p84-shneiderman-May2000CACMf

I feel…an ardent desire to

see knowledge so disseminated

through the mass ofmankind that it

may…reach even the extremes

of society: beggars and kings.

—THOMAS JEFFERSON,

REPLY TO AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, 1808

84 May 2000/Vol. 43, No. 5 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM

COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM May 2000/Vol. 43, No. 5 85

UNIVERSAL

USABILITY

Pushing human-computer interaction research to empower every citizen.

In a fair society, all individuals would have equalopportunity to participate in, or benefit from, the useof computer resources regardless of race, sex, religion,age, disability, national origin or other such similarfactors.

—ACM Code of Ethics

The goal of universal access to information andcommunications services is compelling. Enthusias-tic networking innovators, business leaders, andgovernment policymakers see opportunities andbenefits from widespread usage. But even if theysucceed and the economies of scale bring low costs,computing researchers will still have much work todo. They will have to deal with the difficult ques-tion: How can information and communicationsservices be made usable for every citizen? Designingfor experienced frequent users is difficult enough,but designing for a broad audience of unskilledusers is a far greater challenge. Scaling up from alistserv for 100 software engineers to 100,000schoolteachers to 100,000,000 registered voters willrequire both inspiration and perspiration.

Designers of older technologies such as postal ser-vices, telephones, and television have reached thegoal of universal usability, but computing technologyis still too difficult to use for many people [9]. Onesurvey of 6,000 computer users found an average of

5.1 hours per week wasted trying to use computers.More time is wasted in front of computers than onhighways. The frustration and anxiety of users isgrowing, and the number of nonusers is still high.Low-cost hardware, software, and networking willbring in many new users, but interface and informa-tion design breakthroughs are necessary to achievehigher levels of success.

Universal usability can be defined as having morethan 90% of all households as successful users ofinformation and communications services at leastonce a week. A 1998 survey of U.S. householdsshows that 42% have computers and 26% use Inter-net-based email or other services [7]. The FrenchMinitel reaches 21% of residences, but the percent-age declines in poorer and less educated areas withinthe U.S. and in many countries around the world.Cost is an issue for many, but hardware limitations,the perceived usability difficulty, and lack of utilitydiscourages others. If countries are to meet the goalof universal usability, then researchers will have toaggressively address usability issues.

This article presents a research agenda based onthree challenges in attaining universal usability forWeb-based and other services:

• Technology variety: Supporting a broad rangeof hardware, software, and network access;

�Ben Shneiderman

FPG

• User diversity: Accommodating users with dif-ferent skills, knowledge, age, gender, disabilities,disabling conditions (mobility, sunlight, noise), literacy, culture, income, and so forth; and • Gaps in user knowledge: Bridging the gapbetween what users know and what they need toknow.

This list may not be complete but it addressesimportant issues that are insufficiently funded bycurrent initiatives. Research devoted to these chal-lenges will have a broad range of benefits for first-time, intermittent, and frequent users.

The term universal access is usually linked to theU.S. Communications Act of 1934 covering tele-phone, telegraph, and radio services. It sought toensure “adequate facilities at reasonable charges,”especially in rural areas and prevent “discriminationon the basis of race, color, religion, national origin,or sex.” The term universal access has been applied tocomputing services, but the greater complexity ofcomputing services means that access is not sufficientto ensure successful usage. Therefore universalusability has emerged as an important issue and atopic for computing research. The complexityemerges, in part, from high degree of interactivitythat is necessary for information exploration, com-mercial applications, and creative activities. TheInternet is compelling because of its support forinterpersonal communications and decentralized ini-tiatives: entrepreneurs can open businesses, journal-ists can start publications, and citizens can organizepolitical movements.

The increased pressure for universal access andusability is a happy byproduct of the growth of theInternet. Since services such as e-commerce, com-munication, education, health care, finance, andtravel are expanding and users are becoming depen-dent on them, there is a strong push to ensure thatthe widest possible audience can participate. Anotherstrong argument for universal usability comes fromthose who provide access to government information(such as the U.S. Library of Congress’ THOMASsystem to provide full texts of bills before the Con-gress) and the movement toward citizen services atfederal, state, and local levels. These services includetax information and filing, social security benefits,passports, voting, licensing, recreation and parks,police and fire departments. Another circle of sup-port includes employment agencies, training centers,parent-teacher associations, public interest groups,community services, and charitable organizations.

