Content uploaded by Jutta Treviranus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jutta Treviranus on Apr 12, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 1
DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-4.1
LRF: Future Challenge of ADA
RRF: J. Treviranus
The Future Challenge of the ADA: Shaping Humanity’s Transformation
Jutta Treviranus
<1>Abstract
Through a meta-review of global trends and the contextualization of the 25th anniversary of the
Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the author proposes that a change of strategy and focus
is required to achieve the ADA’s aspirations. The argument is made that the disability community
and inclusion effort must participate in a leadership role in shaping the current transformation of
society, including three broad systemic factors: (a) design and development, (b) research and
evidence, and (c) education and learning, to avert widening disparity and address risks that affect
all members of the global society.
Key Words: inclusive design, accessibility, disparity, inclusion, diversity, ADA
The positive impact of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) over the past 25 years is
undeniable, both for people with disabilities and for society as a whole (Blanck, 2016a, this
issue). However, to date, the disability community and ADA efforts have been largely responsive
to barriers and breaches of inclusion, equity, and accessibility commitments. For the next 25
years and beyond, this will not be enough. To realize the aspirations of the ADA, we need to do
more than catch up, patch, and fix or the gap will continuously widen for persons with
disabilities (Blanck, 2015a; Vanderheiden, 2006).
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 2
Few people would disagree that we are experiencing accelerated change in all areas of
life spurred on by disruptive technologies and global connectivity (Tapscott & Williams, 2008).
With greater speed and magnitude come expanded opportunities and risks. Early choices
propagate at a far faster rate, making it more difficult to fix once momentum is gained (Castells,
2011). It’s relatively easy to redirect a slow moving buggy; with a fast moving truck you want to
help navigate the vehicle; if you are on the sidelines you will be left behind, if not run over. As a
community invested in inclusion for people with cognitive and other disabilities, we need
meaningful, pervasive participation in architecting the changes affecting our society. To help
guide the direction of our society as a whole means we need expertise, foresight, and influence to
participate proactively, not reactively (Blanck, 2014). Full participation in steering these fast-
moving technical disruptions that are transforming our lives will set society’s course toward
optimizing opportunities and minimizing threats for all (Treviranus, 2014b).
It also is not enough to trust that the vanguard will keep everyone in mind, even when
inclusion is a commitment. Accessibility, for example, is a precarious value; almost everyone
agrees it is important, but often it is the first thing that is compromised when there is a time or
budget crunch or when other priorities arise (Harper & Yesilada, 2008). Moving forward, ADA-
related legislation and regulations should be the rearguard, primarily to catch the laggards. Our
focus and attention should be on strategic systemic intervention to guide the inevitable
transformation of at least three foundational areas: (a) systems and processes of design,
development, and production; (b) research methods and means of gathering evidence; and (c)
systems and processes of learning and education.
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 3
<1>The Inclusion Imperative
We have no choice but to broaden our focus. Given this evolving transformative era, we have
neither the power nor the speed to create meaningful impact through current strategies,
particularly when there is a significant increase in disability through aging and better survival
rates. We must go beyond treating the outbreak of barriers, and beyond preventing new barriers
for people with disabilities. To achieve meaningful impact we have a time-limited opportunity to
trigger inclusive health, education, employment, prosperity; and well-being for everyone, by
helping to steer our society toward practices that sustain inclusion and self-determination by
default (Blanck & Martinis, 2015).
This is a tall order, but evidence is mounting that by promoting inclusive design and the
conditions for inclusive participation we are doing just that (Blanck, 2014, 2015b). Accessibility
may be equated with designing for diversity and respecting human difference (Inclusive Design
Research Centre, 2013). The benefits of diversity are well documented and acknowledged in
fields such as physics, biology and economics (Jones, 2012; Samuelson, 1967). Complexity
scholars and researchers warn against the risks of monocultures, disparity, and lack of inclusion
(Page, 2010). Researchers in societal well-being and health show that inclusive and equal
societies are healthier, wealthier, wiser, and more innovative (Page, 2007; Wilkinson & Pickett,
2009). This assertion has been supported by prominent economists and the World Economic
forum (Piketty, 2014).
