of information sources on disability. Theoverall usefulness of the information is increased by thecollection of key resources from many organizations,using a cooperative model. Availability is increased bydesigning the Library to be disseminated through awide variety of channels. (See Figure 1.)

StatusThe Cooperative Electronic Library now incorpo-

rates 16 databases and over 30 full-text documents. Thecooperative effort to collect information has involvedover 50 organizations, some of which have informationin the current version of the Library and some of whichwill contribute to future versions. Among the organiza-tions involved in the Library so far are: various state"Technology Act" programs, regional ADA resourcecenters (DBTACs), the National Rehabilitation Infor-mation Center (NARIC), the ABLEDATA project,Independent Living Rehabilitation Utilization (ILRU),and the National Information Service (NIS) at theUniversity of South Carolina.

Four main types of data sources are currently in-cluded in the Library:

1, Cooperative Service Directories (CSD): This soft-ware allows for the creation of databases of disabilityrelated services. The Library currently contains 11CSDs covering statewide, regional and national re-sources.

2. ABLEDATA: This database of assistive technol-ogy products includes descriptions of 19,000 items,covering the full range of assistive technology.

3. Publications, Media & Materials: This softwarecan include multiple databases listing information re-sources on disability. The current version of the Librarycontains four databases, one of which is the 41,000item REHABDATA database, maintained by NARIC.

4. Text Document Library: Contains full texts of keydisability-related documents. Over 30 documents are inthe current version of the Library, including the com-plete text of the ADA and technical assistance manuals.

To accommodate the need for multiple dissemina-tion channels, the Library is being disseminated through:CD-ROM, floppy disks, computer bulletin board sys-tem (BBSs), the Internet, and other information ser-vices which provide gateways to the Internet. TheLibrary can also serve as a comprehensive resource toinformation centers serving consumers who do not haveaccess to computers.

TRACE imm9wag

cooperaihr semeeprectores

(People & Places)

Demonstration DatabaseRehabTech, ADA InformationUtah Directory UATP

Sign In

A211121HyperABLEDATA

TextDocumentLibrary

Librarian

e

MMP Files;Media, Materials & Publications)

AT Funding ResourcesElsability & Statistics (UCSF)Sample Pro -Cite File

Sign Out QUIT

Fig. 2: Opening screen of the Library software

30

74


General Input Device Emulating Interface (GIDEI)Standard

Project Team: Joseph Schauer, BSEE; Charles C. Lee, MS; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD;Mark Novak, BS, BS, PE; David P. Kelso, MS

BackgroundCertain people with physical disabilities cannot op-

erate standard input devices for commercially availablecomputers. Many of these individuals can, however,operate a special communication or computer accessaid, using a control system such as an optical head-pointer or .a single switch. The aid in turn can beinterfaced to the computer and used as an input device.

In the past, Keyboard Emulating Interfaces (KEIs)have been used to connect an aid to a computer. How-ever, newer models of computers and software requirethe use Or other standard input devices, particularly the"mouse" type of pointing device. Thus, the computeruser must now be able to use the mouse in addition to thekeyboard to operate the computer.

In order that KEIs can be standardized across most allcommunication and computer access aids, the TraceCenter has developed and supported a KEI Standard.This was done to insure better compatibility amongdevices built by different manufacturers and thereby toincrease the number of suitable options a user canchoose from. Similarly, to address the need for standardemulating interfaces for input devices other than justthe keyboard, such as the mouse, the Trace Center hasdeveloped a General Input Device Emulating Interface(GIDEI) standard.

ApproachThe GIDEI Standard is a document containing speci-

fications for directing actions to be performed with the

Serial connectionkeyboardand mouse sequences definedby GIDEI standard

111111111111Special input device

Standard keyboard/mouseconnectiondefined bycomputer manufacturers

ti

GeneralInput DeviceEmulatingInterface

Standard computer

Diagram showing the function of the GIDEI standard

Cl75


keybo:_rd and mouse using a standard protocol. Com-munication and computer access aid manufacturerswhose devices do not directly emulate input devices asa built-in feature are encouraged to design their deviceswith the capability to use the standard. Manufacturerswho create general purpose emulating interfaces arealso encouraged to support the GIDEI communicationprotocol.

StatusVersion 1, Revision 5 of the GIDEI Standard is

completed. The GIDEI standard has been incorporatedinto several commercial products, including the TraceTransparent Access Module (T-TAM)now sold bytwo major communication aid manufacturersand theKe:nx and Darci Too computer interfaces. The GIDEIis also a part of the keyboard/mouse adaptations theTrace Center has developed for the Microsoft Windowsoperating system, as part of a feature called "SerialKeys."This feature is also included in the AccessDOS acces-sibility software developed by the Trace Center forIBM's DOS.

The extension of the GIDEI to cover non-U.S. key-boards is currently being investigated.

Several manufacturers are already implementing thelatest GIDEI in their products or are designing theirproducts with the capability to use the standard. TheGIDEI specifications are available to manufacturers,and made available to other interested parties throughthe Trace Center Reprint Service.

Selected publicationsRodgers, B. L., Vanderheiden, G. C., Kelso, D. P., &

Gunderson, J. R. (1984). Keyboard emulating inter-face (KEI) compatibility standard, proposal 1.1.Madison: University of Wisconsin, Trace Researchand Development Center.

Schauer, J. M., Kelso, D. P., Vanderheiden, G. C., &Lee, C. C. (1989). Keyboard emulating interface(KE1) compatibility standard, 1989 revision. Madi-son: University of Wisconsin, Trace Research andDevelopment Center.

Schauer, J. M., Novak, M., Kelso, D. P., Vanderheiden,G. C., & Lee, C. C. (1990). General input deviceemulating inteifrice(CIDEI)compatibility standard,1991 revision. Madison: University of Wisconsin,Trace Research and Development Center.

768 c)ti


Simple Electrical Transducer (SET) Standard

Project Team: Joseph M. Schauer, BSEE; David P. Kelso, MS; Gregg C.Vanderheiden, PhD

BackgroundThe Trace Center first became involved in the stan-

dardization area in order to deal with the problemsencountered with user interfaces to communication,control, and computer access aids. At the time, therewere approximately 65 specialized interfaces commer-cially available. Unfortunately, no two manufacturers,even by accident, chose the same connectors orconnec-tor pin assignments for their controls. As a result,clinicians were restricted to the use of only a smallnumber of these interfaces, since the interfaces were notinterchangeable across aids without rewiring either theinterface or the aid.

The Trace Center initiated an effort and, working

with manufacturers and researchers from North America,Europe and Japan, developed a Simple Electrical Trans-ducer Interconnection Standard (SET standard). Theoriginal SET efforts led to an initial voluntary standard(SET Version 0.2), which was agreed to by a group ofmanufacturers. Since its introduction, about 80% to90% of controls and devices addressed by the SET haveconformed to most or all of the specifications. During1987-88, a revision of the first standard was issued(SET Version 1.0), taking into account the suggestionsand comments received from the field.

ApproachThe SET Standard seeks to standardize: ( I ) the

S Nitch B Switch DRow 2 Row 4

Rheostat F Rheostat D

/ Switch A(Tip)

Switch Common(Shell)

Switch A Switch C Switch FRow 1 Row 3 Column 1

Rheos.at G Rheostat E Rheostat B

Switch E SwitchColumn 3 CommonRheostat C

RheostitCommon

9-Pin D ConnectorFront View, Male

Switch GColumn 2Rheostat A

3.5 mm MiniatureMono Phone Plug

/ Switch A

Switch BL (Tip)

(Ring)

(Shell)Switch Common

3.5 mm MiniatureStereo Phone Plug

The SET standard sets pin assignments for particular connectors

83 77


physical connections between user controls and electri-cal/electronic aids; (2) the electrical specifications ofthe interfaces between controls and aids; and (3) thecategorization and labeling of controls and aids as totheir electrical makeup.

The standard has been circulated as a working paperamong interested parties. The document is distributedthrough the Trace Center Reprint Service. The docu-ment lays out all aspects of the standard as simply aspossible while still remaining accurate. Appendicesprovide a quick reference to pin assignments for con-nectors.

StatusA final version of the SET is completed and in use by

manufacturers in the augmentative communication field.The Trace Center distributes the standard through itsReprint Service, and answers questions from manufac-turers regarding compliance with the standard.

The Trace Center will continue to support otherorganizations in their adoption of the SET standard.Future revisions or expansions of the standard may alsobe undertaken, but none are now planned.

Selected publicationsRodgers, B. L., Kelso, D. P., & Vanderheiden, G. C.

(1984). Simple electrical transducer (SET) stan-dard, proposal 0.2. Madison: University of Wiscon-sin, Trace Research and Development Center.

Schauer, J. M., Kelso, D. P., & Vanderheiden, G, C.(1988). Simple electrical transducer (SET) stan-dard, version 1.0. Madison: University of Wiscon-sin, Trace Research and Development Center.

78


Serial Wheelchair Control Interface Standard

Project Team: Joseph M. Schauer, BSEE; David P. Kelso, MS; Gregg C.Vanderheiden, PhD

BackgroundAs electronic communication aids and environmen-

tal control devices become more advanced, their abilityto perform more sophisticated functions expands. As aresult of this increased capability, there is a growinginterest in interfacing suitable assistive devices (such ascommunication aids) to wheelchairs. In this model, theaid assumes the control functions typically performedby the joystick or other standard control built into thewheelchair.

However, devices such as communication aids canonly be used as controls if they can be effectivelyinterfaced to the wheelchair. At the present time, specialaids must be individually customized for each model of

wheelchair they are to be used with. No commoninterfaces exist among powered wheelchair controllers,but several manufacturers are interested in developingthem.

To assist in the development and application of newcontrol devices, Trace Center engineers began develop-ing a protocol for a standardized connection. As long asboth the control and the wheelchair conform to thespecifications of the standard, any manufacturer's con-trol device can be used with any manufacturer's wheel-chair.

ApproachThe standard was discussed in Meetings of wheel-

chair manufacturers, communication

PoweredWheelchair

Simple Control

Custom Interface(different for each chair)

PoweredWheelchair

CommunicationAid

IntelligentJoystick

Standard Interface(accepts various inputs)

Current (top) and serial control models

85

aid manufacturers and researchers atthe annual RESNA conferences in 1988,

1989 and 1990. A RESNA subcommit-tee on wheelchair standards has beencreated to review and further developthe standard. Since RESNA is the rep-resentative on wheelchair issues toANSI, the standard is also under con-sideration for adoption by ANSI.RESNA, through ANSI, submitted anapplication to the Intemational .chair

StatusThe ISO Serial Interface for Elec-

tronic Wheelchair Controllers hasevolved into a more sophisticated stan-dard called the M35 Standard. Copies

79

dards Organization (ISO) to establish aworking group on the standard withinISO. In November, 1990 ISO estab-lished the working group (ISO/TC173/SC1/WG-7).


of the draft ISO standard are available to interestedparties from the ISO, ANSI or RESNA.

Selected publicationsSchauer, J. M., Vanderheiden, G. C., & Kelso, D. P.

(1990). Serial wheelchair control interface stan-dard. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Trace Research and Development Center.

Schauer, J. M., Kelso, D. P., & Vanderheiden, G. C.(1990). Development of a serial auxiliary controlinterface for powered wheelchairs. Proceedings ofthe Thin,. 'Fah Annual RESNA Conference. Wash-ington, DC: RESNA.


Case Studies on Facilitated Communication

Project Team: Julie E. Gamradt, MS, CCC-SLP; Ruth A. Huebner, MS, OTR; Paul H. White,MA; Julia E. McGivern, PhD; Mary Klund, MS, OTR

BackgroundAccording to Crossley, Facilitated Communication

(FC) is a training technique aimed at developing theindividual's ability to accurately, and ultimately inde-pendently, point at words, letters or pictures on acommunication display in order to communicate. Train-ing is performed by another person, called a facilitator,who makes direct hands-on contact to the person'shand, shoulder, clothing or waist and fades that contactas the individual achieves more independence. Al-though the influence of the facilitator in guiding theclient to construct messages is unclear, it is clear that thefacilitator provides input, for example, to decreasefatigue or reduce impulsivity in responding. This train-ing technique is thought to provide appropriate sensoryand motor input to increase hand function, emotionalsupport, and in some cases training on how to use acommunication system.

FC was brought to international attention amongparents and service providers by Rosemary Crossley ofAustralia and Douglas Biklen of the United States.Although there have been many anecdotal claims of theeffects of FC' on persons with autism or other severecommunication disorders, there has not been any quan-titative research to explore the efficacy and delineatethe practice of FC, excluding some studies looking atthe specific issue of the authorship of messages gener-ated by individuals while using FC. Furthermore, therehas been dramatic and provocative national mediacoverage of individuals successfully using FC andshowing overall quality of life benefits. This coverageand consequent polarization of reactions among profes-sionals, concerned parents, and the public has hadrepercussions for all those associated with personshaving severe communication impairments.

At the initiation of the project in June, I992,literature on FC was sketchy and confusing, and opin-ions were divided. Many questions remained unan-swered, such as: What are the characteristic eompo-

vents of the intervention referred to as FC? Who, ifanyone, would benefit from the use of FC-like interven-tions? What, if any, changes are likely to occur inbehavior, communication, motor skills or independentliving skills when using FC-like interventions? Howmuch does the facilitator influence the messages pro-duced by individuals engaging in FC-like interventionsfor communication?

