Dr David Kreps and Dr Peter Wheeler, IRIS, University of Salford
Introduction
Equality and greater social inclusion for disabled people have been an elusive quest for successive governments in the UK for over 100 years, and in the majority of initiatives inclusion has been tied to increasing access for individuals to gain paid work (Wheeler and Danieli 2006). This historical continuity in social policy is apparent in the present day, where social inclusion for disabled people has once again become dependent on their ability to gain and retain paid work (Roulstone and Warren 2006). This paper sets out the methodological approach of a team at the University of Salford, undertaking research into ‘eDiscrimination’ in the context of online employment facilities.
Perhaps one of the most significant attempts to resolve the ‘problem’ of engaging disabled people in the labour market occurred after the Second World War, where government had a moral duty to provide work for the greatly increased disabled population which had been the inevitable consequence of the conflict. One significant aspect of the War years was that during this period of extreme labour shortage, it has been estimated that full employment was achieved for disabled people who were willing and able to work (Humphries and Gordon 1992). The demonstrable historical link between inclusive social policy and paid work, coupled with the historical precedent where disabled people largely gained employment in open industry, together provide a clearing for an aetiological study of the issue of the employment of disabled people. The present study is, moreover, specifically intended to inform current methodological debates regarding how ICT’s can reduce disabling effects and increase access to the elusive ‘holy grail’ of employment for disabled people.
The purpose of this brief historical review is not to discuss why the 1944 Disabled Persons Employment Act largely failed (Hyde1996). Rather, we shall concentrate on research conducted during war years which determined how people with severe impairments were facilitated to integrate into open industry and consider the methodological implications for current ICT research. There are two research papers which will be considered. Both investigated how people with a variety of severe impairments were employed in a variety of industries including heavy engineering during war years (Fenelon 1944; Fuchs 1949). In both cases the similarity in analysis is consistent: disabled people were able to integrate into open industry, without any detrimental effects on production, when adjustments were made to working practices and environments which catered for the different effects impairment had on individual functioning. In other words, impairment did not create exclusion from work; rather it was the methods and practices developed for primarily non-impaired people which disabled people with impairments. This socially constructed exclusion from labour markets has been theorised by disabled activists (Wheeler and Danieli 2006), and the industrial experience from war years provides empirical evidence that for many impaired people, the cause of disability is structurally created and consequentially is capable of removal or at least reduction.
There are two principal issues which can be determined here, firstly that the two concepts of impairment and disability are not causally linked; secondly, the experiential knowledge held by disabled people clearly understands how social exclusion is created by social structures and not individual impaired bodies. In more recent times, contemporary writers on disability issues have reinforced the importance in clearly understanding the divide between impairment and disability, and the social creation of disability (Oliver 1992). There have also been critiques of traditional research methodologies which have tended to alienate the disabled subjects of research and only serve to promote the interests and careers of mainly non disabled researchers (Barnes 2003; Oliver 1992), and critiques of the extent to which the social model of disability can be applied (Shakespeare and Watson 2002). Before we discuss the methodology adopted by the Salford research team, we will consider the emancipatory disability research agenda and reflect on how the methodological approaches compare.
Emancipatory disability research
A number of problems have been identified with traditional approaches to researching disability. The first problem has been a tendency for research on disability to have been historically conducted by non-disabled people who had no experiential knowledge of disability and who therefore operationalised the claimed dominant individual medical model of disability which did not accurately reflect the experience of disability (Oliver 1992). According to Oliver, this individual medical model drew the conclusion that disability was caused by impairment and hence disregarded social elements in the construction of disability. A second and allied problem is that historically, in an attempt to conduct ‘objective’ research, disability researchers have tended to objectify and individualise disabled people, treating them as ‘data’ and produced findings which whilst benefiting the careers of researchers, did little to enhance the lives of disabled people (Barnes 2003; Oliver 1992). These problems were seen to be caused by the existing material and social relations of knowledge production.
