ABILITY home /
ABILITY home (graphics version) /
current issue /
past issues /
subscriptions /
links /
resources /
ADA /
contact us /
back issue ordering
Apple Computer's Passport
For the vast
majority of people with disabilities, the microcomputer doesn't simply represent
the ability to accomplish tasks a little faster or a little better. It represents
the ability to do things previously considered unthinkable. In other words,
the computer can indeed change lives. It can give new, varied and multifaceted
expression to personal identity and, not incidentally, increase and improve
self-confidence and self-esteem.
Consider a 15-year-old child
in a wheelchair, who is paralyzed from the neck down and without speech. How
is that child typically regarded by his peers? Perhaps even by his teachers?
What's truly expected of him? And given how he's probably seen by others, how
is he conditioned to see himself? Now we say to that child, You can raise
your eyebrows up and down. You have a movement you can control that enables
you to pass instructions along to the computer, so you can do word processing,
use a modem, and draw pictures. You can even acquire a voice. For the first
time in your life, you can say `here' when attendance is taken. You can demonstrate
what a whiz you are at baseball statistics. You can display your artistic talents.
You can become known, in other words, for who you know you are rather than for
what others have interpreted you to be.
Once we say
all this to a child, two things will happen. We will make him aware of astounding
new, but very real, possibilities. And we will probably cause this young individual
to ask a few questions, such as, How can I make those possibilities real
for me? As a matter of fact, these two things have been the primary concerns
of Apple's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation since its creation.
First, we
try to generate awareness of how the personal computer can provide new options
and opportunities for children and adults with disabilities. Second, we try
to fashion a comprehensive response capacity to deal with the inevitable questions
about actualizing these options and opportunities. This twofold agenda of ours
is written in the rhetoric of expectations, that is to say, where other people
may look at a person with a disability and see only the diagnosis, we see the
promise, usually a great deal of promise. Apple has chosen to regard the person
with a disability as someone who can, rather than someone who probably can't.
Together with his or her family members, friends, teachers and coworkers, we
approach the person with a disability eagerly and hopefully and we always offer
answers.
To understand
how Apple approached the area of product development, you have to understand
only one basic premise: this is not a world that was designed or built with
people with disabilities in mind. The natural world is difficult enough and
there are so many man-made obstacles: curbs, steps, doors that are too narrow,
and public phones that are too high. To make matters worse, a premium is put
on physical beauty, making it an ideal that everyone should strive for. And
if you don't have it, you belong in someone else's world, perhaps with people
who can't see enough or know enough to tell you, too, are imperfect. All of
which leads, of course, to those favorite worldwide pastimes: the stigmatization
and segregation of others and the creation of deviance yardsticks by which some
people can assure themselves they are normal. Nevertheless, particularly over
the last fifteen years or so, largely because disability activists have grown
tired of being told to just be patient and have demonstrated that
they can conduct sit-ins and chain themselves to fences just as effectively
as nondisabled protesters, the physical world has changed significantly. It's
a much easier terrain to navigate today than it was not so very long ago.
When the personal
computer entered the terrain, it promised people with disabilities access to
all kinds of new power and capabilities, provided that they could get access
to the machine in the first place. And that's the rub. Even with Macintosh,
the computer for the rest of us, was effectively sealed off, shutting
out people with disabilities. To them, ease of use was pretty much a hypocritical
concept. A two-inch curb is enough to prevent a motorized wheelchair from getting
up on the sidewalk. For that reason, we set ourselves the task of trying to
identify where we needed to build, in effect electronic curb cuts into the computer.
Suppose, for example, that you're working with a Macintosh and you make a mistake.
Your machine will beep at you, which is a terrific warning signal; however,
if you're deaf, the signal is irrelevant. Or consider the repeat key. Most good
typists report that it's a wonderful feature. Most good typists, however, don't
have poor gross or fine motor skills. If they did, they'd discover the frustration
that's caused by not being able to remove their fingers from the keys quickly
enough and, as a result, end up with rows of repeating characters filling up
the screen. There are also other obstacles, generally born of an attempt to
improve hardware or software technology. For example, most software programs
now and again require you to press down two or three keys simultaneously. This
is impossible if you happen to be able to type only by using a head wand or
mouth stick, or if you are able to use only one finger. Finally, the mouse is
obviously another major problem for the user with a disability.
Our challenge,
then, was to educate our own designers and engineers about the needs of those
users typically ignored in the generic design process. Incidentally, the reason
our designers and engineers don't ordinarily think about these users is not
because they're instinctively insensitive, but, like most people, they need
to be reminded now and then that people with disabilities make up a significant
fraction of the population. Several years ago, we brought together engineers
and designers and sat them down in front of an Apple IIe. You know this
thing inside and out, we reminded them. You made it. Then
we put an Apppleworks disk in front of them and said, You all know how
to use this. Finally, we asked them to put their hands in their pockets,
put a pencil in their mouth, and type a memo. As soon as they decided to take
the challenge seriously, the protests began. How about if I turn on the
machine first? one of the participants asked. It's going to be a
little hard to do with this pencil. Let me just put the disk in
the drive first, okay? asked another.
n a short
while, virtually on their own, the group identified a list of more than sixty
design features that might prove to be an obstacle for one type of disability
or another. Most of these barriers have, by now, been addressed. We've either
fixed them or found simple ways around them. Our ultimate goal is to establish,
within the product development group, a permanent filter that enables our designers
and engineers both to recognize that there are many users in the world who are
quite different from them and, therefore, to make our generic machine as accessible
as possible. Apple is concerned with these product design issues for many reasons.
In the first place, our engineers consider them to be important. They understand
that the products they build are intended for individuals. That is, after all,
Apple's design focus. Users with disabilities merely happened to strengthen
the focus on individuals. So when our product designers realized that they had
been ignoring this particular group of individuals, they were almost embarrassed.
It was obvious, as well, that they were intrigued by the challenge of inclusion.
More pragmatically, perhaps, they began to realize that conveniences that are
initially invented and implemented for people with disabilities very soon become
conveniences for people without disabilities as well. For example, many users
who work in desktop publishing or graphic design have commented to us on how
much easier it is for them to use mouse keys, rather than the mouse itself,
to move objects on the screen with precision. The fact that conveniences for
one turn out to be conveniences for all shouldn't be surprising. Consider the
simple curbcut on the sidewalk. It was put there specifically for people with
disabilities and now nine out of ten people who use it, of course have no disability.
We'll never be
completely finished with this design task. In fact, there never can be a generic
disability machine, one that meets the needs of all users with disabilities. Sometimes
features that are useful for one set of needs conflict with another set of needs.
Consider the curbcut again. Everyone praised it when it began to become popular
and legally required, that is, everyone except certain blind people whose guide
dogs had been carefully trained to stop at curbs and were now leading them into
busy streets. Nor is the problem for blind people limited just to real world curbcuts.
From an access point of view, this population represents our biggest product design
challenge by far. That challenge grows more urgent as the world of computers moves
ever closer to standardization on graphical interfaces and multiple windows, things
that must be seen in order to be used. At this point, we are actively engaged
in pursuing several avenues of response.