ApproachTo explore the efficacy and collateral impacts of FC,

a multidisciplinary approach and philosophy wasadopted, since research questions and practice concernstranscend specialties. The resource team which guidedthe project protocol design included professors fromspecial education and communication disorders, a pe-diatrician, an occupational therapist, a program admin-istrator, and a psychologist.

Seven adults with a history of severe speech impair-ment and failure of using traditional augmentativecommunication systems were chosen from a pool ofnominees from the local county. Medical, historic andfunctional status information was obtained and assess-ment of sensorimotor performance, behavior, commu-nication and independent living skills were performedprior to intervention. This pre-testing phase of theproject was followed by an introductory phase as indi-viduals began using FC under the guidance of a highlyexperienced facilitator from the community.

This first phase was followed by a six-month inter-vention phase, in which project staff met weekly withparticipants and their community team members whowere using facilitating communication with them. Dur-ing this time, participants were to regularly use FC withcommunity team members. Project staff made system-atic observations concerning the components of the FCapproach used during the sessions and the participant'sbehavior and communication. The final phase includedpost-testing, debriefing and case study summaries.

8 7 81


This exploratory case study project was designed tocomplement other similar efforts to describe clinicalprocedures encompassed by the term "facilitated com-munication." The goals of this project were to idenfiyspecific intervention components frequently identifiedwith FC, and to identify observed collateral effectscorrelated with the use of this intervention. This infor-mation should also provide for more researchable ques-tions pertaining to FC-like interventions.

StatusThe post-testing and debriefing portions of the final

phase have been completed. Write up of the results andimplications of the project are in progress as of June,1994. An updated teview of the literature is also inprocess, in response to the number of research articlesthat were published during the course of the project.

Some of the preliminary conclusions state that:1. FC is a multiple-component intervention.2. The apparent risks overshadow the benefits of

using FC in the absence of clear, objective evi-dence that the messages produced in conjunctionwith FC are authored by the communicator, andnot the facilitator.

It is recommended that useful practices be extractedfrom FC and implemented within the context of otherskill development and service delivery programs, Ex-

amples of practices or philosophies that could be ex-tracted from FC include: age-appropriate regard; use oftouch strategically to enhance skill development oradaptive behavior; participation in extended one-to-one interpersonal interactions; pursuit of a more posi-tive regard and value of individuals who have severecommunication impairments; setting a time and a placefor reconsidering a person's skills and potentials; creat-ing opportunities for adults with disabilities to use theirknown literacy skills in their daily lives.

The Trace Center recommends that there must beclear, objective evidence as to the authorship of mes-sages produced in conjunction with FC before FC isused:

As a method for evaluating skills (e.g., withincognitive testing), orAs a method of communicating importantdecisions

The procedures used for establishing authorshipshould be controlled, scientific procedures. The resultsof this project along with results of numerous researchstudies around the country support these conclusions.

Selected PublicationsGamradt, J. E., Huebner, R. A., White, P. H., McGi vern,

J. E., & Klund, M. (1993). Case Study Exploration ofFacilitated Communication. Proceedings of the Six-teenth Annual RESNA Conference.

0 0 0

0

7

2

A H-tlent on task.chkIst

CI 0 -. Cin

Ilene cm tut -1G

-0--- time mint -1K

time on telt -KM

time on Ilit.Lavro

time mLetKae

tirnt nm 1'4 GiernIt

Ilttlt cm tint -21riets

0 " ' il"!"7""

tilE.MHE §II! WE

Several observers' estimates of time attending to task during therapy sessions where PC was being used.Consistently high levels of time-on-task were observed for this client.

82


System for Integrating and Reporting of OccupationalTherapy Functional Assessment (OT FACT)

Project Team: Roger 0. Smith, PhD, OTR; Jay Hinkens, BS; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD;Kathy Longenecker Rust, MS, OTR; Laurie Fox, BSEE, OTR; Sharon Esser; Peter A.Borden, MA

BackgroundIn 1 985 the Standardized Assessment Committee of

the American Occupational Therapy Association, alongwith the American Occupational Therapy Foundation,awarded two grants to begin the development of aprofession-wide standardized assessment. The Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Madison was awarded one of these.For the past five years, faculty and staff in severalprograms at the universityincluding University ofWisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, the OccupationalTherapy Program of the School of Education, and theTrace Centerhave been working on the developmentand testing of a functional assessment system.

An initial paper form of the SIR-OTFA (System forIntegrating and Reporting of Occupational TherapyFunctional Assessment) was created and put throughpilot testing in the field to test its validity and reliability.The inter-rater reliability found in pilot testing was veryhigh (correlation coefficients were 0.8s to 0.9s). Theinternal and external validity measures from pilot test-ing also appeared to be very high.

"K.

Acr

sowor$00.40.orragi

tatapv"....

As the development of the SIR-OTFA progressed, itwas renamed OT FACT (for Occupational TherapyFunctional Assessment Compilation Tool).

Results from preliminary testing indicated that aproperly designed computerized version of OT FACTwould greatly facilitate administration, scoring andcharting of results. This would make testing of theassessment more accurate (by reducing the possibilityof calculation errors), and could serve to increase thenumber of researchers and clinicians interested in andable to evaluate the assessment.

ApproachOT FACT was initially designed as software for

IBMs and compatibles. A Macintosh and MicrosoftWindows version is currently in development. Devel-opment was supported by the American OccupationalTherapy Association, Inc.

The software steps the user through the stages of theassessment, following the nodes of a decision tree.Scores are based on a simple trichotomous scale (total

deficit, partial deficit, no deficit),avoiding the complexity and in-consistency of graded scales. Theprogram solicits scores from theuser, tabulates and totals scores au-tomatically, keeps records, and au-tomatically charts results graphi-cally. The data thus synthesizedpresents a functional performanceprofile of the client. This profilecan be used to summarize theclient's functional performance, tojustify therapy plans, and to docu-ment the client's change in statusover time.

The American OccupationalTherapy Association (AOTA) dis-

OT FACT .vryiware package, now &sit-Thule(' by the AOTA

83

89


seminates OT FACT throughout the occupationaltherapy profession. The Trace Center has set up acontinuing education workshop series aimed at increas-ing the level of competency of OT FACT users.

StatusRevisions based on the beta testing of Version 0.9 of

OT FACT were completed, and Version 1.0 was re-leased by the AOTA in the fall of 1990. Version 1.1 wasreleased in 1992 and is now being marketed nationally.

Version 2.0 for the Macintosh and IBM PCs withMicrosoft Windows is due to be released soon. Thisversion has expanded functional categories and en-hanced, customizable reporting formats (see figurebelow).

Validity and reliability studies of the new computer-ized OT FACT are currently under way at facilitiesaround the country. Research and development ofOT FACT continues to be supported by the AOTA,with additional support from Apple Computer, Inc.

Selected publicationsSmith, R. O. (1992). The science of occupational therapy

assessment (Guest Editorial). Occupational TherapyJournal of Research, 12, 3-15.

Smith, R. O. (1992). OT FACT version 1.1 [computerprogram]. Rockville, MD: American OccupationalTherapy Association.

Smith, R. 0. (1990). OT FACT administration andtutorial manual. Rockville, MD: American Occupa-tional Therapy Association.

Smith, R. O. (1990).0T FACT scoring guide. Rockville,MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.

Smith, R. 0. (1990). Computerizing a System for Inte-grating and Reporting Functional Assessment. InTechnology Review '90. Rockville, MD: AmericanOccupational Therapy Association.

Smith, R. 0. (1990). Synthesizing and interpretingfunctional assessment data for meaningful recom-mendations. In Charlotte B. Royeen (Ed.), AOTASelf Study Series: Assessing Function. Rockville,MD: American Occupational Therapy Association.

OT FACT Features: Versions 1.1 and 2.0

Version 1.1 FeaturesRuns on IBM/compatible computers with DOS.More than 250 individual items of functionalperformance.Question taxonomy based on occupationaltherapy theory.*Question set customizes itself to match the par-ticular assessment.*Computer scoring methodology.*Both functional outcome and diagnostic mea-s'ire so performance.*Tables and graphs of data summaries that serveas functional performance profiles.*

* Also features of Version 2.0

Version 2.0 FeaturesRuns on the Apple Macintosh and on IBM/compatible computers with Microsoft Windows.1000 question categories for specialized areasof practice.About 200 categories are core questions, withthe other 800 optional, relating to specific areasof practice.Extended demographic informationcan be storedfor use in research or program evaluation.Auto-merge feature pulls data directly into pre-designed forms and formats.Copy and paste features for putting commonlyused words or phrases into reports.Memo templates allow additional information,including results of other assessments, to beincluded in reports.Special scoring types, including self-satisfac-tion scoring, goal scoring, and co-variate scor-ing.

84

Information and Training Programs

Trace Center program plans have always stressedthe application of research and development re-

stilts. The philosophy behind this approach is simple: ifthe achievements made in R&D are not transferred tothose who need themconsumers and practitionersthey are of little or no use.

The Trace Center has a long history of involvementin information and training programs. In the I 970s, thecenter hosted workshop series on augmentative com-munication and published an early directory of commu-nication devices, the Non-Vocal Communication Re-source Book. Today, dissemination activities have in-creased and broadened, to include preservice andinservice training of professionals, publication of prod-uct references such as the Trace ResourceBook, anddevelopment of computerized information sources onassistive technology.

Research and development programs at the TraceCenter also have strong dissemination components.Efforts such as design guidelines and electronic stan-dards (see the Cross-Impairment Focus Area) rely verystrongly on circulating information and on support ofworking groups and committees.

The content of information materials and trainingprograms is not confined to discussing the results ofTrace Center projects. It covers the work of otherresearchers and developers across the field.

Target GroupsSpecific dissemination activities have been devel-

oped at the Trace Center to meet the needs of thedifferent populations served by the center. Briefly, thetarget groups which have been identified arc:

) People with disabilities (plus parents and othersupport people): This group represents the end target ofmost of the research and dissemination efforts. "Sup-port people" includes not only relatives but family,physicians, clergy, roommates, and personal aides.

2) The rehabilitation products industry: This group

includes manufacturers of special devices, software,and hardware for people with disabilities.

3) Standard industry: This group includes all peoplewho design electronic devices, computer hardware andsoftware, and related items for the regular mass marketof people without disabilities. This includes both manu-facturers who are actively seeking information in thisarea and manufacturers who are not aware of the prob-lem or need for work in this area.

4) Rehabilitation researchers: This group includesresearchers based in university, clinical, and industrialsettings.

5) Service providers: This rather broad group in-cludes rehabilitation engineers and technologists, voca-tional rehabilitation professionals, occupational thera-pists, physical therapists, speech and language patholo-gists, clinical rehabilitation personnel (public and pri-vate), ;ndependent living centers, special educators,and other information and referral agencies and person-nel.

6) Policy makers and funding agencies: This groupcreates the societal rules under which the rehabilitationand special education process must operate.

7) The general public: This group is broadly definedas all people who do not have a direct personal orprofessional interest in people with disabilities.

Information AccessibilityFor information to be effective, it must be accessible

to the target audience. Trace Center materials are for-matted and disseminated to meet the specific needs ofeach of the target audiences. Individuals with specificdisabilities, however, may have additional difficultiesin accessing information, particularly if it is in printform.

As a result, all of the materials disseminated by theTrace Center are available in electronic form (on disk)or in other accessible forms (braille, voice, large print)on request. This policy includes working papers and

9185


individual letters, which are often mailed in disk formto individuals who are blind or have physical disabili-ties. The Trace Center's information and referral ser-vice also has a TDD (telecommunication device for thedeaf) phone number, to allow direct communicationbetween hearing impaired persons and the informationand resource staff of the Center.

Cooperative Database DisseminationNetwork for Assistive Technology (Co-Net)

In addition to its past mechanisms for disseminatinginformation materials, the Center has initiated TheCooperative Database Dissemination Network forAssistive Technology (Co-Net), a cooperative networkforthe rapid dissemination of up-to-date information onassistive technology to professionals and consumersacross the United States. Co-Net is headquartered at theTrace Center. From this point, electronic databases andupdates are currently disseminated to approximately800 information providers.

The primary type of information distributed throughCo-Net is electronic in nature. Several databases arebeing distributed as part of the center's development ofa "Cooperative Electronic Library on Disability.- Theseinclude: Hyper-ABLEDATA and DOS-ABLEDATA,comprehensive databases of assistive technology prod-ucts; Cooperative Service Directories, computerizeddatabases of services; a Text Document Library, con-taining complete texts of disability-related documents;and Publications, Media and Materials databases. Theseare described in detail in this section of this report.

Training and Demonstration ProgramsAssistive technology is a rapidly advancing field,

one which is continually changing. Traditional collegecurricula do not prepare professionals to practice withtechnologyand even if they did, professionals wouldneed to regularly update their knowledge base as tech-nology changes. In addition, consumers and serviceproviders who have had no exposure to assistive tech-nology education may be placed in a position wherethey need this knowledge. The Trace Center provides anumber of opportunities for students, professionals,and the public to learn more about technologies relatedto communication, control, and computer access.