Critics of information technology abound, butoften they focus on the creation of an information-poor minority—or worse—Internet apartheid.Although the gap in Internet usage has been declin-ing between men and women, and between old andyoung, the gap is growing between rich and poor(Figure 1) and between well and poorly educated(Figure 2) [1, 7]. Less well documented is the contin-uing separation between cultural and racial groups,and the low rates of usage by disadvantaged userswhose unemployment, homelessness, poor health, orcognitive limitations raise further barriers [10].

There are other criticisms of information and com-munications systems that should be heard by tech-nology promoters. These include concerns about


Under$5,000

5,000–9,999

10,000–14,999

15,000–19,999

20,000–24,999

25,000–34,999

35,000–49,999

50,000–74,999

75,000+0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

50

45

55

60

65Percentage of U.S. Households

U.S. Rural Urban Central City

Figure 1. Internet use by income circa 1998:Percentage of U.S. households using the Internet

is extremely low for low-income citizens andrises dramatically for high-income citizens(Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital

Divide, July 1999, www.ntia.doc.gov).

Elementary Some H.S. H.S. Diplomaor GED

SomeCollege

B.A. or more0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

50

45

Percentage of U.S. Households

U.S. Rural Urban Central City

Figure 2. Internet use by education circa 1998:Percentage of U.S. households using the Internet

is extremely low for poorly educated citizens and rises dramatically for well-educated citizens

(Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide, July 1999, www.ntia.doc.gov).

breakdown of community social systems, alienation ofindividuals that leads to crime and violence, loss ofprivacy, expansion of bureaucracies, and inadequateattention to potential failures (such as loss ofpower/data). Open public discussion of these issuesby way of participatory design strategies and SocialImpact Statements might reduce negative and unan-ticipated side effects.

Technology enthusiasts can be proud of what hasbeen accomplished and by the number of successfulInternet users, but deeper insights will come fromunderstanding the problems of frustrated users, and of

those who have stayed away. Each step to broadenparticipation and reach these forgotten users by pro-viding useful and usable services will bring credit toour profession. A necessary first step is to formulate aresearch agenda.

Previous Research AgendasThere is growing attention to computing researchissues related to universal access and usability. Thethoughtful and focused Rand Corporation report onuniversal access to email [1] made it clear that “bet-ter understanding of the capabilities and limitationsof current user-computer interfaces is needed.” Sim-ilarly, when the National Academy ofScience/National Research Council convened apanel on every-citizen interfaces, it recommended“an aggressive research program, funded by govern-ment and private sources, that examines both thehuman performance side of interfaces and the inter-face technologies, current and potential” [3].

During a well-financed, but controversial study of48 Pittsburgh-area homes, 133 participants receivedcomputers, free network connections, training, andassistance with problems. Even in such optimal con-ditions a central limitation was the difficulties thatusers experienced with the services [5]. Theresearchers wrote “even the easiest-to-use computersand applications pose significant barriers to the use ofonline services…even with help and our simplified

procedure, HomeNet participants had trouble con-necting to the Internet.”

As attention to the issue of universal access andusability has grown, frameworks for analyzing prob-lems have appeared. Clement and Shade [2] suggestseven layers of analysis: carriage facilities, devices, soft-ware tools, content services, service/access provision,literacy/social facilitation, and governance. They seeusability as a problem, especially for users with dis-abilities, and encourage consideration of the widerange of users and needs. Universal usability is some-times tied to meeting the needs of users who are dis-

abled or work in disabling conditions. This importantresearch direction is likely to benefit all users. Theadaptability needed for users with diverse physical,visual, auditory, or cognitive disabilities is likely tobenefit users with differing preferences, tasks, hard-ware, and so forth [6]. Plasticity of the interface andpresentation independence of the contents both con-tribute to universal usability.

A Universal Usability Research AgendaThis research agenda focuses on three universalusability challenges: technology variety, user diver-sity, and gaps in user knowledge. Skeptics cautionthat accommodating low-end technology, low-abil-ity citizens, and low-skilled users will result in a low-est common denominator system that will be lessuseful to most users. This dark scenario, called“dumbing down,” is a reasonable fear, but the expe-rience of this author supports a brighter outcome.

I believe that accommodating a broader spectrumof usage situations forces researchers to consider awider range of designs and often leads to innovationsthat benefit all users. For example, Web browsers,unlike word processors, reformat text to match thewidth of the window. This accommodates users withsmall displays (narrower than 640 pixels), and benefitsusers with larger displays (wider than 1,024 pixels),who can view more of a Web page with less scrolling.Accommodating narrower (less than 400 pixels) or


Accommodating a broader spectrum of usage situations forces

researchers to consider a wider range of designs and often leads to

innovations that benefit all users.

wider (more than 1,200 pixels) displays presents thekind of challenge that may push designers to developnew ideas. For example, they could consider reducingfont and image sizes for small displays, moving to amulticolumn format for large displays, exploring pag-ing strategies (instead of scrolling), and developingoverviews.

