Internet Accessibility for People with Intellectual Disabilities | Part 2

This series of articles are part of a research study in the field of accessibility for people with intellectual disabilities. It is published for the purpose of sharing knowledge and to spot the importance of web accessibility for those people.

You can also read Part 1

Web Accessibility | Current Recommendations

There is a lack of research in helping people with intellectual disabilities to access the Internet; regardless, there are some recommendations and solutions introduced in this topic. Some of them are related to the websites, and some are related to the devices used to access the Internet. Additionally, some researchers recommend training and education as being essential in improving accessibility.

Therefore, we are going to cover mainly three types of recommendations: design (which includes website and smartphone applications, design and development), devices and training. These solutions as recommendations have some arguments as some researchers agree and disagree with due to their findings criteria.

1. Website and Interface Design

As discussed earlier, it is difficult to design a website to satisfy all the people. William (2013) states that a redesign with a cautious layout might help design a website that can be accessible by the people with intellectual disabilities. Most researchers ask for simplicity and clarity as that is the most appealing strategy to get people with intellectual disability to access the website (de Urturi Breton et al. 2012). Antener, Bolfing and Calabrese (2014) set nine user interfaces categories that are important for people with intellectual disabilities: “language/text, font design, content area design, navigation/orientation, interaction/forms, layout design, images/multimedia, help/assistance and privacy protection”. All these categories should have a guideline in how to implement them on new websites.

1.1 Content & Layout

Layout and content structure are the main elements in web design as they help increase the accessibility for both people with or without disabilities. The website should appeal the focus and the attention by creating a consistent content and layout to avoid any kind of distraction that might get the users confused (R?ssvoll & Solheim, 2011). So, in terms of website layout, R?ssvoll and Solheim (2011) also recommend avoiding flashing and scrolling elements as these two elements can confuse users (2011). Additionally, Rivas-Costa et al. (2014) recommend to reduce on-screen clutter reduction to keep the website clean and clear for the users. According to Freeman, Clare, Savitch, Royan, Litherland & Lindsay (2005), this requires arranging the website information to be designed in blocks to fit the size of a single screen (2005). Their idea is based on reducing memory problems which are faced by users with intellectual disabilities, especially with early-onset dementia (Morris as cited in Freeman et al. 2005). They suggest limiting the amount of information required to be displayed to a single screen page. Their objective is to make the content and menu visible to those types of users. However, according to Rocha et al. (2012), the menus should be visible and clear to be distinguished from the content body and their functionality will be highlighted. In addition, the menu should be located at the top in a horizontal position. In case the amount of the information is more than the size of one screen, the solution is to use hyperlinks such as “Next Page” and “Previous Page” (Freeman et al. 2005). They argue that there are some benefits out of this concept. First, the information would be less unnoticed by users because it reduces the cognitive load that can be created by heavy information. Second, the user will focus on using one way to access other information since there is no need to scroll down or up. The only way is to just click the visible links provided for each block of content. Third, this helps reduce the number of choices as the hyperlinks to other sections are visible and straightforward to get through the website (Freeman et al. 2005). Kennedy et al. (2009) support the idea of reducing the number of choices while accessing and browsing any website. They recommend that it is effective to have few choices in web page rather than having many choices.

In terms of content as it is another main element in web design, William (2013) suggests that the separation of text is important especially when it comes to hot spots. As stated by Rivas-Costa et al. (2014), it is recommended to use simple text and large fonts. In addition, the vocabulary level used in web pages should be close to the reading level of people with intellectual disabilities, as most of them experience reading disabilities (Wehmeyer, Smith, Palmer & Davies, 2004). Moreover, it is recommended to avoid “non-literal text such as allegories, metaphors, slang, and colloquialism and avoidance of technical expressions and expert talk” (R?ssvoll & Solheim, 2011). If in case it is a must to use the abbreviation, then it is even required to support it with explanation (R?ssvoll & Solheim, 2011). The text and paragraphs should be short and concise. Furthermore, they should be logically structured by using headings (R?ssvoll & Solheim, 2011). Freemanet al. (2005) mentioned that bullet points were causing confusion to the users that they tested the design on. However, R?ssvoll and Solheim suggest using lists as a way to keep things short and easy to read, but they should use numbered lists as they are much clear (Friedman & Bryen, 2007).