Pre-Service Programs: The Trace Center programprovides training for new professionals through ap-pointments in academic departments, guest lecture-ships, and inter-departmental courses. Trace Centerstaff interact with University of Wisconsin-Madisonstudents in Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy,

Speech & Language Pathology, Rehabilitation Medi-cine, Rehabilitation Counselling, Special Education,Human Factors Engineering, Electrical and ComputerEngineering, and Mechanical Engineering. Pre-serviceeducation is also carried out through practicum experi-ences arranged through the Trace Center and the Com-munication Aids and Systems Clinic.

The TechSpec and InterACT programs are formaleducational programs for both undergraduate and gradu-ate students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.The programs are coordinated by the Trace Center, andoffer a technology specialization certificate.

Workshops: The Trace Center currently hosts a se-ries of workshops on computerized functional assess-ment in occupational therapy.

Trace Center Introduction and Demonstration Pro-gram: In response to the number of people wanting tovisit the Trace Center and see assistive devices inoperation, the center holds a one-day visitors' programat the beginning of each month. Clinical staff demon-strate current and newly developed equipment andtechniques, as well as providing an overview of Traceactivities and recent findings. Over 120 people haveattended the demonstration program in the past year.

Conference Exhibits: The Trace Center regularlypresents an exhibit of their current work and results atnational conferences.

869 `)


Development of an Accessible, Distributable AssistiveTechnology Database: Hyper-ABLEDATAand DOS-ABLEDATA

Project Team: Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Joseph Schauer, BS: Roger 0. Smith, PhD;David P. Kelso, MS; Tereza Snyder, BFA; Kelly Ford, BA; Jay Hinkens, BS

BackgroundThere are a number of electronic databases which

provide information on technology for people withdisabilities. In the past, these have usually been madeavailable in "on-line" form; that is, the user connectstheir computer via modem (over telephone lines) to acentral computer containing the data. Typically, thesedatabases require that the person using them haveexperience in using computers and modems; have expe-rience using databases; be familiar with a large vocabu-lary of key search terms; and be able to create effectiveBoolean logic search statements.

The Trace Center and other experts in the field havebeen aware for some time that these requirements limitthe number and variety of people who are able to accessthe information in on-line databases. An improvedinterface is clearly needed to make searching easier. Inaddition, improvements in data storage for personalcomputers have made it possible for very large data-

bases to be stored directly an individual's computer,eliminating the need to dial in via modem or incurconnect time charges.

ApproachThe awareness of the need for better database inter-

faces resulted in part from the number of requestscoming into the Trace Center forcopies of its electronicdatabase, and the difficulties encountered by consum-ers and professionals in trying to use this type ofdatabase. The Trace database was initially put into avery user-friendly format. This prototype was later usedas a model for the development of Hyper-ABLEDATA.

Hyper-ABLEDATA is a microcomputer version ofthe on-line database ABLEDATA, supported by theNational Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Re-search. The database lists all the commercial assistivetechnology products available to consumers in theU.S,--currently over 19,000 items. The interface soft-

ware created at the Trace Centerprovides four distinct advantages:

I) The program runs on theuser's own microcomputer. Thiseliminates the need for a modern,the need to know communicationssoftware, and the expense of on-line connect time charges. It alsomakes it possible to design an inter-face that is faster and more user-friendly, since data and images ap-pearing on the user's screen do nothave to he sent over telephone lines.

2) The "point and click" inter-face does not require the user to betrained in how the system works.Use of graphics, visual analogies tofamiliar information materials ( likefile cards). and context-sensitivehelp messages guide new users

71w C'o-Net CD-ROM contain.% the entire Cooperative Hectronicon Disability, including Hyper-ABLF,DATh and DOS-ABLEDATA.

93 87


through the system. In addition, theinterface has been adapted to be usableby people with visual impairments andto allow for keyboard operation forthose whose physical impairments keepthem from using the standard mouse.

3) The search routines have beengreatly simplified. The on-line versionof ABU:DATA requires that the userconsult a 4000-term thesaurus, con-struct search commands, and type themin. Hyper-ABLEDATA presents thethesaurus in "expanding outline" for-mat, allowing the user to browse forthe appropriate terms and then go di-rectly to the products that match thoseterms. Boolean logic searching is alsoavailable, for more sophisticated us-ers.

4) Data-intensive information suchas pictures and sound can be stored andretrieved. Hy per-ABLEDATA cur-rently contains pictures of many prod-ucts, plus sound samples of productssuch as speech synthesizers.

5) A "blind access mode" offerscomplete, independent access to thedatabase for users who are blind. Ituses synthesized speech for output.

A version of the software for IBMand compatible computers has alsobeen developed. DOS-ABLEDATAprovides all the information includedin Hyper-A BLEDATA. The user in-terface operates in a similar way, bulisdesigned for the character-basedscreens used in DOS. The program is specially designedto be accessible to screen reader software for computerusers who are blind.

turntable desk (2 Items)

MODULAR TURNTABLE DESKS

Generic name: TURNTABLE DESK.

Point to buttesand I'll tell ito

whet it floes

Modular Turntable Desks are straight, L-shaped, or single or double U-shaped 0tables with large turntables built into them. The turntables can be easilyrotated by a non- functonal hand or mouthstick to give the user access to anyobject on either table without excessive reaching. Three models are available.The Single Tur le Desk, with one turntable, is $950.00. The Twin TurntableMedium Desk is $1,495.00. The Twin Turntable Executive Desk is $1,745.00. *An extension is available for either twin desk for $205.00 Motor attachments

Key words: VOCATIONAL MANAGEMENT, WORKSTATIONS, Desks

1

GEE=

Company: »MANUFACTURER:Extensions for Independence555 Saturn Blvd

Cost: t.B 368$950.00 - San Diego, CA 92032$1,745.00,0291 619-423-7709 or 619-423-1748

>AVAILABLE FROM

g- Beck up on Tour 2 of 2

0212Brad

'CVBack ToOutline

4CEMain Menu

Product description in Hyper-ABLEDATA

Click mouse or press a key to return

Its

4

Pictures of items are available on-screen or on printouts

StatusHyper-ABLEDATA and DOS-ABLEDATA are now

available to the public through the Trace Center ReprintService. A secondary dissemination mechanism hasbeen established as well: the Cooperative DatabaseDissemination Network for Assistive Technology (Co-Net). This network consists of dissemination pointsaround the country who use the databases and who mayalso serve as distributors of copies.

The databases are updated approximately twice peryear. They are being made available on two differentmedia: floppy disk and CD-ROM (Compact Disk ReadOnly Memory). DOS-ABLEDATA is also ava!able onthe Internet, from a Trace Center server.

The Seventh Edition of the Co-Net disk was releasedin March, 1994. It included both Hyper-ABLEDATAand DOS-ABLEDATA, with an expanded picture li-brary (now 2,500 pictures). The disk also contains therest of the Cooperative Electronic Library on disability,including databases of services and information re-sources, plus full texts of disability-related documents.

889 4


User Friendly, Disseminable Database System forInformation and Referral: Trace Cooperative ServiceDirectoryProject Team: Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Roger 0. Smith, PhD; David P. Kelso, MS;Tereza Snyder, BFA; Kelly Ford, BA; Joseph Schauer, BS

BackgroundThe rapid advance of technologyand microcom-

puters in particularis opening new opportunities ininformation response and referral (IR&R) services forpeople with disabilities.

In recent years, large-scale information and referralsystems have been primarily designed as centralizedinformation databases. While there are distinct advan-tages to the centralized database approach from thestandpoint of data management, it would often be moreeffective if the information could be replicated anddistributed. Technologies such as CD-ROM have greatlyexpanded the capability of microcomputers to store andmanipulate large databases, making d istribution of com-plete copies of a large database possible. This allows theinformation to be located directly at the point of inquiry.Such direct access lets information seekers browsethrough the information to locate that which best meetstheir needs at very low or no cost.

In order for such IR&R databases to be effective,however, they must require much less training in com-puter use, database use and specialized searching skillsthan that required by centralized, mainframe-baseddatabases. The intensive training that can be assured ata single centralized data access point cannot be practi-cally guaranteed in a distributed database network.

The need for training in database use can be in partovercome through the use of ultra-user friendly de-signs. With careful design, databases can be developedwith front ends which are so simple to learn that they canbe operated with no instruction and no knowledge ofkey words, Boolean logic search strategies, or othertraditional database search techniques.

ApproachIn order to explore the issues in creating an ultra-user

friendly distributed 1R&R database, Trace Center hasdeveloped a prototype computerized service deliverydirectory for assistive technology services. The data-

base takes advantage of fast searching software, graphi-cal screens and hypertext information linking tech-niques. The design is based on several crucial designprinciples:

1) Obviousness;2) Instructions on each screen;3) Screen appearance based on metaphors of daily

life experience;4) Provision of visual cues for each context;5) Clear path back to starting point or to previous

context;6) Concrete cues to movement through data;7) One page per database entry;8) Consistency of appearance and operation across

database;9) Options to visualize data in different ways;10) Ability to customize to user needs;I 1) Ability for users to browse;12) Accommodation of database users with disabili-

ties.In order to expand the cooperative service directory

database beyond proof of concept, the Trace Center hasentered into cooperative efforts with state programsfunded under the Technology-Related Assistance forPersons with Disabilities Act. Several state programsinterested in the design will be using the database intheir own assistive technology IR&R services. In addi-tion, the database's structure has been 'extended toinclude a ful I range of disability-related services, so thatstate IR&R programs do not have to maintain segre-gated databases for technology-related services.

The taxonomy of descriptive terms in the databasehas been modified so as to be compatible with field-wide efforts to systematize terminology. This opens thepossibility for the interchange of information betweenthe Trace Center-designed service delivery databasesand other existing IR&R systems.

The project has also been expanded to include testingof the intra-state database distribution model, as well as

9589


direct testing of the user interface with disabled andnon-disabled users. This phase will also include thedevelopment of instruction and training materials. Partsof this testing and training phase are being done inconjunction with Computers to Help People, Inc., asoftware training organization run by and serving indi-viduals with disabilities.

StatusIn 1992, an initial version of CSD software was

developed under Macintosh computers and IBM com-puters with Microsoft Windows. Seven states partici-pated in the initial development: Connecticut, Illinois,Utah, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Maryland and Maine.

Over 30 different information centers are now par-ticipating in the effort, including state Technology Actprograms and regional ADA resources centers(DBTACs). A version of the software for IBM PCsrunning DOS was released in 1993. Sets of CSD datafrom 11 different sites were distributed to the public on

the Sixth Edition of Trace Center's (")-Net CD, re-leased in January of 1994.

Selected publicationsVanderheiden, G. C., & Borden, P. A. (1989, April).

The use of hyper-text in distributable databases forpersonal computers. Proceedings of the NationalSymposium on Information Technology. Columbia,SC: Center for Developmental Disabilities, Univer-sity of South Carolina.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990, May). Development of anultra-user friendly, disseminable database systemfor information and referral. Proceedings af theNational Symposium on Information Technology.Columbia, SC: Center for Developmental Disabili-ties, University of South Carolina.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990). Development of a publicdomain, user-accessible interstate directory/databasefor assistive technology service programs. Proceed-ings of the Thirteenth Annual RESNA Conference.

Tale Of Cooltts

(C) 1989-199389111999i,

ths.(votty of Woman 3roW

In R&D Coe.of tN Center1.99911399 991

(91v99:y Vf9cals9199bon

TN GiU 9 119 Oy ocbory vat .melted byPeubblch 39OH. Irc

MelCA, 91)

1W mlytor919%. on (.10)750-0353

FiZo 1191' (199-801)11lbo 0199. t go to Matoodles / ("NAG

. TABLE OF [ORIENTS

I. 51.4.11.1stlysA A9 (AV 1135 miry Sy 5104

11. Custom 1.tolloqo 11.9.04-1)A Sooren 19' Arorcen Cy N.5 Caw( 0.6,1 WO 6

III. 191stra11. sal Iforalll.Info...O.:amt. OrKlory

The table of contents resembles a bookputting the user in a familiar context.

CSO_OOK.STR

IMO* Of ClilolfVlrylnN

119

MI (POW 14 Dirmlarr1,3someas ewer 5,nsie.sase5 Tea,*

MIIIMMEN(Iron. 310,991n1 tar VW *V

of Ilewlm .0oporevent of 9vAdovia9. S1-C43y.v.Amstro Sylmn

(VA13)Vronia0,Ar In99 t pe9A19,,,1

v.v.,. 99artAAA of 99 VA,ANmallsoo.

yper is 0c9.99919N COVI C. 1).it An c.00. IKP.Olos System

1...411101Isn0.101.400n Oonerm Sec,. 7.5

o ti't AlphabeticallyList by Distance from...

Programs can be listed by name, by county, byzip code, or by distance from a point.

States can be selected for searching simply byindicating them on a map of the U.S.