A second skeptics’ caution, called the innovationrestriction scenario, is that attempts to accommodatethe low end (technology, ability, or skill) will con-strain innovations for the high end. This is again areasonable caution, but if designers are aware of thisconcern the dangers seem avoidable. A basic HTMLWeb page accommodates low-end users, and sophis-ticated user interfaces using Java applets or Shock-wave plug-ins can be added for users with advancedhardware and software, plus fast network connec-tions. New technologies can often be provided as anadd-on or plug-in, rather than a replacement. As newtechnologies becomes perfected and widely accepted,they become the new standard. Layered approacheshave been successful in the past and they are com-pelling for accommodating a wide range of users.They are easy to implement when planned inadvance, but often difficult to retrofit.

Advocates who promote accommodation of dis-abled users often describe the curb-cut—a scoopedout piece of sidewalk to allow wheelchair users to crossstreets. Adding curb-cuts after the curbs have beenbuilt is expensive, but building them in advancereduces costs because less material is needed. The ben-efits extend to baby carriage pushers, delivery serviceworkers, bicyclists, and travelers with roller bags.Computer-related accommodations that benefit manyusers are power switches in the front of computers,adjustable keyboards, and user control over audio vol-

ume, screen brightness, and monitor position.Automobile designers have long understood the

benefits of accommodating a wide range of users.They feature adjustable seats, steering wheels, mir-rors, and lighting levels as standard equipment andoffer optional equipment for those who need addi-tional flexibility.

Reaching a broad audience is more than a democ-ratic ideal; it makes good business sense. The case fornetwork externalities, the concept that all users bene-fit from expanded participation, has been maderepeatedly. Facilitating access and improving usabilityexpands markets and increases participation ofdiverse users whose contributions may be valuable tomany. Broadening participation is not only an issueof reducing costs for new equipment. As the numberof users grows, the capacity to rapidly replace a major-ity of equipment declines, so strategies that accom-modate a wide range of equipment will become evenmore in demand. With these concerns in mind, athree-part research agenda for universal usabilitymay provoke innovations for all users.

Technology variety requires supporting a broadrange of hardware, software, and network access.The first challenge (Figure 3) is to deal with the paceof technology change and the variety of equipmentthat users employ. The stabilizing forces of standardhardware, operating systems, network protocols, fileformats, and user interfaces are undermined by therapid pace of technological change. The technologi-cal innovators delight in novelty and improved fea-tures. They see competitive advantage to advanceddesigns, but these changes disrupt efforts to broadenaudiences and markets. Since limiting progress isusually an unsatisfactory solution, an appealingstrategy is to make information content, online ser-vices, entertainment, and user interfaces more mal-leable or adaptable.

The range of processor speeds in use varies by a fac-tor of 1,000 or more. Moore’s Law, which states thatprocessor speeds double every 18 months, means thatafter 10 years the speed of the newest processors are100 times faster. Designers who wish to take advan-tage of new technologies risk excluding users witholder machines. Similar changes for RAM and harddisk space also inhibit current designers who wish toreach a wide audience. Other hardware improve-ments such as increased screen size and improvedinput devices also threaten to limit access. Researchon accommodating varying processor speed, RAM,hard disk, screen size, and input devices could helpcope with this challenge. How could users run thesame calendar program on a handheld device, a lap-top, and a wall-sized display?


Figure 3. The first challenge is to cope with the technology variety by supporting

the 100-to-1 range of hardware, software and network access speeds.

Technology variety: Support broad range ofhardware, software, and network access

286 486 Pentium

100 to 1 range in processor speeds

devices Laptops Large Desktop or Wall Display30,000 480,000 3,840,000 pixels

100 to 1 range in screen sizes

9.6K 56K 10,000Kbps

100 to 1 range in network bandwidth

Input: Keyboard, speech,...Output: visual, auditory,...Conversion

Device Independence

CompatibilityFile conversionMultiple platforms

Software Versions

Handheld

Another research topic is software to convert inter-faces and information across media or devices. Forusers who wish to get Web page contents read to themover the telephone or for blind users, there are alreadysome services (www.conversa.com), but improve-ments are needed to speed delivery and extract infor-mation appropriately [11]. Accommodating assortedinput devices by a universal bus would allow third-party developers to create specialized and innovativedevices for users with disabilities or special needs [8].