The material relations of knowledge production are a result of the under-representation of disabled people within the academy and within funding agencies (Zarb 1997). This in turn has meant that disabled people have been unable to influence the research agenda: what kind of research is conducted and how it is conducted. The social relations of knowledge production have embedded within them unequal power relations in which researchers by virtue of their status and the methods they use are more powerful than research respondents. Similar findings have of course been found in science studies (Kuhn 1970). In response, disabled academics (and some non-disabled ones) active in the disability movement have argued that traditional methods of researching disability should be abandoned in favour of emancipatory methodology (Barnes2003; Oliver 1992). Emancipatory research aims to change both the material and social relations of knowledge production by actively involving disabled people at each stage of the research process – from setting the research agenda, through to analysis of data and publication of findings. This approach therefore requires the passing of control of the research process to disabled people. Non-disabled researchers, it is argued, should put their skills at the disposal of disabled people in order to help them conduct research which produces findings which they can use for their own emancipation (see for example, Anderberg and Jönsson 2005). The dissatisfaction with traditional research methodologies in addition to questioning ‘who’ can produce legitimate disability research also challenged both positivist and interpretive traditions because of their tendencies to focus on individual impaired people as objects of research which, in turn, reinforced the traditional medical model of disability (Oliver 1992). This challenge offers an emancipatory alternative in which disabled people can be promoted as active participants and knowing subjects, in an attempt to move the focus away from considerations of individual impaired people, and on to the disabling effects in the social world (Barnes 2003; Oliver 1992; Zarb 1997).
However, an emancipatory disability research agenda is not problem free. Although the approach was promoted as representative of the experiences of a homogeneous group it could be argued that one principal barrier which prevents emancipatory research gaining wider acceptance is an internal inconsistency which emerges from the move towards a privileging of the knowledge of the disabled experience. If the concept of disability as a homogeneous phenomenon is accepted, then calls for the privileging of experiential knowledge appear contradictory. By drawing a comparison with emancipatory gender research, Barnes (1992) argues that women are in a better ontological and epistemological position to research other women. His argument is predicated on the assumption that an empathetic relationship based on life experiences between researchers and researched is more likely to generate valid research. Hence, women are better placed to research women and people with impairments are better placed to research other impaired people. However, if the arguments over the privileging of experiential knowledge are pursued, then the ‘homogeneous group’ claims for disability researchers become inconsistent. If the comparison with emancipatory gender research is used then it would seem inconsistent to argue that a white woman with a high disposable income would have sufficient empathetic life experience to research poverty amongst unemployed Asian women. In this case, empathetic research would be more easily achieved if the research were to be conducted by demographically similar peers. Similarly, there would appear to be little in common between a white visually impaired female academic and a black male unemployed wheelchair user. It can be seen that although both may face disabling societal barriers the fundamental differences in their life experiences, which includes their different experiences of impairment, implies that the ‘homogeneous group’ concept of disabled people researching other disabled people is problematic.
The research team at the University of Salford, whilst broadly supportive of an emancipatory disability research agenda when conducting ICT research programmes, have sought to resolve some of the inconsistencies noted above inherent in emancipatory disability research per se.
So far in this paper we have considered both how, historically, barriers to employment for disabled people have been removed, and more contemporary calls for emancipatory research agendas which could improve social inclusion for disabled people through altering the traditional social and material relations of knowledge production. The remainder of this paper builds on these two elements and discusses how research methodologies in ICT’s can combine both to produce potentially emancipatory research and ensure technological systems do not become the exclusive preserve of non-disabled people thereby widening the digital divide. In 2006 the Informatics Research Institute (IRIS) at the University of Salford won a research grant from the European Social Fund (ESF) designed to combat eDiscrimination in the North West of England. Before considering methodologies, it will be relevant to discuss the project in broad terms.
The Combating eDiscrimination project
Discrimination against disabled people in our society exists in many forms. According to the Shaw Trust, http://www.shaw-trust.org.uk/, the largest UK provider of supported employment services for disabled people, nearly 1 in 5 people of working age (7 million/19%) in the UK are disabled, 50% of disabled people of working age are in work, compared with 80% of non disabled people of working age. eGovernment has brought most public services to the web. Disabled people can be, however, and often are excluded from the World Wide Web even if they have a computer. The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) report, published in April 2004, entitled “The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People: A formal investigation” concluded that, “81% of websites failed to meet the most basic criteria for conformance to web accessibility guidelines.” In November 2005, the UK Presidency of the EU published a report, “accessibility of public sector services in the EU,“ which concluded that only 3% of EU public sector websites passed that minimum Level A criterion. Both the EU and UK official benchmark for an accessible website is Level ‘double A’ – a standard requiring a fundamental shift in web-authoring techniques, compared to the relatively cosmetic improvements required by Level A. It is quite evident; therefore, that there is discrimination against disabled people in the employment sector, that one form that this discrimination takes is in the Digital Divide created by inaccessible online resources for Jobseekers.