From a global perspective, perhaps the most important challenge our civilization faces is
inclusion, and our greatest redemptive asset is diversity (Treviranus, 2014b). There is a
realization that increased connectivity leads to an entanglement of even the smallest choices.
Whether we label phenomena as ripple effects, tipping points, or butterfly effects, we are
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 4
becoming aware of the larger, systemic impact of our words and actions (Downes, 2009;
Gladwell, 2006).
With greater connectivity and mobility comes complexity in every domain (Goldin &
Mariathasan, 2014; Page, 2010). As we become collectively conscious of the risks of health
disparity, the environmental impact of careless waste, the corrosive effects of economic disparity,
and terror that arises out of social fragmentation, our civilization will thrive or fail based on the
capacity to be inclusive (World Economic Forum, 2015). With respect to our collective futures
moving forward, we seem to have three general paths we can take in our approach to diversity
and inclusion:
1. Protecting the lucky few. We can choose to support disparity. A lucky few will hold the
majority of wealth and opportunity. As the few must increasingly protect their wealth and
security from the excluded, this choice comes with escalating security costs and
associated constraints on our freedom and self-determination. Competition also escalates
as the choice of who is privileged and who is not has huge stakes. This means that the
standard for who belongs to the privileged will become more narrowly defined, leading to
risky monocultures that are more vulnerable to threats, leading to greater instability as
“superpowers” vie for dominance.
2. Charity. A seemingly more humane approach is the charity model. In this model, the
included support those who are excluded through charity, public social services, and
episodic acts of private munificence. As these charity measures are influenced by
political forces, as well as by appeals to empathy or pity, those that are excluded must
persuade the included that their needs are great, if not the greatest. This intensifies the
power imbalance as the excluded are encouraged to become more dependent on the
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 5
included. It results in divisiveness among the excluded as there is competition for limited
charity resources and attention. Charitable impulses wax and wane and become less
sensitive to stimuli, meaning that the appeals must escalate in intensity and continuously
refresh to avoid “charity fatigue” (Moeller, 2002).
3. Inclusive participation. A third choice is to recognize the value of diversity and design
society such that everyone can contribute their personal optimum. This requires moving
away from mass design to designing for diversity and enabling participation from the full
spectrum of members. It requires a proactive and integrated approach to inclusive
design, thinking about inclusion before decisions are made and conventions set, and
assuming that exclusion is never an option in any planning.
The disability inclusion movement is positioned to help guide the choice between dystopian
scenarios of ever-rising disparity necessitating mounting security, equally untenable
disempowerment and dependency of one part of our society on another, or meaningful inclusion,
participation, and multi-perspectival knowledge, leading to innovation and evolving, dynamic
resiliency. Unlike other groups, the disability community permeates economic strata, geographic
boundaries, cultural, ethnic, and racial divides. With global connectivity, this can be leveraged
into a significant influence. The disability community represents the largest global minority and
is personally relevant to all decision makers (UNESCO, 2013).
<1>Systems and Processes of Design, Development, and Production
The first process that we must address is design and development. In this transformative era,
design of systems, tools, practices, processes, and services is a powerful tool. Our complexity
and connectedness means that each design decision we make regarding emerging technology and
practices takes us in the direction of greater inclusion or greater exclusion and each design
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 6
choice propagates, making it more difficult to turn back or redirect. While conventions are fluid,
we have a critical challenge and a time-limited opportunity to support inclusion of human
diversity in design, or risk lock-in of conventions that cause new barriers (Lanier, 2010).
The dynamics of connected and entangled global networks means that emerging technical
practices introduce more than opportunities and challenges, but also powerful vicious and
virtuous cycles. Addressing any factor in the system can cause an amplified and escalating
reaction. As a positive example: Enabling an individual with a disability with experience in using
screen readers to participate in IT development in a company has impact on all technologies that
are generated by that team (Blanck, 2014). If what is developed is a development toolkit, the
impact will be evident in all future software created using the toolkit (Harper & Yesilada, 2008).