Software changes are a second concern. As applica-tions programs mature and operating systems evolve,users of current software may find their programsbecome obsolete because newer versions fail to pre-serve file format compatibility. Some changes are nec-essary to support new features, but research is neededon modular designs that promote evolution whileensuring compatibility and bidirectional file conver-sion. The Java movement is a step in the right direc-tion, since it proposes to support platformindependence, but its struggles indicate the difficultyof the problems.

Network access variety is a third problem. Someusers will continue to use slower speed (14.4Kbps)dialup modems while others will use 10Mbps cablemodems. This 100-fold speedup requires carefulplanning to accommodate. Since many Web pagescontain large graphics, providing user control of bytecounts would be advantageous. Most browsers allowusers to inhibit graphics, but more flexible strategiesare needed. Users should be able to select informa-tion-bearing graphics only or reduced byte countgraphics, and invoke procedures on the server to com-press the image from 300K to 80K or to 20K.

User diversity involves accommodating userswith different skills, knowledge, age, gender, dis-abilities, disabling conditions (mobility, sunlight,noise), literacy, culture, income, and so forth. A sec-ond challenge (Figure 4) to broadening participationis the diversity of users [4]. Since skill levels withcomputing vary greatly, search engines provide abasic and advanced dialogue box for query formula-tion. Because knowledge levels in an applicationdomain vary greatly, some sites provide two or moreversions. For example, the National Cancer Instituteprovides introductory cancer information forpatients and details for physicians. Since childrendiffer from adults in their needs, NASA provides achildren’s section on its space mission pages. Univer-sities often segment their sites for applicants, currentstudents, or alumni, but then provide links to sharedresources of mutual interest. Segmentation creationand management tools would help developers wish-ing to pursue this strategy.

Similar segmenting strategies can be employed toaccommodate users with poor reading skills or userswho require other natural languages. While there aresome services to automatically convert Web pages tomultiple languages (www.altavista.com andwww.scn.org/spanish.html, for example) the qualityof human translations is much better. Research ontools to facilitate preparation and updating of Websites in multiple languages would be helpful. Forexample, if an e-commerce site maintained multiplelanguage versions of a product catalog, then it wouldbe useful to have a tool that facilitated simultaneouschanges to a product price (possibly in different cur-rencies), name (possibly in different character sets), ordescription (possibly tuned to regional variations). A

more difficult problem comes in trying to accommo-date users with a wide range of incomes, cultures, orreligions. Imagine trying to prepare multiple music,food, or clothing catalogs that were tuned to localneeds by emphasizing highly desired products andeliminating offensive items. E-commerce sites that aresuccessful in these strategies are likely to be morewidely used.

Another set of issues deals with the wide range ofdisabilities, or differential capabilities of users. Manysystems allow partially sighted users, especially elderlyusers, to increase the font size or contrast in docu-ments, but they rarely allow users to improve read-ability in control panels, help messages, or dialogueboxes. Blind users will be more active users of infor-mation and communications services if they canreceive documents by speech generation or in Braille,and provide input by voice or their customized inter-faces. Physically disabled users will eagerly use servicesif they can connect their customized interfaces to


Figure 4. The second challenge is toaccommodate the enormous diversity of users.

Computer newbie to hackerSkills

Domain novice to expertKnowledge

Impoverished towealthy

Income

Fluent to illiterateMultiple languages

Literacy

AgeGenderRaceEthnicityNational Origin

Visual, auditory, motoric, cognitive

Disabilities

Mobility, injury, noise, sunlightDisabling conditions

Western, Eastern, developing...Culture

Introvert vs. extravertThinking vs. feelingRisk aversionLocus of controlPlanful vs. playful

Personality

User diversity: Accommodate different users

standard graphical user interfaces, even though theymay work at a much slower pace. Cognitivelyimpaired users with mild learning disabilities,dyslexia, poor memory, and other special needs couldalso be accommodated with modest changes toimprove layouts, control vocabulary, and limit short-term memory demands.

Expert and frequent users also have special needs.Enabling customization that speeds high-volumeusers, macros to support repeated operations, andinclusion of special-purpose devices could benefitmany. Research on high-end users could improveinterfaces for all users.