Barriers
An inaccessible website is one which simply does not make the information it contains available to people with a range of impairments. An inaccessible website is like an elevator with no voice-over, or a building with no ramp access to a raised front door. An inaccessible website with employment opportunities or advice on it discriminates against disabled people by refusing them access to that information. As the DRC Report alluded to earlier makes clear: “In contrast to other information media, [the web] is, with the benefit of assistive technology, potentially tolerant of impairment. Inclusive website design makes it easier to use these alternative means of access, without making a site less attractive to unimpaired users. Irresponsible and inconsiderate design, on the other hand, not only puts disabled users at a significant disadvantage but can make life unnecessarily difficult for everyone, whether disabled or not.”
eDiscrimination is a complex area, but the following examples may assist with understanding the problem: Those using screen readers or voice browsers to listen to websites require alternative text with images, labels on form fields, and headings on data tables. Without these imagery is completely inaccessible, forms prohibitively confusing, and data tables meaningless. Those unable to use a mouse to navigate around a webpage require careful coding of the page to ensure ‘device independence’ is a feature of any interaction. Mouse-only interaction discriminates against such users. With the assistance of disabled computer users, the combating eDiscrimination project seeks to determine the level of eDiscrimination in employment related websites and produce best practice guidelines to aid employers and web designers avoid embedding discriminatory design inside web materials and content. Whilst this account provides a sample of the combating eDiscrimination project, the focus of this paper is to discuss the methodological approach taken which in many ways provides an alternative means of conducting ICT research which encompasses both the historical understandings of how disability is constructed, and the more contemporary emancipatory disability paradigm.
Inclusive methodologies.
The research team consists of people with and without impairments. It was the influence and experiential knowledge of the impaired researcher which in the first instance provided the alternative methodological approach discussed below. It may appear unusual that we do not mention any specific impairments in this paper nor do we discuss impairment effects. This is because one of the initial research meetings designed to discuss our methodological approach determined in the first instance that accuracy of terminology would be essential to produce consistent and valid results. Following the successful historical examples of improving social inclusion for disabled people through work noted above, the decision was taken to ensure a clear distinction was made between the terms ‘disability’, and ‘impairment’. This enables a clear aetiological causation to be assigned to each term.
Impairment
Impairment is the result of loss or lack of physical, sensory or cognitive functioning. This raises the questions of how does impairment affect ICT designers, and how has this affected the approach taken by the research team?
The output from any computer is inaccessible to humans without some form of access technology – the basic terminal and input devices. For most people, access is gained through a visual display unit (VDU). However, although for a majority this form of access is inclusive, for those without sight, adverse reactions to photo sensitivity, cognitive problems in decoding visual imagery, or confused by excessive imagery, alternative means to the norm are required. Similarly, where dexterity impairments reduce the ability of an individual to operate a mouse, then once again alternatives to the perceived norm are required if eDiscrimination is to be avoided.
Hence for designers there are three tasks: 1) to develop alternative hardware to facilitate interaction with the computer – different kinds of mouse being perhaps the best known, but also including Braille keyboards and other dev8ices; 2) to develop software systems which can provide equality of access for people with a variety of impairments – speech synthesis being perhaps the most well known; and 3) to develop applications for software environments which the above assistive hardware and software can integrate with, ensuring that access is provided for all – the best known example being websites: applications designed to be accessed with a browser such as Internet Explorer or Firefox. Impairment, here, is regarded as an individual attribute, which often requires designers to develop systems which may be alternative or adaptations to those available to the non-impaired majority.
Disability
In contrast, picking up on the historical understandings discussed earlier, disability is not a personal attribute, but rather the barriers present which prohibit full and equal access to impaired people, after alternative or adaptive equipment has been used by the impaired person. In respect of point 3) above, a website that does not make all its content easily available to an assistive technology geared to accessing information from a browser.
