Or rather – “A cross-disciplinary approach to identifying requirements for an online health and social support system for people with lung cancer”. This was our submission to the ACM ASSETS 2012 Conference, but unfortunately was rejected – to some extent because it didn’t fit a limited -in my opinion- view of the definition of accessibility and its link with disability.
Last week I was talking about Deep Accessibility, and trying to define what it might be (who knows if I’m right). I said that in reality I thought it was pretty difficult to create a kind of Deep Accessibility, but that it was possible and necessary, and it was not just about disability but about all of us being able to access the information and functionality as we want or need. In a perfect example of how deep accessibility might be needed the UK Governments Research Councils UK (RCUK) swoop in with some requirements that makes my case.
The I think you will agree there are many problems with both the open access and closed access models of academic publishing. The closed access model forces the reader to pay (often within the region of US$25) per article, while the open model forces the author to pay (often within the region of US$1500) per article. The ACM seems to have found an excellent middle ground with their new Author-Izer service.
‘I find the sentiment within this book to be important in that the experience of the user, their enjoyment, their delight, and the deliciousness (the Umami) of the software or application are often forgotten or ignored in a headlong rush to implement accessibility, usability, and inclusion. Indeed this enjoyment aspect goes into my current thinking…