One of the essential activities that we use in our daily web browsing is searching for information either by search engines such as Google, or searching inside actual websites themselves – such as news websites. However, little research has been done about the accessibility of web search engine interfaces according to Kerkmann and Lewandowski (2012). They argue that there is a need to have the same technological functions in web design applied to the search engines such as assistive technologies. In addition, they recommend limiting the number of search results displayed per page to ten with high-ranked results as most users only look for the first few results upon retrieving information (Machill et al., Spink & Jansen as cited in Kerkmann & Lewandowski, 2012). Moreover, using labeling buttons and links for the results and make sure there are special, easy-to-read-texts for people with reading difficulties – especially those with learning disabilities. That means that there is a need for a solution to help those with writing difficulties. Accordingly, search engines should provide spelling checkers or the use of user word prediction to help such people (Friedman & Bryen, 2007)

1.2 Icons (menu and hyperlinks) & multimedia

Most researchers have highlighted that icons and multimedia such as images, graphics, videos, and animation as tools can help people with disabilities. Additionally, they mostly link these elements with the hyperlinks as a way to effectively access the information. For example, Wehmeyer et al. (2004) recommend using visual, audio and multi-media graphics as complementary formats. Furthermore, Feng et al. (2010) suggest using icons to present information as it will help people with intellectual disabilities access information easily as they learn and process with visuals. Feng et al. argue that the iconic language by using images to deliver information will help those people to understand directions, instructions and menus that might be inaccessible without using iconic language. It is preferred to use the symbols/icons, graphics/images, audio and video to reduce the linguistic problems (R?ssvoll & Solheim, 2011). R?ssvoll and Solheim (2011) argue that using iconic language will create the focus and attention easily because it is required for people with intellectual disabilities (2011).

In terms of using icons and images, they give a real possibility to access information on the Internet – especially for people with intellectual disabilities (Bunning, Kwiatkowska & Weldin, 2012). In their study, Rocha et al. (2012) found that using images are preferred, especially if they are cartoons. Also, they found that images were more effective than text especially with the people with reading difficulties. They noticed that the user would have a higher motivation and performance while using the Internet. They state that images help ease the understanding of information and increase interest in using the Internet. So, we can see that images make information more accessible. However, Kennedy et al. (2009) recommend delivering the information by using images with a supporting text either as a caption or an explanation to be also accessible for those who are facing visual impairments. In addition, de Urturi Breton et al. (2012) argues that there must be a critical and essential reason to use the images/icon/buttons to serve the purpose of their existence within a web page or mobile user interface (2012). This is also supported by Alan Dix et al. (as cited in Rocha et al. 2012). He mentions a number of issues to have valid use of icons such as color, size, and definition of action. However, there is a misunderstanding of what those icons represent as each user might understand them differently than each other (Feng et al. 2010). They argue that many icons used in software and games don’t have a clear meaning (2010). “Ideally, a good icon needs to be easily recognizable, guessable, and should carry a strong logical tie to the underlying concept” (Moyes and Jordan as cited in Feng, Lazar, Kumin & Ozok, 2010). In general, it seems that there is a need to have standard icons used in all different media including websites that would reduce the understanding conflict increase the accessibility easiness.

In addition to expressing iconic language using symbols and images, videos and audios are important in accessing the Internet and there are some recommendations in how to use them to achieve accessibility for the people with intellectual disabilities. Kennedy et al. (2009) argue that videos, animation and audio are the elements of movement and interaction that are used to create and increase interest in accessing the Internet. R?ssvoll and Solheim (2011) recommend that it is useful to avoid the long duration of timed media; examples are video and audio clips to avoid the loss of focus and attention. In addition, they set some guidelines in how to use the videos and audios. There should be options to access the information by either text and images/icons or text and audio/video. The video should be vocally supported to decrease the time of understanding the content that is displayed on the video clip; this is also supported by Friedman and Bryen (2007). In addition, the video that is supported with the voice should be presented in a sufficiently calm manner to make it easy for user to process the information. The video should be presented within the page itself instead of the whole screen to avoid any misunderstanding between the video and the web page, plus some users might not be able to go back to the web page if they are inside the whole screen (2011). Friedman and Bryen (2007) add some more recommendations in regards to this topic. They recommend using videos instead of the text, providing voice captions for text, supporting the audio files with script, avoiding background audio sound, and limiting the use of animation and flashing text.