The consequences of this simplistic schema are something we would urge designers of ICT systems to reflect upon. For many people impairment is a constant condition in their lives and therefore the development and improvement of impairment related equipment and systems will probably be a matter of continued refinement and improvement. On the other hand, disability is a function of ICT design which in most cases can be eradicated or at least reduced. We argue that when terms lose terminological accuracy, then what can occur is that rather than reducing disabling technological barriers, designers can look towards the alternative of attempting to additionally compensate for impairment. These may appear semantic points for some, but our approach is based on the experiential knowledge of impaired computer users who agree that it is disability which designers should be aiming to eradicate not impairment effects. After all, to adopt an alternative approach would surely ultimately arrive at the logically consistent albeit socially undesirable conclusions that disability inside ICT design is acceptable because impairments can either be corrected, cured, or treated.
Our methodological approach can be summarised as: There are impaired people who are disabled by discriminatory ICT design. Therefore, people ‘with disabilities’ becomes an oxymoron, an incongruous combination of terms. Having based our research methodology primarily on the phenomenological and ontological understandings of disabled people, we shall now explore how these understandings translated in to the practical arena of field research.
Conducting field research
The Combating eDiscrimination project can be divided into two discreet elements. One element involves auditing over 100 employment related websites to determine how many comply with web content accessibility guidelines, and where they fail. This will provide some indication of how seriously web designers and employers take the issue of eDiscrimination. The second element involves inviting disabled computer users to join the project and help define the research, and provide data on their experiences when attempting to access specified employment related web sites. This is by no means the first such exercise. Many studies of the accessibility of various categories of website have been undertaken, (e.g. Zaphiris & Kurniawan (2001), Ritchie and Blanck, (2003), Guo and Huang (2005)). Research already referred to earlier, undertaken by City University for the Disability Rights Commission and published in April 2004, (DRC 2004), which examined over 1000 UK websites across all sectors, and the study of some 300 or more European Government websites published at the Ministerial eGovernment Conference in November 2005, (eGovernment Unit 2005) both used a similar combination of strict pass/fail audit against the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (W3C 1999) and the results of a disabled user testing exercise, to assess the accessibility of websites. The combination of IT audit and user testing is needed because a simple automated software check against the guidelines, as commented elsewhere (Kreps & Adam 2006) is insufficient to address all the issues.
The unique aspect of the research being undertaken at Salford is in our research methodology. In the first instance we have rejected using impairment categorisations as any basis for determining user groupings. This is for two significant reasons. Many impaired people have multiple impairments which mean any attempts at simple unitary categorisation are inherently problematic. So for example, if a person with hearing impairment additionally was visually impaired, how can this combination be accommodated? Which impairment effect becomes disabled by which disabling design? Secondly, as we have rejected the notion that impairment disables, then in a project designed to expose levels of disability inside technological designs, it would be methodologically inconsistent to use impairment as a defining characteristic. Rather we have based our categorisation on the access methods used by impaired computer users. Hence we do not require any details of an individual’s medical status, rather we only ask if any access technology is operated and if so, which type?
The result of this approach is that for any specific type of access technology - say for example screen magnification - there may be a variety of impaired people who use this type of equipment. We would justify our approach on the basis that we are not conducting research into access technology for impaired people, but in to the disabling barriers embedded inside ICT designs which disable access for users of assistive technology. We would argue our approach produces potentially greater validity than the alternative based on impairment categories. This is because we will not be artificially restricting the technology to one impairment group, but widening inclusion. Continuing with the example of text enlargement: many text enlargement programmes additionally allow users to change individually both text and background colours. This feature can be helpful in some dyslexic conditions to access text in addition to visually impaired people who may only require text magnification and no colour changes. Not restricting our research to impairment categories allows this wider demographic population of impaired people to join the project and provide more data on the disabling barriers faced by text magnification users.
Additionally, so far there has been an a priori assumption that all disabled user testers have adequate skills both in operating their alternative access equipment and more generally accessing web materials. When conducting research into technological systems, there is a requirement to determine the level of technological competence of participants. The Combating eDiscrimination project has an assessment tool built into the project web site which will enable researchers to determine user internet and access technology skills. In the first instance disabled computer users are contacted either by telephone or email to explain the project and invited to become a research participant. This initial contact will determine which access systems are used together with a self assessment regarding how confident the person feels when accessing the web. At any stage participants will be free to exit the project. During the initial contact, individuals will be guaranteed anonymity and asked for consent for their experiences to be used in published research. Before entering the project individuals will be asked to provide informed consent on the project web site before engaging in user testing. The initial competence test will be judged when users are requested to perform several tasks on the project website which has been designed to high levels of accessibility and tested by other competent disabled computer users. This initial stage will provide valuable research data.
