We argue that it
is both the possibility
and the efficiency

of access that are
necessary for
meaningful and
equitable participation
in society.

March + April 2012

The current adaptive technolo-
gies that Bob and Ken use make it
possible for them to interact with
most software, but these technolo-
gies are designed on the premise
that our software is immutable and
that users must adapt themselves
to the software. With Personalized
Dynamic Accessibility, we aim to
reverse this situation. Our vision
rests on the following four pillars:
• User interfaces should share the
burden of adaptation. Interactions
adapted to an individual’s abilities
and input devices can improve a
user’s range of activities, their effi-
ciency, and subjective perceptions
of the experience. Such special-
ized interfaces do not eliminate
the need for assistive devices but
offer the promise of more efficient
interaction and the ability to per-
form more activities. For example,
VoiceDraw has an interface
designed specifically for vocal con-
trol [ 1]. It has enabled a paralyzed
artist to create a broader range of
art than he could with his exist-
ing voice-recognition software and
assistive technology.

• Personalization. Due to the diver-
sity of abilities, needs, and assistive
devices, no single user interface
adaptation can address the needs
of all users with impairments. For
example, adaptations that will
enable easier interactions for peo-
ple with severely impaired dexter-
ity may not be useful to users with
reduced strength and limited range
of motion. Personalized Dynamic
Accessibility thus relies on mecha-
nisms for assessing a user’s unique
needs and functional abilities and
then translating these assessments
into personalized user interface
design adaptations.

interactions

Tangible Progress

To illustrate the scope of Personalized Dynamic Accessibility and its interdisciplinary nature, we briefly present several representative research efforts.

Automatically assessing users’ functional abilities. Automatic