Hyperlinks are sub-gates to access information, and many users sometimes get lost trying to find the right link to click. So, there are some recommendations in regards to this issue. William (2013) suggests that it is better to have larger menu images to ease the accessibility. In addition, he recommends that the text should have a larger separation so this would be differentiated from other texts as the same as the audio links. This creates what is called “hot spots” that are visible and they get users attention easily. Moreover, Rivas-Costa et al. (2014) argue that it is recommended to have larger areas to point or click. Freeman et al. (2005) argue that images accompanying hyperlinks are more effective. Rocha et al. (2012) also support this especially with the use of cartoonish icons.

 

1.3 Speech Tools (speech recognition and text-to-speech/Speech output)

Speech technology is one of the technologies that have a focus in term of development, either to be used by people with or without abilities. Neerincx, Cremers, Kessens, van Leeuwen and Truong (2009) state that speech technology can be a tool to help the people with intellectual disabilities understand the content in the right tone and produce information in the right tone. They add that speech technology will introduce the potential to enhance accessibility in using e-services. Especially so, since it is seen as an alternative technology for those people with intellectual disabilities who have difficulties in seeing icons, controlling mouse and keyboard, or reading texts. Rocha et al. (2012) also support using speech technology. They state that the speech technology is sufficient for those people who face difficulties in reading and writing. They give an example of initiating the audio: “the buttons should be programmed to initiate audio help when passing the mouse over the button, but when the mouse is moved away, it should be turned off, otherwise it can also confuse the participants”. Brown, McHugh, Standen, Evett, Shopland and Battersby (2011) have almost the same example of how audio help button should work. Feng et al. (2010) recommend speech recognition and speech output (text-to-speech) technology as way of interaction. For example, they state that one potential input alternative that shows both possibilities and challenges is speech recognition. It is considered an alternative for keyboard and mouse especially for people with Down syndrome. In addition, they state that the use of speech output is as a great solution as the same as the iconic language. Speech output especially the use of voice narration on web pages is also recommended by Kennedy et al. (2009). de Urturi Breton et al. (2012) go further by using voice output for menus to help those people with vision impairment (2012). However, Neerincx et al. (2009) suggest this technology should have settings to control it to work properly. For example, control the level of reading text or the sound level. Figure 1.1 gives an example of one of the speech tools used to help read the web page text and the user can control the settings and can track the reading sequence through the highlighted text.

Figure 1.1 Text-to-speech in www.specialolympics.org

1.4 Online Forms

Web forms shape a big part in web design interaction. However, there is less research focus on this part. There are two types of forms: regular forms that are used to obtain some information from the user and security login forms which require user name and password. Brown et al. (2011) recommend having one data entry per screen to reduce screen clutter and increase the focus of user. At least, Friedman and Bryen (2007) suggest the use of short forms for complex interaction. According to R?ssvoll and Solheim (2011), it would be great to highlight the active input field in case the screen has more than one data entry. R?ssvoll and Solheim set some guidelines in terms of filling a form. They suggest including instructions and an explanation of the form context to help users fill the form effectively without any kind of confusion. For example:

“reminders concerning the overall context (e.g., “You want to fill out a tax form”), and explanation of the particular context (“Therefore you have to login”)” (R?ssvoll & Solheim, 2011).

In terms of security login forms, Yan et al. (citation needed) suggests the use of mnemonic phrases for passwords as they are more suitable for people with intellectual disabilities than random passwords (as cited in Feng et al., 2010). However, these types of passwords are easy to attack in future (Feng et al., 2010). Moreover, the new techniques of random passwords are difficult to assign even for normal people as they require lower and upper case letters plus numbers. In addition, they are required to change after a certain period of time without using them again. Feng et al. suggest the use of graphical passwords because they “require recognition rather than recall and human memory for images far exceed that for verbal information” (2010). Although, graphical passwords still need more research as it has more failure rates. Figure 1.2 gives an example of how the passwords criteria are getting difficult and this snapshot is taken from the Apple website.

Figure 1.2 Passwords Criteria in Apple.com

2. Devices

Accessibility to the Internet can’t be available without a device or a set of devices such as screen, keyboard, mouse, speakers and microphone. Nowadays, the market supplies different types of devices so it is not limited to the use of desktop devices. Portable devices are increasing, especially touch-enabled devices such as smartphones and tablets (de Urturi Breton et al., 2012). De Urturi Breton et al. (2012) added that these devices help increase the number of applications for operating systems. Bunning, Kwiatkowska and Weldin (2012) also mention that this variety and availability of these devices help increase the access to computers and Internet such as sensitive screens, large keyboard, trackballs, head pointers, joysticks. However, those devices should be working properly with the websites as most of those website were found incompatible to those devices, especially the assistive ones (Reichow, Shefcyk, & Bruder, 2013). In addition to the incompatibility issues, those assistive devices are designed based on special needs so they have some disadvantages (Shih, 2014). Shih lists three disadvantages: their cost is higher than standard devices, obtaining and maintaining such devices is difficult and expensive, and their look and shape is different to the standard ones, so the willingness to use them might be low. These reasons might reduce the accessibility to computer and the Internet by those people with disabilities in general.