Anecdotal evidence from disabled computer users has suggested the level of training and hence competence of users is somewhat variable. If it appears that significant percentages of users cannot access even the project web site then this may infer that training is a significant issue which requires addressing. Alternatively, if users can access the site and navigate competently then they will be asked to access two commercial employment related sites and again perform some tasks which would be essential if applying online for a job. This will allow a comparison to be drawn between how the relevant sites rated in the accessibility audit, compared with the experiential results from users. The research will provide evidence to determine whether web accessibility guidelines assist all methods of web access, or whether certain assistive technologies gain more than others from the standards.
The Combating eDiscrimination project will be completed by the end of 2007 and hence only preliminary findings on a small sample of initial interviews are presently available for comment. However, there are aspects of the initial findings that are of significance particularly in relation to the methodological approach undertaken. The first set of interviews were conducted in an organisation aimed towards improving employment opportunities for disabled people. The course comprised of six disabled people of varying age ranges with an equal gender ratio. Two disabled trainers were engaged to provide guidance and support on the use of assistive technology and using internet resources including job searches. All eight people agreed from a general focus group meeting to an individual interview. These were semi structured with all contacts and interviews conducted by an impaired researcher. The impaired status of the researcher has been noted for the reason that the majority of participants commented they felt more comfortable talking about how impairment affected the methods they used to access computers with someone who clearly had similar experiences. Here the empathetic relationship between researcher and researched discussed above aided both gaining access to participants which subsequently also assisted in defining the overall research methodology.
It was from these initial contacts that the issue of training in assistive technology was highlighted by participants which subsequently became an integral component of the project. Another element reinforced through initial research was the problematic nature of using impairment as a defining domain. Two participants did not use any assistive technology, were defined as disabled and did have difficulty in accessing web materials. Their experiences closely aligned with a user of text magnification. All three participants had different impairments but faced the same or similar disabling barriers. All found the amount of material and particularly the overlapping of pages with cascading menus etc made web pages extremely difficult if not impossible to navigate. In contrast, two screen reader users who had more severe impairments found that because they did not rely on any visual page information to navigate, that the issue of overlapping documents was not problematic. For some researchers who adopt impairment categorisations this may appear counter intuitive. Although stressing the preliminary nature of this research, it would seem that the severity of impairment does not necessarily correspond to levels of disability when accessing the web. Once again we would cite such findings as providing validity for our methodological approach, whilst acknowledging our project is limited in scope.
Clearly, our project can only focus on those disabled people who have access to a computer and have gained sufficient training to use their assistive technology. For this specific group the project can help bridge the digital divide between disabled and non disabled computer users. For those who do not have access to suitable computing equipment then the digital divide can only get wider. Fuller discussion of the discourses surrounding the digital divide has been undertaken elsewhere (see Servon (2002), Selwyn (2002 & 2004) and Kreps & Adam (2006) In the present instance it is sufficient to conclude that the practicalities of crossing that divide for many impaired people are made all the more difficult by disabling ICT design practices. Here there may reside multiple variables which reinforce social exclusion from technological systems including financial, educational, and in some instances cultural influences which this research cannot account for. In short, we acknowledge the limited nature of our research but would argue the methodological approach we have designed could be used on a wider research front inside ICT programmes which could then help to bridge the digital divide.
Summary and conclusions
In this paper we argue for terminological accuracy when those involved in ICT systems address some of the barriers and challenges which disable impaired computer users. Drawing on historical accounts, we demonstrated that the period which saw the highest levels of social inclusion through gaining employment in open industry for disabled people occurred during war years. Reviewing research data from the period revealed this almost unique circumstance happened as barriers to the labour market and traditional discriminatory working practices were abandoned to facilitate inclusion. It was this historical evidence coupled with more theoretical contemporary calls for research into the arena of disability to be conducted inside an emancipatory paradigm which formed the framework for the methodological approach adopted by the Salford University Combating eDiscrimination research team.
There are two distinct features which exemplify the Salford approach: a clear distinction between the meanings of impairment and disability, coupled with working definitions of the implications of both terms; an inclusive research agenda which has had disabled people involved in all stages of the research programme. Whilst acknowledging the limitations imposed on the project, we nevertheless argue, the methodology adopted can only assist the emancipation of disabled people and provide working framework for others researching in the arena of disability and ICT’s.