Finally, appropriate services for a broader range ofusers need to be developed, tested, and refined. Cor-porate knowledge workers are the primary audiencefor many contemporary software projects, so theinterface and information needs of unemployed,homemakers, disabled, or migrant workers, usuallyget less attention. This has been an appropriate busi-ness decision till now, but as the market broadens andkey societal services are provided electronically, theforgotten users must be accommodated. For example,Microsoft Word provides templates for marketingplans and corporate reports, but every-citizen inter-faces might help with job applications, babysittingcooperatives, or letters to city hall. And what aboutfirst aid, 911 emergency services, crime reporting, orpoison control on the Web?

The growth of online support communities, med-ical first-aid guides, neighborhood-improvementcouncils, and parent-teacher associations will be accel-erated as improved interface and information designsare developed. Community-oriented plans for pre-venting drug or alcohol abuse, domestic violence, or

crime could also benefit from research on interfaceand information design. Such research is especiallyimportant for government Web sites, since theirdesigners are moving toward providing basic servicessuch as driver registration, business licenses, munici-pal services, tax filing, and eventually voting. Respectfor the differing needs of users will do much to attractthem to using advanced technologies.

Gaps in user knowledge addresses bridging thegap between what users know and what they needto know. A third challenge (Figure 5) is to bridge thegap between what users know and what they need toknow. Many users don’t know how to begin, what tochose in dialogue boxes, how to handle systemcrashes, or what to do about viruses. Strategiesinclude fade-able scaffolding, training wheels, andjust-in-time training. Competing theories includeminimalism, constructivist, and social construction,but their efficacy needs study.

Users approach new software tools with diverseskills and multiple intelligences. Some users need onlya few minutes of orientation to understand the novel-ties and begin to use new tools successfully. Othersneed more time to acquire knowledge about theobjects and actions in the application domain and theuser interface. Research goals include validated guid-ance on lucid instructions, error prevention, graphicaloverviews, effective tutorials for novices, constructivehelp for intermittent users, and compact presenta-tions for experts. Other researchable topics are easilyreversible actions and detailed history keeping forreview and consultation with peers and mentors. Reli-able evidence from systematic logging of usage andobservations of users would help greatly. Research onsoftware tools and architectures would enable devel-opers to provide higher quality universal interfaces.

A fundamental interface and information designresearch problem is how to support evolutionarylearning. Proposals for layered designs, progressivedisclosure, and comprehensible user-controlledoptions need to be implemented and tested. Couldusers begin with an interface that contained onlybasic features (say 5% of the full system) and becomeexperts at this level within a few minutes? Gamedesigners have created clever introductions that grace-fully present new features as users acquire skill. Couldsimilar techniques apply to the numerous features inmodern word processors, email handlers, and Webbrowsers? A good beginning has been made with con-cepts such as layered implementations and the mini-mal manual [12], but scaling up and broaderapplication will require further research.

Finally, the provision of online help by way ofemail, telephone, video conferencing, and shared


Figure 5. The third challenge is to bridge the gapbetween what users know and what they need

to know. Many strategies have been proposed butthere are few evaluations and validated guidelines.

Gaps in User Knowledge: Bridge the gap betweenwhat users know and what they need to know

Design Layered Level-structured Task-oriented

NewsgroupsOnline communitiesChat rooms

Community

Introductory tutorialsGetting started manualsCue cardsWalkthroughs/DemosMinimalist/Active

Online Learning (evolutionary, phased)

Context sensitiveTables of contents,Indexes, keyword search,FAQs, answer gardens

Online help

Online manuals, paperAudio, video,Live lecture,Peer training, Personal trainer

Supplements

EmailPhoneHelp desks

Customer service

Fade-able scaffoldingTraining wheelsMinimalist

Training

screens needs further research and design improve-ments. There is appealing evidence that social mecha-nisms among peers such as newsgroups, onlinecommunities, and FAQs are helpful, but there is littleresearch that distinguishes among the best and worstof these. Best practices, validated analyses, guidelines,and theories could all be improved through extensiveresearch.

ConclusionAttaining the benefits of universal access to Web-based and other information, communications,entertainment, and government services will requirea more intense commitment to lowering costs, cou-pled with human-computer interaction research andusability engineering. A starting point for researchwould be a program that addressed as least the uni-versal usability challenges of technology variety, userdiversity, and gaps in user knowledge.

Research could pave the way for broad citizen par-ticipation in quality online services and novel social,economic, and political programs. America Onlineclaims “So easy to use, no wonder it’s number one.”They recognize the centrality of usability, and havedone well to make their services usable by many.Their success is admirable in reaching a fraction of thepotential audience, but much work remains to achievethe goal of universal usability.