2.1 Portable Devices (Tablets/smartphone)

Portable devices have proved that there is a potential to increase the accessibility to the Internet for people with intellectual disabilities (Stephenson & Limbrick, 2013). Stephenson and Limbrick argue that hand-held devices can be used as a tool to teach those people, and to increase their independence on themselves. Regardless if those hand-held devices are old or new, those devices are accessed by people with intellectual disabilities either using the hard buttons or using stylus on touching screen. As the technology is more advanced, the current focus now on touch screen technology is getting attention, and that is noted in desktop screens where touch screen technology is embedded. So, touch screen is where “pointer movements are controlled directly on the display” (Rivas-Costa et al., 2014).

Stephenson and Limbrick (2013) state some advantages of portable devices with touch screens, as they mention that devices with touch screen are more accessible if their accessibility features compared against the principles of universal design. These advantages are: they are part of our current trend technology and it is not a shame to use them, they are portable which means that we can use them everywhere, they are almost not expensive as the manufacturers are competing in developing these devices, their batteries are long lasting (example, iPad and iPod), and many applications can be installed. However, Brown et al. (2011) argue that these devices with controlling panel embedded into the touch screen are not sufficient for people with intellectual disabilities. Those people face some difficulties in understanding where to point or touch to activate some functions. In addition, some touch gestures are hard to perform as it is shown in figure 1.3 (Interaction-Design.org, 2014). In addition, the user interface component (image, buttons and text boxes) of those touch screens should have a suitable and standard sizes to be easily seen and recognized by users; the keyboard display size is an example (de Urturi Breton et al., 2012).

Figure 1.3: Gesture difficulties. Source: Interaction-Design.org

2.2 Pointers

There is an essential need to use a pointer, especially in accessing the Internet as it is the tool used to navigate through a web page (Shih, 2014). There are many recommendations to increase the accessibility using the pointers such as trackpad, touchpad, joystick, pen tablet, and head-controlled mouse (Rivas-Costa et al., 2014). Shih (2014) recommends having mouse that is supported with a software driver special for people with disabilities.

“A software-based mouse driver solution is powerful because it enables a standard mouse to be adapted to the special needs of people with disabilities, and provides disabled people with choices in terms of being able to operate a computer using a standard mouse like people without disabilities” (Shih, 2014).

William (2013) suggests that it is recommended to include trackballs, rollerball and joysticks as a solution for those who have difficulties in using mouse. The use of stylus on touch screens is also recommended as an alternative pointer or the use of fingers instead (Stephenson & Limbrick, 2013). Rivas-Costa et al. (2014) suggest the use of eye-controlled mouse for the people with disabilities but they don’t include it as solution for people with intellectual disabilities. However, we believe that eye-controlled mouse is a valuable solution for such people (Brown et al., 2011). Brown et al. (2011) give an example of the Google’s eyes-free project which is designed to control Android devices by eyes-free communication. In addition, Samsung “EyeCan+ eye mouse” is another example which is in progress to be launched to help people with disabilities and this can be helpful for people with intellectual disabilities (Whitney, 2014).

2.3 Keyboards

A keyboard is a basic input device that is used to text messages or to enter commands to control the computer functions (Shih, 2014). Shih (2014) argues that the standard keyboard is not sufficient for some people with disabilities as it designed for the mainstream population. He suggests to use an on-screen keyboard. Some websites have this feature embedded, so there would be no need for a physical keyboard. Feng et al. (2010) argues that modifications are needed for current keyboards and that might enhance their effectiveness. Rivas-Costa et al. (2014) give examples of such modified keyboards: expanded keyboard, concept keyboards and special keyboards. Expanded keyboards are large keyboards based on color-coded keys to be seen easily; they are designed for people with motor difficulties. Concept keyboards “are used to express ideas through icons, allowing people with motor or speech difficulties to communicate”. Special keyboards are designed with a reduced number of keys to encode text based on a key combination code (Rivas-Costa et al., 2014).