As a negative example: Although digital systems and networks have transformative qualities that
can address barriers, they can also accentuate exclusionary predigital tendencies. Search engine
optimization strategies, social media “likes,” “most popular” ranking, and recommender
functions create an overwhelming popularity echo-chamber on the net. The popular becomes
more popular while the unpopular disappears (Treviranus & Hockema, 2009). Similarly, network
trading and global markets can amplify the echo-chamber of wealth. Market and consumer
analytics causes a proliferation of popular or trending products (Sunstein, 2009).
Because “Big Data” strategies replicate the flaws and biases of traditional research
methods, evidence-based governance based on Big Data and data analytics can create an echo-
chamber of political and policy influence (Treviranus, 2014a). Those that have get more, those
that don’t have experience a winnowing of choices, resources, and influence. Global networks
can exacerbate this, but designed correctly they also hold the key to addressing these predigital
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 7
conundrums. If present at the decision-making table, the informed disability community can help
steer innovation toward more inclusive approaches before conventions are locked in.
Current systems of commercialization, that prioritize mass production, large consumer
bases, and competition to lead in the sale of high-demand products, are not well-suited to
designing for diversity (Becker, 1971). Mass produced products and pricing dependent on
economies of scale marginalize unique demands. Products that cannot leverage economies of
scale are expensive and variation in production is costly. This is an acceptable condition if the
special products represent discretionary goods and services, but this comparative pricing
becomes highly problematic if most of a consumer’s essential needs are special, such as housing,
transportation, clothing, tools, computer interfaces, services, educational supports and other
products and services of daily living, as is the case for many people with disabilities. What is the
impact on spending power for the majority of people with disabilities and their families who live
below the poverty line and are struggling to “make ends meet”?
Could the solution be to seek economies of scale in specialized products such as assistive
technologies by addressing market fragmentation and consolidating demand through the
globalization of products for people with disabilities? Will the increased incidence of disability
brought about by aging increase demand to sustain a separate assistive technology industry and
drive competitive pricing?
There are two issues with this potential scenario: the nature of the disability market and
the challenge of interoperability with quickly moving digital systems. First, people with
disabilities are the outliers in the market. Their needs are extremely diverse. Disability is
accompanied by a lessoning of the degrees of freedom to adapt to a suboptimal design. Seeking
economies of scale may work for pseudo-majority requirements within the disability market, but
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 8
if the assistive technology market is to reach the margins, each product must become more
specific and diverse thereby confounding any economies of scale. Exploiting economies of scale
in this market only intensifies the disparity of the consumers who are left stranded at the edges.
Second, although certain relatively static manufactured products, such as canes, may find
economies of scale, in the digital realm assistive technologies must maintain foolproof and
dependable interoperability with mainstream products, as they are intended to bridge the gap
between standard interfaces and the requirements of individuals with disabilities. It is
challenging to remain interoperable with software and hardware systems that are updated almost
daily, whose provenance is hard to determine because of the distributed nature of software and
network development, and whose specifications for interoperability may be trade secrets. The
reliability and currency of computer access systems for people with disabilities is tenuous at best
and dependent on agile adjustments in response to mainstream products. Mass production to
achieve economies of scale lessens flexibility and responsiveness within the supply chain,
making the task even more challenging. This conundrum cannot be addressed through a separate
or segregated approach such as an assistive technology industry leveraging economies of scale.
What is needed is an integrated approach if we are to address disparity. This implies changing the
mainstream approach to design, development, and production.
The relative diversity of individuals with disabilities also presents a challenge to the
design of accessibility regulations that govern the digital domain (Treviranus et al. 2010).