References
Anderberg, P., and Jönsson, B. (2005) Being there. Disability & Society
Vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 719–733
Barnes, C. (1992). Qualitative Research: valuable or irrelevant? Disability, Handicap and Society, 7, 115-124.
Barnes, C. (2003) what a Difference a Decade Makes: reflections on doing
‘emancipatory’ disability research. Disability ‘ Society, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 3-17
DRC (2004) The Web: Access and Inclusion for Disabled People. Disability Rights
Commission: London. http://www.drc-gb.org/library/webaccessibility.asp
e-Government Unit (2005) eAccessibility of public sector services in the European Union. http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/egovernment/resources/eaccessibility/content.asp
Fenelon, K., G. (1944) Blind workers in industry. London. Royal National Institute of the Blind, research library.
Fuchs, L., G. (1949)Some aspects of the industrial employment of the blind. Journal of the Institution of Production Engineers, November 1949, 28(11), 571-601.
Guo, B., Bricout, J. C. and Huang, J. (2005) A common open space or a digital divide? A social model perspective on the online disability community in China. Disability & Society, 20: 1, 49-66.
Humphries, S. and Gordon, P. (1992) Out of Sight: The Experience of Disability
1900-1950, London: Northern House Publishers Ltd.
Hyde, M. (1996) Fifty years of failure: Employment services for disabled people in the UK. Work Employment and Society, Vol.10, No.4, pp.683-700.
Kreps, D. and Adam, A. (2006) Failing the Disabled Community?: The Continuing Problem of Web Accessibility. Human Computer Interaction Research in Web Design and Evaluation. P. Zaphiris and S. Kurniawan (eds.) Hershey, PA, Ideas Group, forthcoming.
Kreps, D and Adam, A (2006) "Enabling or Disabling Technologies?: A Critical Approach to Web Accessibility" Published September 2006 "Information Technology and People"
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Oliver, M. (1992) ‘Changing the Social Relations of Research Production?’ Disability, Handicap & Society 7, 2:101-115
Ritchie, H. and Blanck, P. (2003) The promise of the Internet for disability: a study of on-line services and web site accessibility at Centers for Independent Living. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 5-26.
Selwyn, N. (2002) ‘E-stablishing’ an inclusive society? Technology, social exclusion and UK government policy making. Journal of Social Policy, 31: 1, 1-20.
Selwyn, N. (2004) Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide. New Media & Society, 6: 3, 341-362.
Servon, L. J. (2002) Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, Community and Public Policy. Malden, MA and Oxford, Blackwell.
Shakespeare, T. and Watson, N. (2002) The social model of disability: an outdated ideology? Research in Social Science and Disability 2, 9-28.
W3C (1999). Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, WAI - Wendy Chisholm, Trace R & D Center, University of Wisconsin – Madison; Gregg Vanderheiden, Trace R & D Center, University of Wisconsin – Madison; Ian Jacobs, W3C. 2004.
Zaphiris, P., Kurniawan, S.K., & Ellis, R.D. (2001). Usability and Accessibility Comparison of Governmental, Organizational, Educational and Commercial Aging/Health-Related Web Sites. WebNet Journal, 3 (3), 45-52
Zarb, G. (1997) Researching disabling barriers. In: Barnes, C., Mercer, G. (eds) (1997) Doing Disability Research, University of Leeds: The Disability Press. Ch 4.
David Kreps is Lecturer in Information Systems at the University of Salford. He has wide experience of arts and public sector management. His research experience includes web accessibility and design, eGovernment and cyborgs (the subject of his PhD thesis). He is Principal Investigator on the Combating eDsicrimination Project.
Peter Wheeler is Research Assistant on the Combating eDsicrimination Project.
Comment on this article
There are currently no comments on this article. Why not post one yourself?
Latest articles
LANGUAGE, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE BODY - presented at International Conference on Information Systems, Montreal December 2007
LANGUAGE, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE BODY Critical Research into Disability, Impairment & Web Accessibility for UK Jobseekers Dr David Kreps and Dr Peter Wheeler Information Systems, Organisations and Society Research Centre (ISOS), Informatics Research Institute, (IRIS), Abstract: ...
Interview with Tim Berners-Lee
BBC interview with the creator of the World Wide Web