CIO_BOOK.STA

Poo semi n yu k 111Bee 4 t me. ,I

CcO80) I. De Svvro, reeves.SAA,1976195 tit yeo Of(Ye

Q[ode Refefenc

Search & Show Number

Retain to Ouitklerch

SIFNICL CCMr"..9.1 It - AspectLly, orente.(9499991. 9991- Pcroat9r91

Canwl Modi

AISTIPel ..1101,.04.1 SOCK.,AKOIDIMy COIV We. 5V.,

I raoop Cev.rlam - I

PPOCAVI IXSONSOIO / rtArtm cotts

29911.07.Al1c9 CONS

TEXT 11(133 ((91flevArlof A9(1 9.1 I, WO

Reset Pick list

FM Word or Tress r Pick V.1

Search features let the user locate service pro-grams by a variety of identifying terms and criteria,

Sample screens from Cooperative Service Directory database

90BEST COPY AVAILABLE 9 6


Databases on Communication, Control and ComputerAccess: Development and Downloading

Project Team: Peter A. Borden, MA; Kelly L. Ford, BA; David P. Kelso, MS; Sarah E.Fatherly, MA

BackgroundThe Trace Center has maintained a number of ongo-

ing information resources since the publication of thefirst edition of the Non-Vocal Communication Re-source Book in 1978. Over the past eight years theseresources have been converted to electronic databaseform. This has been done in order to facilitate responseand referral, creation of publications, and uploads toother databases.

The core databases (known collectively as"TraceBase") contain information on products, compa-nies, publications, clinical service centers, networksand databases, self-help groups, organizations, and

training programs pertinent to communication, controland computer access technologies.

ApproachThe TraceBase databases can be searched for data

meeting specific criteria, allowing Trace Staff to per-form searches for research and clinical purposes, andalso to answer specific questions received by phone ormail. Products, for example, are categorized by any of25 different criteria, such as input form, output form,computer compatibility, etc. Search strategies involv-ing multiple fields allow a high degree of specificity.

TraceBase information is also used to generate nu-

TraceBa

ProductInformation

Services

Master Address Database

Manufacturers

Resource Centers

Clinics

Publishers

ApplicationInformation

InformationSources

Uploads toother databases

Electronic text filesfor publications(incl. alternative

formats)

9

TraceBase internal structure and output products

91


Closing the aspHeadman. IA

Trace Center1.4ad000, WI

App *Lc* &Apo!. Specel ea So lutonsCayenne, CA

ABLEDATANewington. CTAFB Netonal(1989-91)Technology Center

Now York, NY

1.7

VeteransAelnenestratonBakroort MO

CompuServe specovoien'Columbus. OH No., De ABLEDATA

Sayer Smog. MO(1992 yree)

Trace Base Download Sites

Map showing locations of organizations to which the Trace Center has sent direct database downloads

merous publications, including "Quick Sheets" (cur-rently 25 titles available) and the Trace ResourceBook(new edition published in 1993). These are createdusing database publishing software routines, whichallow data to be directly exported from the database andformatted for printing, greatly reducing the amount ofmanual data entry needed betwf:en original entry in thedatabase and printing for publication. Maintaining in-formation resources in computer databases also makesit fairly simple to send data in electronic form to peoplewith disabilities who wish to rend it using special input/control or output systems.

Maintenance of data in electronic form also makes itpossible to download data directly to other organiza-tions around the country which maintain databases. TheTrace Center has worked cooperatively with severalsuch organizations, including:

ABLEDATA (Newington Children's Hospital,Newington, CT, 1989-91; Macro International,Silver Spring, MD, 1992-pres.);

AppleLink (Apple Computer, Inc., Cupertino, CA);Apple Solutions (Apple Computer, Inc.);CompuServe Disabilities Forum (CompuServe,Columbus, OH);SpecialNet (GTE Educational Services);Veterans Administration Office of TechnologyTransfer (VA Medical Center, Baltimore, MD).

All information in TraceBase is updated at least onceper year, through letters of verification, followed up byphone calls. In addition, the Trace Center cross checksits data with other comprehensive databases (such asABLEDATA) to assure greater accuracy and complete-ness for both bodies of data.

StatusIn preparation for the 1993 edition of the Trace

ResourceBook, all of the product entries in TraceBasehave been verified by phone or mail. This includes over1500 product entries, and over 300 information andservice resource entries. New entries have also beenadded, including over 400 product descriptions added.

92


Information Response and Referral

Project Team: Julie E. Gamradt, MS, CCC-SLP; Kelly L. Ford, BS; Peter A. Borden, MA;Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Roger 0. Smith, PhD

BackgroundAwareness of technology for communication, con-

trol and computer access continues to increase overtime; however, there are still many people who cannotproceed properly without more or better information.Those in need of information include people withdisabilities, family members, service providers, agencyrepresentatives, and business people. In liklition to theneed for information, many people need effective refer-rals. Inquirers frequently need the services of experi-enced professionals, particularly if they want to obtainor modify a computer for themselves or someone else.

The Trace Center receives approximately 1,200 spe-cific requests for information and assistance each year.These are mostly phone calls and letters, plus fax and e-mail. The vast majority come from the U.S. The TraceCenter does not specifically advertise itself as a "hotline" for assistance; nonetheless, the Center is fre-quently cited as a resource in articles, brochures, andresource lists. In addition, profes-sionals familiar with the Center mayrefer clients or others to the Centeras an information source.

ApproachResponses to questions from

professionals and the public areanswered as completely as possiblewithin the following constraints:

I) The ability to answer by phoneor letter. If an inquirer really needssome type of clinical services (a .1

common situation), a referral ismadeeither to the clinical pro-grams located at the Trace Center ,or to clinical centers in the inquirer'sarea.

2) The expertise of Trace Center staff. If the questionis outside Trace Center areas of t:pertise, the inquireris referred to some other research center or informationresource center for information.

The majority of inquirers need information to assistthem with a particular person's situationeither theirown or a family member's or client's. In addition, thecenter receives inquiries from researchers, manufactur-ers, the press, and policy makers.

In order to provide quality responses with limitedresources, the Trace Center has developed numerousbrief information documents. These are developedthrough the Summary Information Materials programat the Center. Titles are created in direct response to theneeds of the Information Response and Referral pro-gram. These documents include "Quick Sheets" (re-source lists on particular topics) and "Commonly AskedQuestion" sheets (containing non-technical answers tocommon questions).

111IMI JLI

i"-t

Information staff respond to inquiries from consumers, family members,clinicians, researchers and manufacturers

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 9 9 93


The Center also provides a monthly Trace Centerinformation and demonstration program. The purposeof the program is to regularly provide interested indi-viduals with an introduction to Trace Center activitiesand to the topic of computer access. The two-hoursessions are open to the public at no charge. Theyinclude a description of Trace Center projects andprograms, a general introduction to computer access,and demonstrations of computers and adaptive equip-ment. Past participants have included students, visitingresearchers, people with disabilities and other potentialconsumers, manufacturers and developers, computerretailers, educators, reporters, engineers, and profes-sionals working with clients who have developmentaldisabilities.

Inquiries from the public are also handled by theTrace Center at conferences. All conferences at whichthe Trace Center exhibits make their exhibit halls opento the public, giving staff members an opportunity toprovide answers and referrals to any interested mem-bers of the public, as well as professionals attending theconference.

StatusResponse to inquiries is an ongoing effort. Inquiries

are handled by primary information staff and referred toother Trace Center staff when necessary and appropri-ate. The information briefs used to respond to inquiriesare reviewed, revised and updated annually. The TraceCenter information and demonstration program conti n-ues to be held monthly. In 1992-93 the Trace Centerexhibited at: the annual RESNA conference, the annualClosing the Gap conference on "Microcomputer Tech-nology in Special Education and Rehabilitation" (inMinneapolis), and the annual California State Univer-sity-Northridge conference on "Technology and Per-sons with Disabilities."

94


Summary Information Materials Program

Project Team: Peter A. Borden, MA; Julie E. Gamradt, MS, CCC-SLP; Kelly L. Ford, BA;Sarah E. Fatherly, MA; Mick Joyce, MS; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Roger 0.Smith, PhD; Sharon Esser

BackgroundExperience with information response and referral at

the Trace Center has shown that there are many indi-viduals and organizations needing more information inorder to proceed in implementing communication, con-trol and computer access technologies. Some inquiriescan be responded to with individually written lettersand individually compiled materials. However, it hasbecome clear that both the quality and the quantity ofresponses can he improved greatly by creating anddistributing information summaries focused on particu-lar topics.

Inquirers who are not very knowledgeable aboutassistive technology need primarily two types of infor-mation: ( 1 ) general descriptions of technology and itsuse, and (2) referral resour .?s, either for more informa-tion or for services. These needs can be met effectivelywith brief summary and resource materials. In contrast,sophisticated inquiries from experienced consumers orprofessionals most often require detailed, individualresponses. Detailed reference materials on assistivetechnology are most useful to thisgroup of information-seekers.

ApproachThree basic types of informa-

tion materials are required to meetthe needs of both experienced andinexperienced inquirers: ( 1 ) infor-mation briefs, (2) resource lists, and(3) reference materials. The needfor information briefs is met through"Commonly Asked Questions"sheets, which provide answers tocommon questions about commu-nication, control and computer ac-cess technology. Questions are an-swered as simply as possible whileremaining accurate. These write-

ups are kept short (1-4 pages) and produced in an easilyreadable format. The need for resource lists is metthrough "Quick Sheets," lists which tell readers how toget more information or services. Among the more than30 current titles are "Service Centers," "Newslettersand Journals," "Networks, Bulletin Boards and Data-bases" and "Self-Help and Advocacy Groups." Titlesare reviewed, revised and updated eacn year.

For experienced inquirers, detailed reference materi-als are more useful, as these can provide the specificinformation this group needs. The Trace ResourceBooklists all assistive technology products for communica-tion, control and computer access that are currentlyavailable in the U.S. and Canada. The book providesdescriptions of each product, pictures where relevant,and information on availability. Products are cross-referenced by functions and features. Other resourcematerials are provided in appendices.

Other reference materials distributed by the TraceCenter include reprinted articles, a bibliography onaugmentative communication, and design guidelines

Tr':ce ResourceBook, 1991 -92 Edition

101 95

1


for computers and other electronic devices to increasetheir accessibility for people with disabilities. Thesepublications are disseminated through the Trace CenterReprint Service.

StatusA new edition (1993-94) of the Trace ResourceBook

was published in the spring of 1993. The volumeincludes updated information on over 1500 products,including over 300 listed for the first time in this edition.All entries were verified for accuracy before publica-tion.

"Quick Sheets" have undergone annual review andupdating. Two new titles are being added to the "Com-monly Asked Questions" series.

Most of the Center's summary information is kept inelectronic database form, in order to ensure that it canefficiently and accurately be transferred to other orga-nizations that serve as information resources. Elec-tronic texts are also easier to trar.sfer to alternativeformats for people unable to read or handle standardprint documents.

Selected publicationsBorden, P. A., Fatherly, S. E., Ford, K. L., &

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1993). Trace ResourceBook:Assistive Technologies for Communication, Controland Computer Access (1993-94 Edition). Madison:University of Wisconsin, Trace Research and Devel-opment Center.

Trace Research and Development Center. (1993). QuickSheets. Madison: University of Wisconsin, TraceResearch and Development Center.

Smith, R. 0. (1991). Technology applications to en-hance human performance. In C. Christiansen & C.Baum, Eds., Human Performance Deficits. Thorofare,NJ: Slack Publishers.

Berliss, J. R., Borden, P. A., & Vanderheiden, G. C.(1991). Trace ResourceBook: Assistive Technolo-gies for Communication, Control and ComputerAccess (1991-92 Edition). Madison: University ofWisconsin, Trace Research and Development Cen-ter.

Trace Research and Development Center. (1989, 1990).Commonly asked questions. Madison: University ofWisconsin, Trace Research and Development Cen-ter.

96102


Trace Center Reprint Service

Project Team: Sharon Esser; Katherine Vanderheiden, BBA, CPA; Peter A. Borden, MA;Andrea Joki

BackgroundThe Trace Center produces a wide variety of publi-

cations and other media materials. These materialscome from various sources: reports of results fromresearch and development projects, dissemination com-ponents built into research or training projects, resultsof projects specifically aimed at information dissemi-na:ion. In addition, the center receives many requestsfor information, which require targeted print materialsto be answered efficiently and effectively.

However, while program budgets allow for creationof these materials, they seldom allow for printing andwidespread distribution. In order to meet the need for aneconomical way to produce and distribute publications,the Trace Center a number of years ago established aReprint Service. The service reproduces and distributesTrace Center publications and other media materials.

The primary goal of the Reprint Service is to makeavailable materials which can improve the level ofknowledge and awareness among consumers and pro-fessionals. Without such a service, most of these publi-cations would likely become "fugi-tive literature"information thatis extremely valuable but almostimpossible to obtain. Because thefield of assistive technology is rela-tively new and always changing,the problem of fugitive literature isa crucial one to address.

ApproachThe Trace Center Reprint Set.:

vice is designed to be self-sustain-ing, with the costs of reproduction,order fulfillment, and shipping cov-ered by the prices paid by purchas-ers. The service's offerings are pub-icized through a brochure, which

is updated annually and distributed

at conferences, to the service's mailing list, and tointerested parties who contact the Trace Center.

Some reprint items result from Trace Center projectsand presentations. Others have been created to meet aparticular information need, through the center's Sum-mary Information Materials program. Occasionally,exemplary publications produced outside the TraceCenter are included as well.