Enforcement and compliance evaluation requires testable criteria (Blanck, 2014). It is
impractical to establish and enforce the relative criteria needed by the diverse group of people
who face barriers to access. This compels regulators to create fixed homogeneous criteria in a
quickly changing, highly heterogeneous domain. This leads to the perception that accessibility is
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 9
antithetical to innovation, aesthetics, and diversification, which could not be further from the
truth. The resulting conundrum is intensified by the slow pace of legislative change. One area
that is most affected is the area most in need of proactive intervention: digital inclusion or
“eQuality” (Blanck, 2014; Treviranus, et al., 2010).
Fortunately, we are at the cusp of a disruption of the conventions of design, production,
and marketing. First, there is a nascent culture shift in design. Mainstream designers are
recognizing the innovation that occurs when designing, not for the typical or average, but for the
edges (Brown, 2009). The standard tools of design such as personas, use cases, and scenarios are
moving from capturing the typical or average consumer to capturing “extreme users.” These
design firms recognize that by addressing the needs of the margins you encompass the needs of
the majority (Donovan, 2013). It is unclear whether this trend will permeate the industry but
even companies such as Nike are dabbling with this notional shift (Kassenbrock, 2015).
More significantly, emerging technologies such as affordable or consumer-grade 3D
printers and accompanying 3D capture and editing technologies help to significantly reduce the
barrier to personalized manufacturing. Systems are emerging that enable the additive printing of
everything from clothes to food. It is predicted that it will be possible for every household to
have the equivalent of a mini-factory to download 3D designs, make necessary modifications and
produce personalized variants of required products (Lipson & Kurman, 2013). This trend is
bolstered by a drive for greater environmental sustainability (reduced shipping costs, reduced
waste through production overruns), the ability to create more complex and intricate designs, and
the agility and flexibility this brings to industrial design.
Added to this is the Internet of Things (IoT) instrumentation of our environment
(Vermesan & Friess, 2013). These add “smarts” and connected monitoring and sensing to
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 10
everything in our environment from fridges to surveillance drones, to our vehicles and city
streets, and to personal devices that monitor fitness and health. The associated risks are ominous,
including the loss of privacy, and the vulnerability to fraud and misuse, especially for people
who are most vulnerable to cognitive barriers, increasing the imperative for people with
disabilities to be active in navigating this new territory (Blanck, 2015b; G3ICT, n.d.). The
opportunities are also undeniable, these innovations will increase the specificity of our ‘smarts’
regarding optimizing our environment and tools to meet our unique needs. These technologies
will likely reduce the necessity to estimate, clump, and cluster around a majority or norm and
reveal the full spectrum of diverse human characteristics. Combined with 3D printing (or 4D
printing which adds the temporal element), we can produce technologies that intelligently
respond to our changing needs (e.g., supports that adjust to our patterns of movement, medicine
that automatically calibrates to our vital signs; Self-Assembly Lab, Stratasys Ltd., & Autodesk,
Inc., n.d.).
Associated with these disruptions are changes in the dynamics of markets. We are
moving from an economy that is driven by mass marketing of products (and the associated waste
and debt these encourage) to a market where the consumer plays an active role (Rifkin, 2014).
Whether it is prosumerism, multisided platforms such as the Android platform or eBay, or
platforms for sharing economies such as Uber and AirB&B, economies are becoming more
demand driven. This leads to a diversification of demand as consumers are free to express their
individual needs and preferences (Rodriguez & Blanck, 2016, this issue; Treviranus, 2014b),
which may lead to a diversification of supply and production. A global accessibility effort
referred to as AccessForAll or the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure and encompassing
projects such as Cloud4All, Prosperity4All, Floe (Flexible Learning for Open Education),
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 11
AccessForAll Ontario, Preferences for Global Access (Inclusive Design Research Centre, 2006,
2010), and others are capitalizing on digital adaptability, network-enabled collective production,
utilities that enable the discovery and refinement of awareness of personal requirements, and
global platforms that connect consumers at the margins with producers and suppliers at the
margins, to deliver one-size-fits-one products to consumers with disabilities (Lewis &
Treviranus, 2013; Vanderheiden et al., 2013).