 

Figure 1.4 some type of modified keyboards

3 Training

Insufficient education for people with intellectual disabilities is one of barriers of accessing the Internet (Antener, Bolfing & Calabrese, 2014). Chadwick, Wesson and Fullwood (2013) also support this as they argue that the lack of training, education and support are considered as barriers to access the Internet by people with intellectual disabilities. The availability of web design accessibility guidelines and assistive technologies will not be enough to increase the accessibility to the Internet. At least there is a need to have instructions in how to access and use the Internet. However, some websites and tablets/smartphones applications already have started providing some instructions in how to use their website or applications especially when it is at the first time of use.

Figure 1.5 Instructions in how to use YouTube mobile app

Again, is this still enough to motivate and teach people with intellectual disabilities to access the Internet easily (de Urturi Breton et al., 2012)? This means that there is a need to train those people in different stages (Feng et al., 2010). Feng et al. suggest that those people should be trained for specific skills for at least one to two years: mouse skills at ages of five or six, and typing and navigation at age eight or nine. Reichow et al. (2013) also add that the best period to have effective training is to be within purview of rehabilitation services. This also needs to be supported with more practices which indeed will require some reinforcement (Williams, 2013). However, the people with intellectual disabilities are motivated to learn and use the Internet because they are interested to use the technology (Rocha et al., 2012). Feng et al. (2010) recommend that those vendors who design that educational software should design them to meet this group of people needs especially educational applications (Stephenson & Limbrick, 2013). However, Antener et al. (2014) state that this training should be exactly specific and adapted to this group of people (2014).

As schools and purview of rehabilitation services, families play a huge role in training people with intellectual disabilities in how to access the Internet (Wehmeyer, Palmer, Davies & Stock, 2011). However, Wehmeyer et al. state that there is a need to train those families in how to support their children with disabilities to make sure that the technology is suitable and accessible for all people. As accessing the Internet is important, families should be aware and cautious in how to access accurate information especially those related to health care as it is important in the developing the abilities of their children (Reichow et al., 2013).

Virtual reality is also considered as one of the effective technologies used in teaching students and it has been used by leading institutes (Theng, 2011). “The use of virtual reality for educating persons with cognitive disabilities can overcome barriers of real-world training situations such as cost, safety and accessibility” (Cromby et al. as cited in Wehmeyer et al., 2004). People with intellectual disabilities are more engaged in learning with the use of virtual reality environments (Hall, Conboy-Hill & Taylor, 2011). Using virtual reality in classrooms might motivate students to interact and have a real experience in their own peace (Wehmeyer et al. 2004). Accordingly, as just one example, we can imagine that there is virtual reality game that teaches students how to access websites and will be limited to certain themes such as search engine websites, news websites, e-commerce websites and videos websites where user learn how to use them in a sense of game. Also, the use of Samsung Gear VR might be one of the tools that can help students accessing the Internet easily. 

You can also read Part 1 of this series of articles

Writter: Saeed Al Ghannami is a Certified Professional in Web Accessibility from University of South Australia and Media Access Australia. He was also a member of Brisbane Web Accessibility Meetup Group, Australia.

References:

Antener, G., Bolfing, A., & Calabrese, S. (2014). Easy to Surf-What Makes Websites Accessible to People with Intellectual and Learning Disabilities. InComputers Helping People with Special Needs (pp. 157-160). Springer International Publishing.

Benford, P., & Standen, P. (2009). The internet: a comfortable communication medium for people with Asperger syndrome (AS) and high functioning autism (HFA)?. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 3(2), 44-53.

Benyon, D. (2010). Designing interactive systems: People, activities, contexts, technologies. Pearson Education.

Brown, D. J., McHugh, D., Standen, P., Evett, L., Shopland, N., & Battersby, S. (2011). Designing location-based learning experiences for people with intellectual disabilities and additional sensory impairments. Computers & Education, 56(1), 11-20.

Bunning, K., Kwiatkowska, G., & Weldin, N. (2012). People with profound and multiple intellectual disabilities using symbols to control a computer: exploration of user engagement and supporter facilitation. Assistive Technology, 24(4), 259-270.