StatusIn 1993-94, several thousand reprints were dissemi-

nated. Major categories of purchasers were consumersand family, professionals, researchers, and manufactur-ers. In the 1993 catalog, over 60 items are offered. Titlesinclude:

Co-Net CD-ROM, Sixth EditionHyper-ABLEDATA. Demonstration VideotapeTrace Voice SamplerTrace ResourceBook: Assistive Technologies forCommunication, Control and Computer Access(1993-94 Edition)

-4k-g

Reprint Service distributes books, papers, videotapes and software

13 97


Technically SpeakingThirty-Something Million: Should They Be Ex-ceptions?Development of an Ultra User-FriendlyDisseminable Database SystemCommonly Asked Questions EvaluationsTechnological Approaches to Performance En-hancementTechSpec 1989-90 ReportInterACT Program Description and ApplicationCourse Guide: Adaptation/Construction of Equip-ment for People with DisabilitiesCourse Guide: Introduction to Assistive and Reha-bilitation TechnologiesCourse Guide: Microcomputer and Software Ap-plications in Occupational TherapyCourse Guide: Technology-Related OccupationalTherapy ClerkshipsTechnology Training for Occupational Therapists:A Survey of Entry-Level CurriculaBibliography of Computer Articles in ThirteenOccupational Therapy Periodicals: 1978-88Quick Information SheetsA Future Perspective on the Holistic Use of Tech-nology for People with DisabilitiesTrace Beeper BoxA Telephone Communication System Utilizing anApple IIe MicrocomputerIssues in Developing a Communication SystemIncorporating the Use of the Light Talker withExpress SoftwareAn Augmentative Writing System Using an AppleIIe Microcomputer and Adaptive EquipmentApplication of Communication Technologies toan Adult with a High Spinal Cord InjuryApplication TipsActivities Using Headsticks and Optical Pointers:A Description of MethodsCommonly Asked Questions - CommunicationAids and TechniquesToy Modification NoteFunding of Non-Vocal Communication for theSeverely Speech and Motor Impaired.Guidelines for Seeking Funding for Communica-tion AidsBibliography of Vocabulary Frequency andWordset Analysis StudiesCommunication Interaction Between Aided andNatural Speakers: A State of the Art ReportComputers as Augmentative Communication Sys-temsHigh and Low Technology Approaches in the

Development of Communication SystemsCommunicative Interaction Processes InvolvingNonvocal Physically Handicapped ChildrenInitiating Communication Systems for SeverelySpeech-Impaired PersonsConstruction Notes for Laptrays, Portable Com-munication Boards, and Adaptive PointersAccess Issues Related to Virtual Reality for Peoplewith DisabilitiesApplications of Artificial Intelligence to the Needsof Persons with Cognitive Impairments: The Com-panion AidA Standard Approach for Full Visual Annotationof Auditorially Presented InformationA Dual Information Class Model for ProvidingAccess to Computers with Graphic User InterfacesGraphic User Interfaces: A Tough Problem with aNet Gain for Users Who Are BlindDevelopment of a Multisensory Nonvisual Inter-face to Computers for Blind UsersA Method for Evaluating Head-Controlled Com-puter Input Devices Using Fitts' LawThe Graphical User Interface Crisis: Danger andOpportunityChecklists forMaking Library Automation Acces-sible to Patrons with DisabilitiesChecklists for Implementing Accessibility in Com-puter Labs at Colleges and UniversitiesNonvisual Alternative Display Techniques forOutput from Graphics-Based ComputersOne Finger Program for IBM Family of PersonalComputers - Version 5.05 (Software)Commonly Asked Questions - ComputersComputer Access for Disabled Individualsvideotape)Curbcuts and ComputersAccessible Design of Consumer ProductsWhite Paper on the Design of Software Applica-tion Programs to Increase Their Accessibility forPersons with DisabilitiesConsiderations 42: Results of the Industry/Gov-ernment Cooperative Effort on Computer Accessi-bility for Disabled PersonsGeneral Input Device Emulating Interface (GIDEI)StandardSimple Electrical Transducer (SET) CompatibilityStandardSerial Interface for Powered Wheelchair ControlDescriptions of Products Recently Developed atthe Trace Center

(VHS

98 1.t4


Technology Specialization (Tech Spec) Training Nogram

Project Team: Roger 0. Smith, PhD, OTR; Robert A. Christiaansen, MS, MS, BFA; GreggC. Vanderheiden, PhD; Julie Gamradt, MS, CCC-SLP; Andrea Johnson, OTR; LaurieFox, BSEE, OTR; Sharon Esser

BackgroundProfessionals with a variety of clinical and technical

backgrounds are needed for assistive/rehabilitative tech-nology service delivery. Historically, formal trainingprograms to improve the competencies of service pro-viders have focussed on inservice training via work-shops, conferences, and on-the-job inservice sessions.In occupational therapy, exposure to assistive/rehabili-tative technology in preservice professional trainingcurricula has been minimal to nil.

Recently, several professional training institutionsin the field of occupational therapy have begun to cometo grips with this problem. They have acknowledgedthat "retrofitting" knowledge through continuing edu-cation is critical for therapists currently in practice, butis inadequate for newly trained professionals movingout into the field. It is becoming clear that preservicetraining is imperative.

In recognition of this need, The Trace Center, incooperation with the Occupational Therapy Profes-sional Training Program at the Uni-versity of Wisconsin-Madison, hasestablished an interdisciplinarytechnology specialization programcalled TechSpec. The program isfunded through a grant from theOffice of Special Education Pro-grams, U.S. Department of Educa-tion.

ApproachThe TechSpec program consists

Of two main components: ( ) directtraining and (2) development anddistribution of training materials.Direct training involves implement-ing a technology curriculum andtraining students at the University

of Wisconsin-Madison. Training materials are based onthis curriculum. They are designed for those wishing tostart similar programs elsewhere.

Direct training is made available at two levels: foun-dation level and specialization level. Students enrollingat the foundation level complete electives from a seriesof courses dealing with technology, some of which havebeen created for the TechSpec program and some ofwhich were already in existence. Students enrolling atthe specialization level complete a specified set ofcourses plus a certain number of electives. Upon thesuccessful completion of classroom and practicum in-struction, TechSpec graduates qualify for a certificatein technology specialization.

StatusThe TechSpec project has been completed; however,

the training continues as the technology track of theInterACT training program (see separate report).

Training under TechSpec began in 1988-89. Six

Tcchmer nedertis /yam abOld SyNteinS

195 99


courses were included in the original program, includ-ing three new courses developed specifically for stu-dents in technology training. Course enrollments for theprogram were: 140 in 1988-89, 100 in 1989-90; 101 in1990-91; 120 in 1991-92. A total of 41 students havegraduated from the program with a specialization intechnology.

Several TechSpec publications are now available tothe public, targeted at training programs at other univer-sities. Over 500 copies of curriculum publications havebeen disseminated. Other training programs have re-ported back on how they are using the materials:TechSpec teaching materials were integrated into "In-troduction to Technology" courses and workshops on"Technology Interface," as well as being used as ageneral conceptual approach to teaching technologicalapplications.

Results compiled from subjective and objective pro-gram evaluation data showed substantial gains in bothcomfort level and competency of students.

Selected publicationsSmith, R. O., Christiaansen, R. A., Vanderheiden, G. C.

(1989). TechSpec: A technology training model.Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of theAssociation for the Advancement of Rehabilitationand Assistive Technology (RESNA).

Smith, R. 0. (1990). Course guide: Introduction toassistive and rehabilitation technologies. Madison:University of Wisconsin, Trace Research & Devel-opment Center.

Smith, R. O. (1990). Course guide: Technology-relatedoccupational therapy clerkships. University of Wis-consin, Trace Research & Development Center.

Christiaansen, R. (1990). Course guide: Microcom-puter and software applications in occupationaltherapy. University of Wisconsin, Trace Research &Development Center.

Smith, R. 0. (1991). Technological applications forenhancing human performance. In C. Baum, & C.Christiansen (Eds.), Human Performance Deficits.New York: Slack.

100 106


Interdisciplinary Augmentative Communication andTechnology Training Program (InterACT)

Project Team: Jon Miller, PhD; Roger 0. Smith, PhD; Robert A. Christiaansen, MS, MS,BFA; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD; Jamie Murray-Branch, MS, CCC-SLP; AnneDonnelan, PhD; Julie E. Gamradt, MS, CCC-SLP; Sharon Esser

BackgroundThe rapid advances in augmentative communication

and interface technologies have made it possible forchildren with multiple physical, sensory, cognitive andlanguage disabilities to participate in a range of unre-stricted educational environments. The speed of tech-nological development, however, has vastly outpacedthe training of professionals who are knowledgeableabout the selection, application and use of these tech-nologies. The successful implementation ofaugmentative communication and interfacetechnologies requires skills and knowledgefrom multiple disciplines, including speech-language pathology, special education, oc-cupational therapy, physical therapy, andengineering.

ApproachThe InterACT program is an interdisci-

plinary instructional model to help guidestudents through a learning process wherethey can obtain the range of skills and depthof knowledge required to implement the useof communication and interface technolo-gies in practice.

The program trains students at four lev-els:

Level 1: Basic awareness training;Level II: Foundation knowledge training

for students who desire more in-depthunderstanding;

Level III: Specialist-level training withextensive coursework and practicumexperience;

Level IV: Advanced training with an in-tensive three to nine month full-timeinternship.

Each level has parallel tracks ofcoursework and practica across the follow-

ing disciplines: Communicative Disorders, Therapeu-tic Science (including occupational and physicaltherapy), Special Education, and Rehabilitation Engi-neering. Students in all levels are required to take anintroductory course highlighting fundamental principlesacross disciplines in augmentative communication andinterface technologies. Further coursework on Level IIprovides students with an understanding of the breadthof the field, integrating communication and interface

Level IA a nrenmsTraining

Loci IIFoundationKnowledgeTraining

Level IIISpecialkstTraining

Lod IVM1%21141.11

Training

InterACT Training Program

Therapeutic Science: Introduction to Assistive and Rehabilitation Technology

Or

Communicative Disorders : Introdection to Augmentative Communication

TherapetAir Science: Introduction to Assistive and Rehabilitation Technology

and

Communicative Disorders : Introduction to Augmentative Communication

and

Elective from Level III Core Courses

' '......7 ^*.:' ,...caflatr,,,_

..513Survey tourses

Communitatton soreincluding

ptacticum t.ilirse

Multi-cultural seminars

Professional courses

N'

.'-A a V

EM/i=3

Survey tomes

Tethnology coreonluding

praLtisum course

Multi- ..littoral seminars

PIllfCCV011.11 LOWS'S

t

Practicum intensive. run-time. 3-9 month internship

Structure of the InterACT training program

107 101


technologies. Level III allows students to specialize inassistive communication or interface technology. Ad-vanced level training, Level IV, provides intensivesupervised experience as part of an augmentative com-munication and interface team, in preparation for inde-pendent professional competency as an augmentativecommunication or interface specialist.

Level III and Level IV students are provided withtraining opportunities oriented toward cultural and in-dividual diversity, so they may observe the impact ofcultural and language differences on the design andimplementation of augmentative communication andtechnological interface systems.

The program takes advantage of three universitycourses offered specifically on augmentative commu-nication and three offered specifically on technologyinterface:

Introduction to Augmentative CommunicationAugmentative Communication Systems for Per-sons with Severe DisabilitiesSeminar in Augmentative Communication Sys-tems: An Interactive ProcessIntroduction to Assistive and Rehabilitation Tech-nologyAdaptation and Construction of Equipment forPersons with DisabilitiesDesign and Human Disability.

The program also entails standard professional coursesand a wide selection of elective offerings across severaldepartments.

The InterACT program has targeted the yearly train-ing of 120 University of Wisconsin-Madison studentsin augmentative communication or assistive and reha-bilitative technology application. Annually, InterACTaims to help 10-12 students become competent aug-mentative communication or assistive rehabilitationtechnology practitioners capable of implementing aug-mentative communication and assistive technology pro-grams with clients. In addition, this project targets anational impact through the development and dissemi-nation of an interdisciplinary curriculum model andcourse guides.

A comprehensive evaluation plan has been designedto evaluate the quality of the training, with feedbackloops to provide input to improve the training programat all levels.

StatusThe enrollment of students in the InterACT program

began with the fall semester of 1991. Total enrollment

in InterACT courses was for 1992-93, by discipline,was:

Communication disorders: 58;Occupational therapy: 100;Engineering: 19;Special education: 12;Computer science: 1;Other disciplines: 3.

The program graduated 22 Level III students and 4Level IV students in the 1992-93 year. To better addressthe assistive technology and augmentative communica-tion training needs of general and special educators, anEducation Track is being created for the InterACTprogram, to run in parallel with the Communication andthe Technology Tracks.

102 11)


Trace Center Workshop Series

Project Team: Kathy Longenecker Rust, MS, OTR; Roger 0. Smith, PhD, OTR; Gregg C.Vanderheiden, PhD; Jerilyn Johnson

Functional Assessment Workshop SeriesA number of new developments are occurring in the

area of systematizing functional assessment of indi-viduals with disabilities. One of the most important hasbeen in the field of occupational therapy: the develop-ment of OT FACT, a system for integrating and report-ing occupational therapy functional assessment devel-oped at the Trace Center as part of national initiative ofthe American Occupational Therapy Association. Inorder to learn how to effectively implement OT FACTin practice, however, occupational therapists need somedirect instruction in the theoretical basis and practicalapplication of the system. OT FACT has been taught atnational AOTA conferences, but it was decided that itwould be helpful to create more learning opportunitiesfor OTs at more locations.