Despite these opportunities presented by technologies, it may still be the case that
individuals with disabilities and their supporters are relegated to the role of consumer or passive
recipient rather than active participant in decision making, design, and production; thereby
blocking a full virtuous cycle. Unless the modes of production or authoring themselves are
inclusively designed, people with disabilities cannot participate as authors, designers, and
producers (Treviranus, 2008). Component libraries, game development kits, mobile app
authoring environments, and “next-generation” software development toolkits democratize the
design and development of software and mobile applications. Maker systems and hardware kits
enable the creative exploration of the Internet of Things (Morin, 2013). Although some of these
systems are designed to be usable by children, work still needs to be done to make them
accessible (Phys.org, 2015).
Similarly, organizations and governance bodies that design and develop standards,
specifications, and policies that guide these emerging systems include entrenched conventions
and customs that prevent inclusive participation. Whether it is meetings in inaccessible venues,
prohibitive expenses of membership and travel, or inaccessible collaboration tools or
information, the disability perspective is excluded to the detriment of people with disabilities, but
also to society as a whole. The Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium,
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 12
a notable exception, recognizes participation of the disability and accessibility community in the
W3C from an early stage has played a large part in the success of the Web (Treviranus, 2014b).
<2>Research and Evidence
As our traditional systems of design, development and production are not constructed to take
human diversity into account, neither are our systems of research and evidence. These
foundational underpinnings of our civilization are critical to the inclusion of people with
disabilities as they influence all aspects of our life, whether by guiding our individual and
collective decisions, determining public spending, or informing our health care. The human
proclivity toward confirming expected patterns and predictability, and the aversion to change and
dissonance, are embedded in our tools of objectivity. Statistical analysis is designed to detect
patterns, eliminate noise, and find the norm in a data set. It is used to corral diversity and tame
complexity. Although these may be necessities to ease human understanding and to guide human
decision making, these have taken precedence over recognizing diversity and have created
increasingly risky blind spots and exclusions (Taleb, 2012).
This is especially risky for persons with unique conditions, unusual circumstances, or
individuals who are in uncommon contexts (Armstrong & Deadman, 2008). Increasingly, in a
connected and highly interdependent world, the important questions involve complex, shifting
and evolving factors that defy generalization. Traditional research generally tests a hypothesis
with a representative sub-group and then applies the findings to the group as a whole. Outliers
such as people with severe disabilities are so individually unique and divergent that it is usually
impossible to find a representative group or sub-group (Treviranus, 2014a). However, this
extends well beyond people with disabilities; everyone finds themselves as an outlier in some set
of measures and experiences the resultant mismatch.
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 13
In many realms (e.g., education), for individuals at the margins empirically-based
“solutions” pose a problem, solutions can be a set-up for failure–or another set of expectations
not met. The better empirical support for the solution, the more policy makers, service providers
or educators are invested in the success of the solution, and the greater the compunction to
dismiss or distance exceptions by pointing to deficits in the non-conformant
client/employee/student rather than the solution, and the more devastating the failure. As with all
choices, there is an institutional propensity to rationalize choices once they are made (Agócs,
1997).
This is not to deny or downplay the importance of finding commonality. When exploring
the area of human diversity in any depth, we bump up against the interplay of diversity and
commonality. However, commonality is frequently imposed or assumed (e.g., all women..., most
blacks…, most teenagers..., most seniors…). This type of commonality when applied to the
individual instance at the edges is often found to be superficial, transient, or false.
However, there is an uncanny human phenomenon that occurs when very diverse people
come together in an environment where diversity is accepted–they often find a deeper and more
meaningful commonality. The same phenomenon of finding genuine commonality by supporting
diversity can be observed in our research and co-design methods (Treviranus, 2014a). The
mismatch of sanctioned traditional research methodology with the domain of disability also puts
academic and research efforts addressing disability at a disadvantage, whether it is in matters of
academic publishing or research funding, which privilege statistical power and high-impact
measures. This means that people with disabilities are not only excluded from mainstream
research, but also there is an inherent implicit bias against research or publishing that studies this
highly heterogeneous group.