Chadwick, D., Wesson, C., & Fullwood, C. (2013). Internet access by people with intellectual disabilities: Inequalities and opportunities. Future Internet, 5(3), 376-397.

de Urturi Breton, Z. S., Hernández, F. J., Zorrilla, A. M., & Zapirain, B. G. (2012). Mobile communication for intellectually challenged people: a proposed set of requirements for interface design on touch screen devices. Communications in Mobile Computing, 1(1), 1-4.

Endeavour Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved February 16, 2015, from https://www.endeavour.com.au/Disability-services

Feng, J., Lazar, J., Kumin, L., & Ozok, A. (2010). Computer usage by children with down syndrome: Challenges and future research. ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing (TACCESS), 2(3), 13.

Freeman, E. D., Clare, L., Savitch, N., Royan, L., Litherland, R., & Lindsay, M. (2005). Improving website accessibility for people with early-stage dementia: a preliminary investigation. Aging & mental health, 9(5), 442-448.

Friedman, M. G., & Bryen, D. N. (2007). Web accessibility design recommendations for people with cognitive disabilities. Technology and Disability, 19(4), 205-212.

Hall, V., Conboy-Hill, S., & Taylor, D. (2011). Using virtual reality to provide health care information to people with intellectual disabilities: acceptability, usability, and potential utility. Journal of medical Internet research, 13(4).

Hansen, W. G. (1959). How Accessibility Shapes Land Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 25(2), 73–76. doi:10.1080/01944365908978307

Hoppestad, B. S. (2013). Current perspective regarding adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities accessing computer technology. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 8(3), 190-194.

Ingram, D. R. (1971). The concept of accessibility: A search for an operational form. Regional Studies, 5(2), 101–107. doi:10.1080/09595237100185131

Kerkmann, F., & Lewandowski, D. (2012). Accessibility of web search engines: Towards a deeper understanding of barriers for people with disabilities. Library Review, 61(8/9), 608-621.

Kennedy, H., Thomas, S., Evans, S., Sweeney, P., & Staples, P. (2009) Inclusive New Media Design: including people with intellectual disabilities in the web.

Neerincx, M. A., Cremers, A. H., Kessens, J. M., van Leeuwen, D. A., & Truong, K. P. (2009). Attuning speech-enabled interfaces to user and context for inclusive design: technology, methodology and practice. Universal Access in the Information Society, 8(2), 109-122.

Poslad, S. (2009). Ubiquitous computing smart devices, smart environments and smart interaction.

Reichow, B., Shefcyk, A., & Bruder, M. B. (2013). Quality comparison of websites related to developmental disabilities. Research in developmental disabilities, 34(10), 3077-3083.

Rivas-Costa, C., Anido-Rifón, L., Fernández-Iglesias, M. J., Gómez-Carballa, M. A., Valladares-Rodríguez, S., & Soto-Barreiros, R. (2014). An Accessible Platform for People With Disabilities. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30(6), 480-494.

Rocha, T., Bessa, M., Gon?alves, M., Cabral, L., Godinho, F., Peres, E., ... & Chalmers, A. (2012). The recognition of web pages' hyperlinks by people with intellectual disabilities: an evaluation study. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25(6), 542-552.

R?ssvoll, T. H., & Solheim, I. (2011). Design of cognitively accessible web pages. International Journal on Advances in Intelligent Systems, 3(3 and 4), 303-312.

Shih, C. H. (2014). Assisting people with multiple disabilities to improve computer typing efficiency through a mouse wheel and On-Screen Keyboard software. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(9), 2129-2136.

Stephenson, J., & Limbrick, L. (2013). A review of the use of touch-screen mobile devices by people with developmental disabilities. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 1-15.

Theng, L. B. (2011). Assistive and Augmentive Communication for the Disabled: Intelligent Technologies for Communication, Learning and Teaching. Information Science Reference.

W3C. (2014). Retrieved January 1, 2015, from https://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/accessibility

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Davies, D., & Stock, S. (2011). The Role of Technology Use by a Person with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities as a Family Support. Rivista di studi familiari, 2, 90-99.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Smith, S. J., Palmer, S. B., & Davies, D. K. (2004). Technology Use by Students with Intellectual Disabilities: An Overview. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19(4), 7-22.

Whitney, L. (2014, January 1). Samsung's 'eye mouse' enables users to control their computer with a glance - CNET. Retrieved January 1, 2014, from https://www.cnet.com/news/samsungs-eyecan-lets-your-eyes-control-your-computer/

Williams, P. (2013). Web site usability testing involving people with learning disabilities using only images and audio to access information. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(2), 142-151.