The Trace Center has created a series workshopson OT FACT, dealing also with general issues of im-proving and systematizing functional assessmentthrough computerization. The curriculum also includesbasic computer skills, for participants who need them.The workshops are supported through participant fees,as are other Trace Center workshops.

The first OT FACT workshop was held on June 8,1990 in Madison, Wis. It drew 27 participants. A seriesof six workshops were held in spring and summer of1991, in Dallas, Texas; Bryn Mawr, Penn.; Miami,Florida; Boston, Mass.; San Diego, Cal.; and Milwau-kee, Wis.

Another series of two-day workshops was held in fallof 1991 and spring of 1992, in Denver, Colo.; Madison,Wis.; Chicago, Ill.; Baltimore, Md.; Buffalo, N.Y.; andSeattle, Wash. The 1992-93 workshops were in Rich-mond, Ky., Madison, Wis., Lubbock, Tex., Fishersville,Va., Minneapolis, Minn., New York, N.Y. and Balti-more, Md.

In addition, a one-day on-site consultation workshophas been developed. It is being offered for facilities whowish to provide OT FACT training to groups of on-site

therapists. These customized sessions present contentand technical level tailored to a facility's specific needs.In 1993, site consultations were held in St. Louis, Mo.and Dallas, Penn.

Computer Workshop SeriesDespite the increase in available computer access

technology and the growing interest in its use, there arerelatively few educational opportunities for those want-ing to learn more about the subject. Presentations andseminars at conferences require travel expenses thatpose barriers to many, particularly consumers, agen-cies, and school staff. In 1982, the Trace Center initiateda workshop series on computer access and use fordisabled persons. Since then, over 20 workshops havebeen held, at sites distributed around the country.

The "Advanced Workshop in Computer Access andUse" was designed as a two-day intensive workshopdesigned for attendees with varying levels of expertise,from novices to computer programmers. One half of thefirst day was devoted to a pre-workshop, aimed at thosewho need familiarity with the basics of computer opera-tion. This session started with an explanation of howcomputers work and proceeded to programming prin-ciples and basic programming exercises.

The remaining day and a half was devoted to themain workshop. This program covered the key infor-mation about computer access needed by clinicians,educators, consumers and family members. The basicswere taught regarding how computer access can beprovided for individuals with different types of disabili-ties; an overview of the state of the art and new devel-opments was offered; and uses of particular hardwareand software were demonstrated. Topics covered in-cluded: assessment of user needs, hardware limitationsof computers, personal vs. group use of computers,computers as personal aids vs. access to computers, andselecting a computer based on application needs. Theworkshop covered adaptations for users with physical

103

109


disabilities, communication-related disabilities and sen-sory disabilities. Like the current OT FACT Workshopseries, the Computer Access Workshop was self-sup-porting, with revenue derived from attendee fees.

The most recent workshops were held in 1990. Aworkshop in Toronto on April 6-7 drew 95 participants;one in Madison, Wis. on May 4-5 drew 63 participants.The Computer Access Workshop series is no longerbeing held.

Trace Center Workshop SitesOT FACT Workshops

- Computer Access Workshops

Workshop Sites

Map showing locations where Trace Center workshops have been held

104 fl

Service Delivery Programs


n addition to its research , development, informationI and training programs, the Trace Center is connectedwith clinical service delivery programs. These pro-grams deal directly with the types of technology inwhich the center specializes.

The center's ties to clinical programs are importantfor several reasons: ( I) so that research and develop-ment project staff can directly observe consumer needsand decide which could be met by new devices, tech-niques, and standards: (2) so that the Trace Center canshare its technical ex-pertise directly withservice delivery pro-grams; and (3) so thatresearchers and devel-opers can see the ac-tual implementation ofsystems and analyzereal-life problems.

This last issue isparticularly important,as there are many fac-tors in design besidesthe basic need for asystem which affect aconsumer's ability toobtain and use it. Theseinclude price of a de-vice, ability to obtainfunding, ease of usefor the consumer, abil-ity for family membersand other supportpeople to operate thedevice, frequency andcost of repairs, and theneed to customize theuser interface.

The Trace Center's connections with clinical pro-grams fit into an integrated model of assistive andrehabilitative technology activity (see figure). Thismodel shows how "service delivery" actually extendsinto several areas of the total activity in the field.Although activities such as "education/training" and"evaluation of systems" have been funded as separateprojects at the center, clinical programs are frequentlyinvolved in all of these activities at the client level.

The Trace Center has two major clinical programs.

RE EVALUATION.MONITORING AND

REVISION

!MPLEMENTATION-FUNDING ANDTRAING USE

BASIC RESEARCH

EDUCATIONBRAINING,INFORMATION DISSEMINATICN.

AND RESOURCE ANDREFERRAL

DISTRIBUTION

kr+. dcllyery componew

APPLIED RESEARCH ANDDEVELOPMENT

MANUFACTURING

USERS' SYSTEMHEEDS FEATURES

MATCHING AND SELECTION

JModel of assistive and rehabilitative technology activity (from Rehabilitation

Technology Service Delivery: A Practical Guide f RESNA Press])

105

111


The Communication Aids and Systems Clinic (CASC)provides augmentative communication and computeraccess evaluations and follow-along services. Regulartherapy services are also available to those in theMadison area. The CASC is program of the Universityof Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics and is administeredby the Trace Center. The Communication Develop-ment Program (CDP) is a county-based, county-fundedconsultative service delivery program for augmentativecommunication and computer access.

In addition to the CASC and the CDP, the centerprovides direct services through its Rehabilitation Re-search Services and Client-Based Research programs.These programs allow the center to provide its technicalexpertise for development of modifications to clients'systems. It can also entail the development of prototypeor unique systems for clients, in which case the projectserves the dual purpose of client service and researchand development.

1061 1 4.)1 4,


Communication Aids and Systems Clinic

Clinic Team: Joni Nygard, MS, CCC-SLP; Blair Panhorst, MS, CCC-SLP; AndreaJohnson, OTR/L; Jamie Klund, MS, OTR; Roger 0. Smith, PhD; Gregg C.Vanderheiden, PhD; Bonni Caparoon

BackgroundThe Communication Aids and Systems Clinic.

(CASC) serves people who need additional ways tocommunicate because of severe impairments that affectspeech. Causes of such impairments include: cerebralpalsy, progressive neuromuscular diseases, head trauma,paralysis and cognitive limitations. The clinic assistsclients in selecting and developing a means of augmen-tative communicationa form of communicating thatsupplements or replaces speech. In addition to servingneeds related to conversational communication, CASCassists clients in developing systems for writing, envi-ronmental control, and accessing computers.

Clinic servicesCASC provides a variety of services, including evalu-

ation, equipment selection, consultation, training andtherapy. In providing evaluations, clinic staff assess aclient's current capabilities and potential, determine theoptimal augmentative communication system, and work

.10111111PV

Olt -CASC clinician assesses a young client's ability to use an electronic aid

with the client to make sure it will be implementedsuccessfully. For individuals having significant physi-cal impairment, evaluations frequently entail assess-ment of seating and positioning, location of effectivephysical control sites, and assessment of communica-tion skills. Appropriate electronic or non-electronicdevices are tried and recommendations are made. Theclinic adapts or fabricates equipment for clients whennecessary, and helps clients develop a communicationtraining program, performs follow-up, and advises cli-ents in obtaining funding for equipment and services.

CASC uses an interdisciplinary team to provideevaluation and therapy services. The team membersincl:ide:

I) Speech-language communication specialists: Ex-amine a person's language, cognitive and interactiveskills as they relate to using an augmentative communi-cation or writing system.

2) Interface specialists: Address motor, sensory andperceptual barriers which prevent the effective use of

communication aids and computeraccess interfaces.

3) Seating and positioning spe-cialists: Work to maximize aperson's physical abilities by pro-viding them with optimal supportand positioning in their wheelchair.CASC coordinates with equipmentvendors and rehabilitation engi-neers to provide this service to cli-ents.

/Jr

r3-BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Administration and fundingCASC is a clinic of the Univer-

sity of Wisconsin Hospital and Clin-ics, and is managed by the TraceCenter. The clinic's operations arefree-standing and self-funding, not

107


requiring grant-funded personnel. This situation hastwo benefits: the separation of fiscal accountability(research and clinical) and the assurance that CASCpractices can be replicated at centers not having aresearch and development center on-site.

Funding primarily follows a medical iiiodel, makinguse of private insurance, HMOs (referral required),Medicaid, and Katie Beckett. Other methods of fundingare school districts, vocational support agencies, andcommunity support funds. The clinical team assistsclients in finding funding for equipment by providingthe necessary documentation.

108


Communication Development Program

Clinical Team: Julie Gamradt, MS, CCC-SLP; Carla Lynch, MS; Jamie Klund, MS, OTR;Joni Nygard, MS, CCC-SLP; Gregg C. Vanderheiden, PhD

BackgroundThe Communication Development Program (CDP)

is a community-based service delivery program servingresidents of Dane County, Wisconsin who have severecommunication impairments. Program staff assist cli-ents in developing functional augmentative communi-cation systems. The CDP works directly with clientsand families, and also provides assistance and trainingto staff of community agencies which serve individualswho have severe communication impairments.

The CDP has been in existence since 1976. It servespreschool children (0-3 years) and adults ( I 8 years andolder). The CDP also works directly with the schoolsystem, when necessary, in order to provide transitionfor clients entering and leaving the educational system.The program has seen a steady increase in the numberof clients requiring services, indicating a strong needfor the program in the county.

IAfrA

40/P..

41,

UMCDP clinician Julie Gainradt works with a CDP client on hissystem for communication and computer access

Services of the programNine major services are provided by the CDP.1) Provision and maintenance of materials and com-

munication aids: CDP staff assist clients, family mem-bers and service providers in developing, assembling,using and updating communication aids. This includesprovision of communication boards and books, dis-plays for electronic communication aids, calendarsused for communication about current events, "mini-boards" (topic-specific displays with limited vocabu-lary), and specialized symbol displays such as tactiledisplays for blind individuals.

2) Training for use of communication aids: CDPstaff provide training to clients, family members, andservice providers.

3) Sign language: COP staff evaluate its potentialeffectiveness for particular clients and provide training.

4) Use of technology: When appropriate, CDP staffassist clients with more extensivetechnology needed for communi-cation, such as computers and por-table electronic communicationaids. Services cover equipment se-lection and training.

5) Equipment maintenance, re-pairs and support services: TheCDP assists clients in troubleshoot-ing problems they experience withequipment.

6) Funding: Part of the augmen-tative communication services pro-vided by the CDP is to providedocumentation required by fund-ing agencies for augmentati ve com-munication equipment.

7) Coordinating client serviceswith other programs: The CDP

111111L.

115 109


actively interacts with numerous other agencies withinDane County for purposes of training, coordinatingservices, providing materials, and consultation. Thegoal is to integrate different aspects of meeting clients'needs.

8) hzservices and group training: The CDP providestraining to clients, family and service providers. Thisbuilds a broader base of assistance for the client in day-to-day successful use of a communication system.

9) Presentations and public awareness activities:Increasing public awareness of the needs and abilities ofindividuals who use augmentative communication sys-tems is one of the priorities of the CDP. Activitiesinclude classes, presentations and an open house.

. In addition to these services to individuals in thecounty, the CDP also provides training experiences tostudents studying augmentative communication. Stu-dents serve in clinical affiliations with the clinic.

Administration and fundingThe CDP is funded through a grant from the Adult

Community Services division of the Dane County De-partment of Human Services. It provides services incooperation with the Communication Aids and Sys-tems Clinic. The program also assists clients in obtain-ing funding from other sources where possible andappropriate.

110 1 1G

Cooperative and Consultative Efforts

ABLEDATA (Newington, CT)Development ofHyper-ABLEDATA and transfer of Trace Centerdatabase information to ABLEDATA.

ACS Technologies, Inc. (Clinton, PA)Software forcompatibility of Real Voice communication aid withkeyboard emulating interface.

American National Standards Institute: ANSI(Washington, DC)Development of a standard forcontrol of power wheelchairs from communicationaids and other intelligent controllers (also coopera-tive project with International Standards Organiza-tion).

American Occupational Therapy Association(Rockville, MD)Development of system for inte-grated reporting of occupational therapy functionalassessment (OT FACT), including development ofcommercially available software package.

Ameritech FoundationAccessibility of TDDs forIndividuals with multiple impairments.

Apple Computer, Inc.Uploads of database infor-mation related to computer access; assistance inpreparation of electronic and non-electronic infor-mation materials; support in handling technical in-formation requests; technical assistance with imple-mentation of accessibility features for computersand operating systems.

Apple Computer, Inc.Development of OT FACT(Occupational Therapy Functional Assessment Com-pilation Tool) software for Macintosh environment.

Berkeley Systems, Inc. (Berkeley, CA)Develop-merit of auditory-tactile computer interface for hlindusers, including development of software tools for

allowing special access hardware to address operat-ing system of Apple Macintosh computer.