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 14
As in design, development, and production the domain of research and evidence is being
disrupted by technical innovations and associated new practices. These traditional approaches to
research have garnered powerful reinforcements with the rise of Big Data, data analytics, and the
associated zeal for evidence in large numbers. By seeking only innovative simple solutions with
high impact we discount complexity, inevitable change, and, more critically: diversity. However,
new data analysis tools, monitors, sensors, and Internet of Things smarts also provide the
opportunity for a fundamental shift toward personalization. This has the potential to enable each
individual to act as their own representative research sample or subject. We can become
investigative scientists to discover what works best for us as unique individuals. Even temporal
and contextual generalizations can be avoided with contextually aware data gathering. This is
referred to as small and thick data and the limits are being explored by groups such as the
“quantifiable self” movement (Estrin, 2014).
The Internet of Things will cast a pervasive net to capture all the data associated with our
daily lives. We are in the process of determining how to add meaning to this vast new glut of
information. How will this transform our notions of privacy, how do we ensure this information
is not misused, how can we leverage this new source to not only make machines smarter but to
make ourselves smarter? This awareness must encompass the full range of human difference. It
seems natural to seek simple answers, clean conclusions, or “cut and dried” advice. It appeals to
our sense of order, our aesthetics, and even our intuitions about truth. However, in the human
realm, conclusions and solutions inevitably come with exclusions and compromises (unless they
are vacuously all-encompassing). At the margins there are no easy answers, quick fixes, average
or typical patterns. It is a complex, messy, and unstable territory. But the margins are where we
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 15
find the greatest diversity and creativity. The messy, complex, and unstable breed resourcefulness
and innovation (Gladwell, 2008; Meyer & Rose, 2005).
<2>Learning and Education
Last, one of the most important levers for long lasting systemic change is our education system.
Paradoxically, our institutions of formal learning are the most resistant to change and most
discriminatory with respect to human diversity. Diversity is seen as an issue to be addressed, not
an important outcome to be fostered. This does damage to learners, squanders human potential,
and puts our society at risk (Meyer & Rose, 2005).
The ADA, and associated legislation (e.g., IDEA), aim to ensure that diverse learners can
participate in education (Zirkel, 1993). There is broad acceptance that education is a right not a
privilege and there is also a general recognition that societal and individual well-being,
democracy, security, and prosperity benefit from education for all members of our communities.
However, despite a changing economic reality our education systems continue to be architected
to foster conformity, minimize diversity, normalize, and standardize learning outcomes.
It no longer serves us, in today’s economy and connected society, to produce graduates
that are replaceable copies of each other. Beyond contested foundational “building blocks” we
don’t all need identical skills and knowledge. In our connected communities we can depend on
others (if not on ever more capable machines and computers), to fill in anything we haven’t
adequately learned or have forgotten from our schooling. In our social and crowded society, we
need to go beyond tolerating or respecting diversity, we need to prize and learn to orchestrate and
create synergy out of our diversities. We should shift focus from how we are each better or worse
in the same skills, to the unique, evolving set of talents, passions, and competencies we each
bring to tasks at hand.
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 16
To produce the diversity and inclusion required by our current reality represents more
than a renovation of education; the implications are broad and deep. We need to stress
collaboration over competition while maintaining optimal challenge to spur learning. We can’t
depend on mass approaches, we need to personalize learning at a deeper level–not just the pace,
path, and mode but also the goals of education. It is the disability community that has pioneered
this new model of learning.
<1>Conclusion
As a global disability community, foundational systemic strategies do not seem to be on our
roadmap and among our longer term aspirations. Under the ADA presently, primary focus
remains (and rightly so) on defending rights and battling barriers. However, we are uniquely
qualified to help to create a world where such defense is obviated by a more fundamental
change. Over the next 25 years of the ADA, we must leverage disruptive opportunities to
contribute our insights and deep knowledge of human variability. This is needed to guide the
inevitable transformation of society and to disrupt old habits of exclusion.
