Universal Design (1E8)

A Critical Review and

Application of NDA IT
Accessibility Guidelines:

Public Access Terminals

Tom Eastaway
Student No. 07485476
INTRODUCTION

In this essay I will be critically reviewing the NDA IT accessibility guidelines for public
access terminals and suggesting possible improvements that could be made. The
guidelines state that:
“Public access terminals include (but are not limited to):
 ATMs
 Information kiosks
 Ticket vending machines
 Information displays
 Point-of-sale customer card payment systems
 Card door entry systems”
Many people find it necessary to use public access terminals several times a week,
particularly in cities or when travelling by public transport. These guidelines exist to
ensure that as many users as possible can benefit from the services which they provide,
though because disabilities are so wide-ranging in form and severity, no guidelines could
ensure that all users are catered for by automated terminals.

REVIEW OF GUIDELINES

The NDA IT accessibility guidelines for public access terminals are split into two
sections based on priority. Priority one deals with access for “most people with impaired
mobility, vision, hearing, cognition and language understanding”. Priority two is
concerned with catering for those with cognitive impairments and multiple disabilities, as
well as making access terminals easier to use in general. Making terminals easier to use is
very unspecific (and for some people ease of use is purely a matter what terminals they
have used in the past, and whether the systems are familiar), and therefore in that case
perhaps the use of the word ‘priority’ is justified. However, in the context of catering for
people with cognitive impairments and multiple disabilities the term may be misleading
for designers of public access terminals. It seems to indicate that some aspects of
universal design are less important, and if designing to accommodate them is too difficult
they can be disregarded. This could be avoided by not splitting the guidelines into two
sections, or by splitting them into a much greater number of sections labeled as ‘Section’
and not ‘Priority’.

1.1 Ensure that all operable parts are reachable by people of all heights and people
sitting in a wheelchair or buggy
The first-hand accounts of problems encountered by people with disabilities are an
extremely useful tool for drawing the attention of designers to problems that they might
not have otherwise taken into account. The issue of providing knee clearance is an
interesting one, since very few public access terminals that I can remember seeing
incorporate this. It should perhaps be given more prominence in the section since it
appears to have been ignored in most designs.
1.2 Ensure that displays are within sight of people of all heights and people sitting in
a wheelchair or buggy
This section deals with visibility of the screen from various angles and again has useful
links to the UN anthropometrical data. Near the end of the section it mentions that “In
extreme cases, you may consider using height adjustable or rotatable displays or dual-
display systems”. In my opinion ‘extreme cases’ gives the wrong impression to designers.
Adjustable displays are very simple to implement – for example personal computers have
come with adjustable screens as standard for many years.
It is surprising that this section does not mention using anti-reflective coatings on screens
to reduce glare for users. Anti-glare or ‘glossy display’ technology has been around since
the 1930s [2] and may be cheaper to implement in some cases than adjustable or dual
displays. Anti-glare displays are not mentioned until section 1.8 which deals with users
with restricted or no vision.

1.3 Ensure that controls are adequately sized and sufficiently spaced to be operated
by people with limited dexterity
This section mentions that keys should have tactilely discernable borders and should be
well spaced. However it should also suggest the use of concave keys, which are helpful to
those with poor dexterity or hand tremor. It should also mention that, where relevant,
function keys should be clearly separated from numeric keys, and should be colour-
coded: red for Cancel; yellow for Clear; green for Enter [3].

1.4 Ensure that operation requires minimal strength, grip and wrist twisting
Pressing is mentioned as the favoured method of using controls, and very little force
should be required. Touch screens should perhaps be suggested in this section of the
guidelines since they require very little force and often simplify controls. There is a
blatant error in the sentence “Allow for a maximum pressing force of 5lbf”. This sentence
uses the out-dated engineering habit of referring to forces in terms of a mass, as well as
neglecting SI units. In a modern set of guidelines published in Ireland force should be
referred to in Newtons only.

1.5 Ensure that the terminal can be operated using only one hand
There are many possible causes of users only being able to use one hand. One which is
preventable is a wheelchair user having to hold onto one wheel while using a terminal to
maintain stability. This is highlighted in a user account, but the section should refer
directly to section 1.14 which deals with operating terminals from a stable position.

1.11 If using cards, ensure that the card can be inserted into the card reader in its
correct orientation without requiring vision
This section deals mainly with plastic cards such as bank cards, and neglects to mention
tickets, such as DART tickets, which have to be inserted into machines to allow users to
pass in or out of stations. They are regular in shape and are not embossed, making it
difficult for visually impaired users to insert them the right way round at the first attempt
(in fact many unimpaired users still have difficulty with such cards). Recommending a
CEN 1332 compliant notch on the trailing edge of tickets would help to eliminate the
problem.
1.12 If using biometric identification, provide an alternative access security
mechanism for users who do not possess the required biological characteristic
This section is very brief and could probably benefit from accounts from users who have
encountered problems in the past, as well as information under the Directions and
Techniques heading. The section should also mention that if iris or voice recognition are
used, either the microphone or eye scanner should be at an adjustable height or there
should be more than one of each to enable users of all heights to use them.

2.2 Provide a way for the user to cancel the whole transaction at any point and
retrieve any items they have inserted
The guidelines in this section could be improved with a few details regarding the design
of cancel buttons. Ideally the cancel button should be in a prominent position, at the most
comfortable height possible for all users. It should be red and for extra aid to those with
visual impairments an embossed X on the button would be useful. Under the How you
could check for this heading, the guidelines could mention that designers could simulate
reduced height using the methods described in section 1.1, and that user testing could be
employed to ensure that visually impaired users could find the button easily.