Computers to Help People, Inc. (Madison, WI)Direct access by persons with disabilities to informa-tion on assistive technology services: a model inter-state cooperative database.

Consumer Care Products (Sheboygan, WI)Evalu-ation of design of adjustable workstation table.

Crestwood Company (Milwaukee, WI)Design of aportable communication book.

Disability Access Committee on X (coordinated byTrace Center)Joint effort to develop disabilityaccess capabilities in the X Windows graphical userinterface. Several vendors and researchers involved,including Trace Center, Georgia Tech, MIT, DigitalEquipment Corporation, Sun Microsystems, IBMCorporation, Berkeley Systems, Inc., Bell Atlantic,Bellcore, and AT&T.

Disability and Business Technical Assistance Cen-ters - DBTACs (various regional centers)Devel-opment of Cooperative Service Directory software.

Don Johnston Developmental Equipment(Wauconda, IL)Evaluation and testing of KE:NXadaptive input system for Macintosh computers.

Electronic Industries Association, Assistive DevicesDivision of Consumer Products Group (Washing-ton, DC)Cooperation in development of guide-lines for the design of consumer products to increasetheir accessibility to persons with disabilities.

Forum on Information Networking in Disability:FIND (Columbia, SC)--Development of a common

1 1 1

11.7


base taxonomy for disability related services.

Franklin Electronic Publishers, Inc. Consultation ondisability interface design for mass-market talkingdictionary/thesaurus device.

General Services Administration (U.S. Govern-ment)Development of information m'terials oncomputer accessibility standards.

Hugh MacMillan Medical Center (Toronto, ON)Assistance in development of evaluation protocol.

Hugh MacMillan Medical Center (Toronto, ON)Further development of Trace Center long rangeoptical pointer technology.

IBM Corporation (White Plains, NY)Developmentof IBM-environment assistive technology databases.

IBM Corporation (White Plains, NY)Developmentof AccessDOS package of disability access featuresfor DOS, for IBM PC and PS/2 computers.

Industry-Government Initiative on Computer Ac-cessibility (A nation-wide ad hoc group)work ondocument: "Considerations in the Design of Com-puters and Operating Systems to Increase TheirAccessibility to Persons with Disabilities."

InfoLine (Los Angeles, CA)Development of a com-mon base taxonomy for disability related services.

Information Technology Association (Washington,DC)Development of software design guidelinesfor the application software industry.

International Committee on Accessible DocumentDesign (various organizations)Development offormal and informal standards for interchange ofelectronic documents in forms usable by people withdisabilities.

International Standards Organization: ISODe-velopment of a standard for control of power wheel-chairs from communication aids and other intelli-gent controllers (also cooperative project with Ameri-can National Standards Institute).

Macro International - ABLEDATA (Silver Spring,MD)Upload of ABLEDATA information on

assistive technology products into Trace Center'sHyper-ABLEDATA and DOS-ABLEDATA soft-ware.

Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)Develop-ment of Access Pack for Microsoft Windows: a set ofdisability access features for Microsoft Windowsoperating system (IBM PC and PS/2 computers).

Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)Technicalassistance with implementation of disability accessfeatures in Windows, DOS, Windows NT andMicrosoft-at-Work.

Prentke Romich Company (Wooster, OH)Ongo-ing consultation regarding interfacing communica-tion aids to computers. Commercial transfer of TraceTransparent Access Module (T-TAM).

RESNA (Washington, DC) and National InformationSystem (Center for Developmental Disabilities, U ofSC)Development and maintenance of distribut-able service delivery databases. Development of acommon base taxonomy for services.

Technology Act Programs (More than 30 state pro-grams)Development of Cooperative Service Di-rectory software.

Unicorn Engineering (Richmond, CA)Transfer ofsource code and information to assist Unicorn indesign of expanded computer keyboard.

University of Arkansas, Learning ExpreSs and ICAN(Little Rock, AR)Development of software forDOS-ABLEDATA database of products for peoplewith disabilities.

Wheelchair Standards Committee (RESNA, Wash-ington, DC)Development of standard for serialinterface for control of wheelchairs.

Words+, Inc. (Lancaster, CA)Evaluation and con-sultation on a variety of products, including theAugmentative Communication Evaluation System(ACES). Commercial transfer of Trace TransparentAccess Module (T-TAM).

118

112

Trace Center Publications

1993Angelo, J., & Smith, R. 0. (1993). An analysis of

computer-related articles in occupational therapyperiodicals. American Journal of OccupationalTherapy, 47, 25-29.

Borden, P., Fatherly, S., Ford, K., & Vanderheiden, G.(1993). Trace resourcebook: Assistive technologiesfor communication, control, and computer access,1993-94 edition. Madison, WI: University of Wis-consin, Trace Research and Development Center,Reprint Service.

Gamradt, J., Huebner, R., White, P., & McGivern, J.(1993). Case studies in facilitated communication: Adescriptive research project. Proceedings of the 16thI nual RESNA Conference, 164-5.

Hammel, J. M., & Smith, R. 0. (1993). The develop-ment of technology competencies and training guide-lines for occupational therapists. American Journalof Occupational Therapy, 47, 970-79.

Lee, S., Wiker, S. F., & Vanderheiden, G. Interactivehaptic interface: Two-dimensional form perceptionfor blind access to computers. Proceedings of the 5thhiternatonal Conference on Human-Computer In-teraction.

Nakamura, K., Vanderheiden, G., &Smith, R. O. (1993).Attitudes and impressions towards receiving phonecalls made with a voice output device in the UnitedStates and Japan. Technology & Disability, 2, 71-80.

Novak, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1993). Extending theuser interface for X Windows to include persons withdisabilities. Proceedings of the 16th Annual RESNAConference, 435-6.

Smith, R. 0. (1993). Technology part II: Adaptiveequipment and technology. In Charlotte B. Royeen(Ed.), AOTA self-study series: Classroom applica-tions for school-based practice. Rockville, MD:American Occupational Therapy Association, Inc.

Smith, R. O. (1993). From the guest editor. TechnologySpecial Interest Section Newsletter, 3(1), 1. Rockville,

MD: American Occupational Therapy Association,Inc.

Smith, R. 0. (Ed.). (1993). InterACT: Interdisciplinaryaugmentative communication and technology pro-gram description, (rev. ed.). Madison: University ofWisconsin, Trace Research & Development ReprintService.

Smith, R. 0. (1993). Computer-assisted functional as-sessment and documentation. American Journal ofOccupational Therapy, 47(1 I), 988-992.

Smith, R. 0. (1993). Assessing the impact of assistivetechnology using OT FACT. Proceedings of the 16thAnnual RESNA Cony. rence, 186-7.

Trace Center (1993). Quick Sheets. Madison: Univer-sity of Wisconsin, Trace Research & DevelopmentReprint Service.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (in press). A brief look at technol-ogy and mental retardation in the 21st century. In L.Rowitz, Ed., Mental Retardation in the Year 2000.

Vanderheiden. G., & Mendenhall, J. (1993, June). Aseamless interface model for access to virtual realityenvironments. Proceedings of the 1993 Conferenceon Virtual Reality and Persons with Disabilities,California State University-Northridge.

Vanderheiden, G. CD-ROM and BBS-based electroniclibrary of disability-related information. 1993 Con-ference of the Rehabilitation Technology Associa-tion.

Vanderheiden, G. Use of seamless access protocol toexpand the human interface of next-generation in-formation systems and appliances. Proceedings ofthe 5th International Conference on Hiunan-Com-pater Interaction.

1992Carayon-Sainfort, P., & Smith, R. 0. (1992). Physical

and mental strain in computerized workplaces: Causesand remedies. In J. Rothman & R. Levine (Eds.),Prevention Strategies: Strategies for Physical

119 113


Therapy and Occupational Therapy, 385-404. Phila-delphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.

Gamradt, J., O'Connor, M., & Novak, M. (1992, Octo-ber). Use of an integrated communication system forspeaking, writing, and computer access. Tenth An-nual Closing The Gapconference, Minneapolis, MN.

Novak, M. (1992). AccessDOS: Providing computeraccess features under DOS. Closing The Gap, 11(3),pp. 21, 36.

Novak, M. (1992). AccessDOS: Providing computeraccess under DOS. Fourth Annual Wisconsin Con-ference on Augmentative Alternative Communica-tion and Assistive Technology, Eau Claire, WI.

Pedretti, L., Smith, R. O., Hammel, J., Rein, J., Anson,D., & McGuire, M. J. (1992). Use of adjunctivemodalities in occupational therapy treatment. Ameri-can Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 1075-1081.

Smith, R. 0. (1992). OT FACT: Software system forintegrating and reporting occupational therapy func-tional assessment, version 1.0 [Computer software& manual]. Rockville, MD: American OccupationalTherapy Association, Inc.

Smith, R. 0. (Ed.). (1992). Course guide: Introductionto assistive and rehabilitation technologies (rev.ed.). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Tracz,. Re-search and Development Center, Reprint Service.

Smith, R. 0. (1992). Engineering the Americans withDisabilities Act of 1990. Technology Special Inter-est Section Newsletter. Rockville, MD: AmericanOccupational Therapy Association, Inc.

Smith, R. 0. (1992). Technology education from anoccupational therapy view. Technology & Disabil-ity, 1(3), 33-40.

Smith, R. 0. (1992). The science of occupational therapyassessment (Guest Editorial). Occupational TherapyJournal of Research, 12, 3-15.

Smith, R. O., Hammel, J., Rein, J., & Anson, D. (1992).Technology as an occupational therapy treatmentmodality. OT Week, 16-18.

Smith, R. 0., Longenecker Rust, K., & Borden, P. A.(1992, Sept. 10). OT FACT seeks testers for ex-panded software. OT Week, 36-37.

Smith, R. 0., Longenecker Rust, K., & Borden, P.A.(1992, March 12). Why aren't you using OT FACT?OT Week, 18-19.

1991Berliss, J. R. (1991). Issues in electronic access for

campus computer labs, libraries, and other publicareas. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conferenceon Technology and Persons with Disabilities, (pp.

61-70). Northridge, CA: California State University,Office of Disabled Student Services.

Berliss, J. R., Borden, P. A., & Vanderheiden, G. C.(1991). Trace Resourcebook: Assistive Technolo-gies for Communication, Control, and ComputerAccess, 1991-92 Edition. Madison, WI: Universityof Wisconsin, Trace Research and DevelopmentCenter, Reprint Service.

Borden, P., Ford, K., Vanderheiden, G. C., Kelso, D., &Snyder, T. (1991). Hyper-ABLEDATA: The secondedition of a comprehensive assistive technology da-tabase. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conferenceon Technology and Persons with Disabilities, Cali-fornia State University-Northridge, 93-101.

Boyd, L. H., Boyd, W. L., & Vanderheiden, G. C.(1991). Graphics-based computers and the blind:Riding the tides of change. Proceedings of the SixthAnnual Conference on Technology and Persons withDisabilities, California State University-Northridge,109-118.

Cress, C. J., French, G. J., & Tew, J. P. (1991). Age-related differences in interface control in normallydeveloping children. Proceedings of the FourteenthAnnual RESNA Conference, 257-258.

Ford, K. (1991). A user's perspective on blind access tographical user interfaces. Proceedings of the Four-teenth Annual RESNA Conference, 330-331.

Ford, K. L., & Borden, P. (1991). Systems 3: A tactileauditory computer interface for people who are blind.Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference onTechnology and Persons with Disabilities, Califor-nia State University-Northridge, 229-238.

Kanny, E., Anson, D., & Smith, R. O. (1991). Technol-ogy Training for Occupational Therapists: A Surveyof Entry-Level Curricula. Occupational TherapyJournal of Research, 11(5).

Kelso, D. P., Lee, C. C., Novak, M. Schauer, J.,Vanderheiden, G. C. (1991). Transparent accessinterface foi Apple and IBM computers: The T-TAM. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual ConferenceTechnology and Persons with Disabilities, Califor-nia State University-Northridge, 481-483.

Novak, M., Schauer, J., Hinkens, J. D., & Vanderheiden,G. C. (1991). Providing computer access featuresunder DOS. Proceedings of the Fourteenth AnnualRESNA Conference, 163-164.

Smith, R. 0. (1991). Training therapists in technology:Barriers and solutions from the third year of theTechSpec program. Proceedings of the FourteenthAnnual RESNA Conference, 67-68,

Smith, R. 0. (1991, March/April). Is pluralism a prob-lem or have we simply failed to articulate an obvious

114120


umbrella theory [Letter to the editor]. OccupationalTherapy Journal of Research, 11(2), 70-71.

Smith, R. 0. (1991). Technology applications to en-hance human performance. In C. Christiansen & C.Baum, Eds., Human Performance Deficits. Thorofare,NJ: Slack Publishers.

Vanderheiden, G. C., & Vanderheiden, K. R. (1991).Guidelines for the design of consumer products toincrease their accessibility to persons with disabili-ties. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual RESNAConference, 257-258.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1991). Graphic user interfaces: Atough problem with a net gain for users who areblind. Technology and Disability, 1 (1).

1990Berliss, J. R. (1990). Current initiatives in accessible

computing on campuses. Proceedings of the Thir-teenth Annual RESNA Conference, 75-76.