<1>References
Agócs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917–931.
Armstrong, P., & Deadman, J. (2008). Women’s Health: Intersections of Policy, Research, and
Practice. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Becker, G. (1971). The economics of discrimination. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Blanck, P. (2014). eQuality: The struggle for web accessibility by persons with cognitive
disabilities. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 17
Blanck, P. (2015a). ADA at 25 and people with cognitive disabilities: From voice to action.
Inclusion, 3(2), 46-54.
Blanck, P. (2015b). eQuality: Web accessibility and people with cognitive disabilities. Inclusion,
3(2), 75-91.
Blanck, P. (2016a, this issue). ADA at 25 and persons with cognitive disabilities: From action to
inclusion. Inclusion.
Blanck, P. (2016b, this issue). The first “A” in the ADA: And 25 more “A”s towards equality for
Americans With Disabilities. Inclusion.
Blanck, P., & Martinis, J. (2015). “The right to make choices”: National Resource Center for
Supported Decision-Making. Inclusion, 3(1), 24-33.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society: The information age: Economy, society, and
culture. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Digital Impact Group. (2010). The economic impact of digital exclusion. Philadelphia, PA:
Econsult Corporation.
Donovon R. (2012). The global economics of disability. Return on Disability report by Fifth
Quadrant Analytics. http://www.returnondisability.com/pdf-
docs/The_Global_Economics_of_Disability_2012.pdf
Donovan, R. (2013). What is the disability market? Retrieved from
http://returnondisability.com/disability-market/
Downes, L. (2009). The laws of disruption: Harnessing the new forces that govern life and
business in the digital age. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 18
Estrin, D. (2014). Small data, where n = me. Commun. ACM, 57, (4), 32-34. doi:
10.1145/2580944
G3ICT, & AT&T (2015). Internet of Things: New promises for persons with disabilities.
Retrieved from http://g3ict.org/resource_center/whitepaper_internet_of_things
Gladwell, M. (2006). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. Boston,
MA: Little, Brown.
Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company.
GPII (2011). About the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure. Retrieved from http://gpii.net
Goldin, I., & Mariathasan, M. (2014). The butterfly defect: How globalization creates systemic
risks, and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harper, S., & Yesilada, Y. (2008). Web accessibility: A foundation for research. Hamburg,
Germany: Springer Science & Business Media.
Inclusive Design Research Centre. (2006). Fluid Project. Retrieved from http://fluidproject.org
Inclusive Design Research Centre. (2010). FLOE:flexible learning for open education. Retrieved
from http://floeproject.org
Inclusive Design Research Centre. (2013). What is inclusive design? Retrieved from
http://idrc.ocad.ca/index.php/about-the-idrc/49-resources/online-resources/articles-and-
papers/443-whatisinclusivedesign
Jones, S. (2012). The language of the genes. London, UK: HarperCollins.
Kassenbrock, R. (2015). Nike’s latest shoe is for people with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://themighty.com/2015/07/nikes-latest-shoe-design-is-for-people-with-disabilities2/
Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget: A manifesto. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 19
Lewis, C., & Treviranus, J. (2013). Public policy and the global public inclusive infrastructure
project. Interactions, 20(5): 62-66.
Lipson, H., & Kurman, M. (2013). Fabricated: The new world of 3D printing. Indianapolis, IN:
John Wiley & Sons.
Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2005). The future is in the margins: The role of technology and
disability in educational reform. In D. H. Rose, A. Meyer, & C. Hitchcock (Eds.), The
universally designed classroom: Accessible curriculum and digital technologies (pp. 13-
35). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Moeller, S. D. (2002). Compassion fatigue: How the media sell disease, famine, war and death.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Morin, B. (2013). What is the maker movement and why should you care? Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brit-morin/what-is-the-maker-movemen_b_3201977.html
Morris, M., Rodriguez, C., & Blanck, P. (2016, this issue). ABLE Accounts: A down payment on
freedom, Inclusion.