References1. Anderson, R.H., Bikson, T., Law, S.A., and Mitchell, B.M. Universal

access to e-mail: Feasibility and societal implications. The Rand Corporation,1995; Santa Monica; CA, www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR650/

2. Clement, A. and Shade, L.R. The Access Rainbow: Conceptualizinguniversal access to the information/ communications infrastructure. InGurstein, M., Ed., Community Informatics: Enabling Communities withInformation and Communications Technologies. Idea Publishing, Her-shey, PA, 1999.

3. Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB), NationalResearch Council. More than Screen Deep: Toward an Every-Citizen

Interface to the Nation’s Information Infrastructure. National AcademyPress, Washington, DC, 1997.

4. Kobsa, A. and Stephanidis, C. Adaptable and adaptive informationaccess for all users, including disabled and elderly people. In Proceedingsof the 2nd Workshop on Adaptive Hypertext and Hypermedia, ACMHYPERTEXT’98 (1998); wwwis.win.tue.nl/ah98/Kobsa.html

5. Kraut, R., Scherlis, W., Mukhopadhyay, T., Manning, J. and Kiesler,S. The HomeNet field trial of residential Internet services. Commun.ACM 39, 12 (Dec. 1996), 55–63.

6. Laux, L.F., McNally, P.R., Paciello, M.G., Vanderheiden, G.C.Designing the World Wide Web for people with disabilities: A usercentered design approach. In Proceedings of the Assets ‘96 Conference onAssistive Technologies, ACM, NY, (1996), 94–101.

7. National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S.Dept. of Commerce. Falling Through the Net: Defining the DigitalDivide. Washington, DC (July 1999); www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/digitaldivide/

8. Perry, J., Macken, E., Scott, N., and McKinley, J. L. Disability, inabil-ity and cyberspace. In Human Values and the Design of Technology. B.Friedman, Ed., CSLI Publications and Cambridge University Press,1997, 65–89.

9. Shneiderman, B. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for EffectiveHuman-Computer Interaction, Third Edition. Addison Wesley, Read-ing, MA, 1998.

10. Silver, D. Margins in the wires: Looking for race, gender, and sexualityin the Blacksburg Electronic Village. In B. Kolko, L. Nakamura, and G.Rodman, Eds., Race in Cyberspace: Politics, Identity, and Cyberspace.Routledge, London, 1999.

11. Thomas, J.C., Basson, S., and Gardner-Bonneau, D. Universal designand assistive technology. In D. Gardner-Bonneau, Ed., Human Factorsand Voice Interactive Systems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston,1999.

12. van der Meij, H. and Carroll, J.M. Principles and heuristics in design-ing minimalist instruction. Technical Communication (Second Quarter1995), 243–261.

Ben Shneiderman ([email protected]) is a professor in the Depart-ment of Computer Science, Director of the Human-Computer Interac-tion Laboratory, and Member of the Institutes for Advanced ComputerStudies and for Systems Research, at the University of Maryland atCollege Park.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or class-room use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed forprofit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation onthe first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute tolists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.

© 2000 ACM 0002-0782/00/0500 $5.00

c


Web Resources for Universal Usability

The forthcoming ACM SIGCHI (Special InterestGroup on Computer Human Interaction;

www.acm.org/sigchi) Research Agenda focuses ondesign of useful, usable and universal user inter-faces. SIGCHI has also promoted diversity with itsoutreach efforts to seniors, kids, teachers, andinternational groups. The ACM’s SIGCAPH (SpecialInterest Group on Computers and the PhysicallyHandicapped; www.acm.org/sigcaph) has long pro-moted accessibility for disabled users and itsASSETS series of conference proceedings(www.acm.org/sigcaph/assets) provides usefulguidance. The European conferences on User Inter-

faces for All (www.ics.forth.gr/proj/at-hci/UI4ALL/index.html) also deal with interfacedesign strategies. The Web Accessibility Initiative(www.w3.org/WAI) of the World Wide Web Consor-tium has a guidelines document with 14 thoughtfulcontent design items to support disabled users andSun Microsystems offers Java-specific recommen-dations (www.sun.com/access/). North CarolinaState University’s Center for Universal Design listsseven key principles (www.design.ncsu.edu/cud/),and the University of Wisconsin’s TRACE Centeroffers links to many resources(trace.wisc.edu/world). c

Documents

p84-shneiderman-May2000CACMf