Berliss, J. R. (1990). Conference report: LITA adaptivetechnologies interest group meeting a success. Li-brary Hi Tech News, 74. 7.

Berliss, J. R. (1990). Checklists for implementing ac-cessibility in computer laboratories at colleges anduniversities. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin,Trace Research & Development Center, ReprintService.

Borden, P. A., & Berliss, J. R. (1990). Hypertext data-bases. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Conferenceon Technology and Persons with Disabilities, Cali-fornia State University-Northridge, 97-106.

Borden, P. A., Berliss, J. R., Joyce, M., & Ford, K.(1990). Technically speaking [Monthly column].Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Trace Re-search and Development Center, Reprint Service.

Borden, P. A., Gamradt, J. E., Vanderheiden, G. C.(1990). Commonly asked questions-Evaluations.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Trace Re-search and Development Center, Reprint Service.

Boyd, L. H., Boyd, W. L., & Vanderheiden, G. C.(1990). The graphical user interface: Crisis, danger,and opportunity. Journal of Visual Impairment andBlindness, 84(10), 496-502.

Christiaansen, R., Smith, R. 0., & Fox, L. B. (1990).Technology specialization for occupational thera-pists: TechSpec education model. In TechnologyReview '90. Rockville, MD: American OccupationalTherapy Association, Inc.

Cress, C. J., Snyder, T., 'Few, J. P., & Vanderheiden, G.C. (1990). Computer interface training tools: Sortingtasks. Supercard Computer Program.] Madison, WI:

University of Wisconsin, Trace Research and Devel-opment Center.

Cress, C. J., & Tew, J. P. (1990). Cognitive skillsassociated with the operation of various computerinterfaces. Proceedings of the Thirteenth AnnualRESNAConference. 251-252.

Hall, M., & Vanderheiden, G. (1990). Hyper-ABLEDATA: An overview. In Technology Review'90. Rockville, MD: American Occupational TherapyAssociation, Inc.

Hockley, D., & Berliss, J. R. (1990). Postsecondaryadaptive computing services. Proceedings of theFifth Annual Conference on Technology and Per-sons with Disabilities, California State University-Northridge, 30? -310.

Radwin, R. G., Vanderheiden, G. C., & Lin, M. L.(1990). A method for evaluating head-controlledcomputer input devices using Fitts' Law. HumanFactors, 32(4).

Schauer, J. M. (1990). General input device emulatinginterface (GIDEI): Proposal draft Ver. I. Madison,WI: University of Wisconsin, Trace Research andDevelopment Center.

Schauer, J. M., Novak, M., Lee, C. C., Vanderheiden,G. C., & Kelso, D. P. (1990). Transparent accessinterface for Apple and IBM computers: The T-TAM. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual RESNAConference, 255-256.

Schauer, J. M., Kelso, D. P., Vanderheiden, G. C.(1990). Development of a serial auxiliary controlinterface for powered wheelchairs. Proceedings ofthe Thirtef,!!!: RESNA Conference, 191-192.

Smith, R. 0. (1990). OT FACT: Software system forintegrating and reporting occupational therapy func-tional assessment. [Computer software.] Rockville,MD: American Occupational Therapy Association,Inc.

Smith, R. 0. (1990). OT FACT software and operatingmanual. Rockville, MD: American OccupationalTherapy Association, Inc.

Smith, R. a (1990). OT FACT/p administration andtutorial manual. Rockville, MD: American Occupa-tional Therapy Association, Inc.

Smith, R. 0. (1990). OT FACT/p scoring guide.Rockville, MD: American Occupational TherapyAssociation, Inc.

Smith, R. 0. (1990). Computerizing a system for inte-grating and reporting functional assessment. In Tech-nology Review '90. Rockville, MD: American Occu-pational Therapy Association, Inc.

121 115


Smith, R. 0. (Ed.) (1990). Sample course guide for anintroductory course in rehabilitation and educationtechnologies. Madison, WI: University of Wiscon-sin, Trace Research and Development Center, Re-print Service.

Smith, R. 0. (1990). Synthesizing and interpretingfunctional assessment data for meaningful recom-mendations. In Charlotte B. Royeen (Ed.), AOTASelf Study Series: Assessing Function. Rockville,MD: American Occupational Therapy Association,Inc.

Smith, R. 0. Vanderheiden, G. C., & Fox, L. (1990).Specialization in technology service delivery: Whatis an interface specialist? Proceedings of the Thir-teenth Annual RESNA Conference, 240-241.

Smith, R. 0., Christiaansen, R., & Vanderheiden, G. C.(1990). Pre-service technology specialization train-ing (TechSpec): Year 2. Proceedings of the Thir-teenth Annual RESNA Conference, 240-241.

Trace Research and Development Center (1990). TraceVoice Sampler. [Computer Software.] Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin, Trace Research and Devel-opment Center, Reprint Service.

Trace Research and Development Center (1990). Tracebeeper box kit. Madison, WI: University of Wiscon-sin, Trace Research and Development Center, Re-print Service.

Vanderheiden, G. C., & Vanderheiden, K. (1990). Ac-cessible Design of Consumer Products: Guidelinesfor the Design of Consumer Products to IncreaseTheir Accessibility to Persons with Disabilities orWho Are Aging. Madison: University of Wisconsin,Trace Research and Development Center.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990). Thirty-something million:Should they be exceptions? Human Factors, 32(4),383-396.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990). Developme:t of an ultrauser-friendly disseminable database system for in-formation and referral. Madison, WI: University ofWisconsin, Trace Research and Development Cen-ter, Reprint Service.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1990). Development of a publicdomain, user accessible, inter-state directory/data-base for assistive technology service delivery pro-grams assistive technology directory. Proceedingsof the Thirteenth Annual RESNA Conference, 222-223.

Vanderheiden, G. C., Kunz, D. C. (1990). Systems 3:An interface to graphic computers for blind users.Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual RESNA Con-ference, 259-260.

1989Angelo, J., & Smith, R. 0. (1989). The critical role of

occupational therapy in augmentative communica-tion services. In Technology Perspectives '89, Ameri-can Occupational Therany Association.

Berliss, J. R. (in press). Maximizing "bang-for-the-buck" when purchasing adaptive computer equip-ment. In Proceedings of the AHSSPPE 1989 Confer-ence.

Berliss, J. R., Bartlett, L., Farha, R., & Knox, J. (1989).Computer user groups for students with disabilities.In Proceedings of the Closing the Gap Conference.Minneapolis, MN.

Berliss, J. R., & Borden, P. A. (1989, October). Build-ing a better mouse. MacUser, Vol. 5(10).

Berliss, J. R., Borden, P. A., Vanderheiden, G. C.(1989). Trace Resourcebook 1989-90 Edition. Madi-son: University of Wisconsin, Trace Research &Development Center.

Berliss, J. R., Borden, P. A., Vanderheiden, G. C. (1989,June). It's academic: Computer accessibility issuesin higher education. Proceedings of the 12th AnnualConference of the Association for the Advancementof Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology (RESNA),15-16.

Borden, P. A., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1989, June). Theuse of hypertext in distributable databases for per-sonal computers. Proceedings of the 12th AnnualConference of the Association for the Advancementof Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology (RESNA),59-60.

Cress, C. J., Goltz, C. C. (1989, June). Cognitive factorsaffecting accessibility of computers and electronicdevices. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conferenceof the Association for the Advancement of Rehabili-tation and Assistive Technology (RESNA), 25-26.

Lee, C. C. (1989, June). Access to Microsoft Windows2.0 for users with physical disabilities. Proceedingsof the 12th Annual Conference of the Association forthe Advancement of Rehabilitation and AssistiveTechnology (RESNA), 23-24.

Lee, C. C., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1989, June). Accessto graphical computers by blind users: Results of aplanning workshop. Proceedings of the 12th AnnualConference of the Association for the Advancementof Rehabilitation and Assistive Technology (RESNA),21-22.

Smith, R. 0. (in press). Technological applications forenhancing performance.. In Charles Christiansen &Carolyn Baum (Eds.), Human PerformanceDeficits.Slack Publishers.

1161:242'


Smith, R. O., Christiaansen, R. A., Borden, B., Lindberg,D., Gunderson, J., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1989).Effectiveness of a writing system using a computer-ized long-range optical pointer and 10-branch abbre-viation expansion. Journal of Rehabilitation Re-search and Development, 26(1), pp. 51-62.

Smith, R. O., Christiaansen, R. A., Vanderheiden, G. C.(1989, June). TechSpec: A Technology TrainingModel. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Confer-ence of the Association for the Advancement ofRehabilitation and Assistive Technology (RESNA).New Orleans, LA.

Smith, R. 0., Vanderheiden, G. C., Berliss, J. R., &Angelo, J. (1989). Creating and testing an effectivedesign for a desktop version of Abledata. Proceed-ings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Associa-tion for the Advancement of Rehabilitation andAssistive Technology (RESNA), 55-56.

Vanderheiden, G. C., & Borden, P. A. (1989, April).The use of hyper-text in distributable databases forpersonal computers. Proceedings of National Sym-posium on Information Technology. Charleston, SC.

Vanderheiden, G. C., Kelso, D. P., & Hinkens, J. D.(1989, June). Hyper-ABLEDATA. In Co-NET, 1stEdition. [CD ROM]. Madison: University of Wis-consin, Trace Research & Development Center.

Vanderheiden, G. C., & Smith, R. 0. (1989, March).Application of communication technologies to anadult with a high spinal cord injury. Augmentativeand Alternative Communication, 5(1).

1988Berliss, J. R. (1988, Nov.). Tip for type. MacUser,

4(11), 136-153.Borden, P. A., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1988).

ResourceBook 4: Update to Books 1, 2, & 3. TheRehab/Education Technology Resourcebook Series:Communication, Control, and Computer Access forDisabled Individuals. Madison: University of Wis-consin, Trace Research & Development Center.

Cress, C. J. (1988). Design considerations for equalaccess to educational hardware. Proceedings of theInternational Conference on the Handicapped Stu-dent and the Computer. Utrecht: The Netherlands,Centre for Educational and Information Technol-ogy.

Gamradt, J. E. (1988, October). A telephone communi-cation system utilizing an Apple IIe computer. Pro-ceedings of Closing the Gap Conference. Minneapo-lis, MN.

Gunderson, J. (1988, Oct.). Information processingmodpi of human computer interaction for peoplewith blindness and severe visual impairments. Pro-ceedings of the Planning Workshop on Access toComputers by Blind Individuals. Madison, WI.

Gunderson, J., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1988, June).One screen multiplexed keyboard for transparentaccess to standard IBM PC software. Proceedings ofthe International Conference of the Association for.the Advancement of Rehabilitation Technology(ICAART), 378-9.

Lee, C. C. (1988). The functional module operatingsystem: Isolating the human interface. Proceedingsof the Planning Workshop on Access to Computersby Blind Individuals. Madison, WI.

Lee, C. C., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1988, June). Acces-sibility of graphically based user interface computersystems for individuals with visual impairments.Proceedings of the International Conference of theAssociation for th6 Advancement of RehabilitationTechnology (ICAART), 406-7.

Lee, C. C., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1988, June). Acces-sibility of OS/2 for individuals with movement im-pairments: Strategies for the implementation of 1-Finger, Mousekeys, and Software Keyboard Emu-lating Interfaces using device drivers and monitors.Proceedings of the International Conference of theAssociation for the Advancement of RehabilitationTechnology (ICAART), 384-5.

Smith, R. 0. (1988). TechSpec Policies and Proce-dures. Madison: University of Wisconsin, TraceResearch & Development Center.

Smith, R. O. (1988). Service delivery and related issuesat the Trace Research & Development Center. InCarol Coston (Ed.), Planning and ImplementingAugmentative Communication Service Delivery,Washington, D.C.: RESNA, Association for theAdvancement of Rehabilitation Technology.

Smith, R. 0. (1988). Sample course guide for an intro-ductory course in rehabilitation and assistive tech-nologies for occupational therapy students. Madi-son: University of Wisconsin, Trace Research &Development Center.

Smith, R. 0. (1988). Sample course guide for technol-ogy-related occupational therapy practica. Madison:University of Wisconsin, Trace Research & Devel-opment Center,

Smith, R. 0., Vanderheiden, G. C., & Borden, P. A.(1988, June). Database vs. information base: Pre-liminary analysis of a computerized informationbase in rehabilitation technology. Proceedings of the

123 117


International Conference of the Association for theAdvancement of Rehabilitation Technology(ICAART), 492-3.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1988, Oct.). A multi-sensory,nonvisual interface to computers for blind users.Proceedings of the Planning Workshop on Access toComputers by Blind Individuals. Madison, WI.

Vanderheiden, G. C. (1988, June). Multi-access reha-bilitation technology information network: MAR-TIN. Proceedings of the International Conference ofthe Association for the Advancement of Rehabilita-tion Technology (ICAART), 514-15.

118

UNIVERSITY OFWISCONSIN.M ADI S ON

Trace Research and Development CenterWaisman Center

and Dept. of Industrial EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

125

Documents

ED 375 596 EC 303 436 TITLE Trace Research and ...DOCUMENT RESUME EC 303 436 Trace Research and Development Center: Report of Progress, 1987-94. Wisconsin Univ., Madison. Trace Center