Page, S. E. (2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms,
schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
Page, S. E. (2010). Diversity and complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Phys.org. (2015). How makerspaces can be more accessible to people with disabilities. Retrieved
from http://phys.org/news/2015-08-makerspaces-accessible-people-disabilities.html
Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative
commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 20
Samuelson, P. (1967). General Proof that Diversification Pays. Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, 2(March), 1-13.
Self-Assembly Lab, Stratasys Ltd., & Autodesk, Inc. (n.d.). 4D printing: multi-material shape
change. Retrieved from http://www.selfassemblylab.net/4DPrinting.php
Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Taleb, N. N. (2012). Antifragile: Things that gain from disorder. New York, NY: Random House
Publishing Group.
Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. D. (2008). Wikinomics: How mass collaboration changes
everything. New York, NY: Penguin.
Treviranus, J. (2008). Authoring Tools. In Y. Yesilada & S. Harper (Eds.), Web accessibility: A
foundation for research (pp. 127-138). Hamburg, Germany: Springer.
Treviranus, J. (2010). The value of imperfection: The Wabi-Sabi Principle in Aesthetics and
Learning. Open ED 2010 Proceedings. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Oberta de
Catalunya, Open University of the Netherlands, & Brigham Young University. Retrieved
from: http://hdl.handle.net/10609/4869
Treviranus, J. (2014a). The value of the statistically insignificant. Educause Review,
January/February, 46-47
Treviranus, J. (2014b). Leveraging the web as a platform for economic inclusion. Behavioral
Sciences and the Law, 32(1), 94-103. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2105
Treviranus, J., Fichten, C. S., Stolarick, K., & Kemper, A. (2010). Leveraging inclusion and
diversity as Canada’s digital advantage. Retrieved from Inclusive Design Research
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 21
Centre, OCAD University website: http://idrc.ocadu.ca/resources/idrc-online/49-articles-
and-papers/453-leveraging-inclusion-and-diversity-as-canadas-digital-advantage
Treviranus, J., & Hockema, S. (2009). The value of the unpopular: Counteracting the popularity
echo-chamber on the web, In Science and Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH), 2009
IEEE Toronto International Conference. (pp. 603-608). IEEE. doi: 10.1109/TIC-
STH.2009.5444430
UNESCO. (2013). UNESCO Global Report: Opening new avenues for empowerment: ICTs to
access information and knowledge for persons with disabilities. Paris, France: Author.
Vanderheiden, G. (2006). Over the horizon: Potential impact of emerging trends in information
and communication Technology on disability policy and practice. National Council on
Disability. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED496279
Vanderheiden, G., Treviranus, J., Gemou, M., Bekiaris, E., Markus, K., Clark, C., & Basman, A.
(2013). The evolving global public inclusive infrastructure (GPII). Universal Access in
Human-Computer Interaction. Design Methods, Tools, and Interaction Techniques for
eInclusion. Volume 8009 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp-107-116),
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Vermesan, O., & Friess, P. (2013). Internet of things: Converging technologies for smart
environments and integrated ecosystems. Aalborg, Denmark: River Publishers.
Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do
better. London, UK: Allen Lane.
World Economic Forum. (2015). The global risks report 2015. Retrieved from
http://www.weforum.org/reports/global-risks-report-2015
Running Head: FUTURE CHALLENGE OF ADA 22
Zirkel, P. A. (1993). Section 504 and the schools. LRP Publications. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED387998
Research in education was supported by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The author
wishes to acknowledge the support of the team and global community associated with the
Inclusive Design Research Centre.
Author:
Jutta Treviranus, Inclusive Design Research Centre, OCAD University, Toronto, Canada.
Address correspondence concerning this article to Jutta Treviranus, Inclusive Design Research
Centre, OCAD University, 205 Richmond St. W., Toronto, Ontario, M5V 1V3 (e-mail:
jtreviranus@ocadu.ca)