2.5 Do not require users to remember a fixed supplied PIN

This section mentions that users should always be able to change their PIN to something
more memorable. This process should be made as easy as possible. Ideally, when an item
such as a bank card is inserted into a machine, the very first list of options should include
‘PIN change’, but many systems require users to go through options with names such as
‘Account Settings’, which may make PIN changing more difficult for users who have
difficulty reading.

Other sections of the guidelines appear to me to be comprehensive and provide designers

with enough information to design access terminals which can be used by the vast
majority of users. However, links or at least references to the following relevant standards
(obtained from the RNIB’s Public Access Terminals web page; see bibliography
reference #3) should be included at the end of the guidelines to make designers aware of
legal requirements:

 AS 3769 Automatic Teller Machines: User Access

 B480-02 (2002) Customer Service for People with Disabilities.
 B65.1.1-01 (2001) Barrier-free design for Automated Banking Machines.
 B651-95 (1995) Barrier-free design.
 BS 6571 (1999) Vehicle Parking Control Equipment. This relates to the distance
off the ground and from the vehicle of the barrier controlled parking equipment.
 EG 201 472 (2000) Human Factors (HF); Usability evaluation for the design of
telecommunication systems, services and terminals.
 EG 202 116 (2002) Human Factors (HF); Guidelines for ICT products and
services: Design for all
 EN 726 Requirements for IC cards and terminals for telecommunications use.
 ETR 165 (1995) Recommendations for a tactile identifier on machine readable
cards for telecommunications terminals.
 ETR 170 (1995) Human Factors (HF); Generic User control procedures for
telecommunication terminals and services.
 ETR 334 (1996) The implications of ageing for the design of telephone terminals.
 ETS 138 (1998) Public terminals for the elderly.
 ISO 7165-5 Wheelchairs - Part 5 Determination of overall dimensions, mass and
turning space
 TC TR 007 (1996) Human Factors (HF); User requirements of enhanced terminals
for public use.
REDESIGNING A LUAS TICKET VENDING MACHINE

Flaws with the Current Design

There are several accessibility design flaws in vending machines for the Luas, which
could be easily redesigned.
Screen glare is a problem with the machines. The display is angled upwards and even
average-height users encounter glare on some machines. The problem is exacerbated
when the screen is viewed from a low angle as it would be in the case of a wheelchair
user.
There are no buttons on the machines – they are operated entirely by touch screen,
therefore they do not cater for visually impaired users. There is an option for enabling
spoken instructions, but to turn them on one must touch the bottom left corner of the
screen. A visually impaired user would have difficulty finding this. The instructions
themselves still require the ability to read the screen – the initial vocal instruction
provides no further assistance than “Select ticket type”.

Figure 1. Touch screen with glare

Tickets are dispensed behind a flap which is around 0.5m off the ground – meaning
people of just about any height have to reach down a long way to reach them. There is a
spoken instruction which says “Please take your ticket and your change” but there is a
slight delay between the instruction and the actual delivery of the ticket and change.

Figure 2. Low-level ticket/change dispenser

The credit / debit card slot in the machine is poorly designed for people with poor
dexterity or vision, since it is not funneled to ease location of the card.

Figure 3. Poorly designed credit / debit card slot

Time is an issue with the machines – slower users may not be able to use the machines. I
myself have been caught out by the machine timing out just trying to find the correct
change.

Changes to Improve Accessibility

The easiest way to improve the design of the screen would be to use a glossy display.
However, an adjustable screen would also be simple to implement. If I were designing
the machine I would create a test sample of each and see which was more effective under
various lighting conditions and if both were acceptably effective I would make a decision
based on cost.
The touch-screen system needs to be supplemented by extra buttons or replaced
completely. Four supplementary buttons would suffice (Up/Down selection buttons, an
Enter button and a Cancel button), to allow visually impaired users and other users who
have difficulty using the touch screen to cycle through options and select them, when
accompanied by a more comprehensive audio instruction system.
The card slot should be funneled – this is easily rectifiable. The coin slot could also
benefit from being more funneled.
Tickets and change should be dispensed at around a metre above ground level, below
which there should be knee room so that wheelchair users can face the machine while
they use it and not have to turn to reach the controls.
 Figure 4. Redesigned Luas ticket vending machine
The time it takes for the program to reset should be increased to accommodate slower
users. I would estimate a minimum of 20 seconds should be allowed but tests would have
to be carried out to be certain of a figure.

CONCLUSIONS

Writing this essay and reading the NDA and RNIB guidelines on public access terminal
design have highlighted the complexity of designing a system suitable for such a wide
variety of users. I found the NDA guidelines very comprehensive and they certainly made
me think hard to find what was missing or what could be improved upon.
Knowing what I do now, I see that Luas ticket machines are actually not very
accommodating towards people with disabilities, which had not previously occurred to
me. This has caused me to view public technology in a new light and recently helped me
to notice various other flaws in public access terminals, as well as in accessibility for
buildings and in other fields of design. I believe what I have learned here will be very
valuable in my future career as I intend to wok in the field of research and development
as a mechanical engineer.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. The National Disability Authority, Guidelines for Public Access Terminals

Accessibility [Online]
Available at: http://accessit.nda.ie/it-accessibility-guidelines/public-access-terminals/
guidelines/printable [accessed 31 March 2008]

2. Wikipedia, Glossy Display [Online] (Updated 22 February 2008)

Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossy_display [accessed 31 March 2008]

3. RNIB Scientific Research Unit, Public access terminals [Online] (Updated 19

February 2008)
Available at: http://www.tiresias.org/guidelines/pats.htm (accessed 31 March 2008)