FodnessMemo14

Education:

> The higher education institutions in the United States do not include enough (or any) information in their curriculum for how to design IT devices and software for individuals with disabilities, or why it is important to do so. They are not required to do so by law, are not influenced to do so by feedback from corporations or advocacy from disabilities rights groups, and are not voluntarily doing much about it.

Federal and State Laws:

> Federal and state laws for disability relating to IT are restricted to laws that cover federal and state controlled IT devices and infrastructure. For example, federal websites are required to meet guidelines for accessibility, but private corporations are not. Policies are out of step with the needs of the disabled population. Even the federal government has done a poor job of meeting their own standards for accessibility.

Private Corporations:

> Private corporations have little incentive to design for disability. It has the perception of adding significant amounts of time into the design cycle, their engineers are not educated on how to design for disability, and they are not required to do so by law. Private corporations do not perceive a large loss of revenue from a failure to design for disabled populations, so monetary gain is felt through saving money on design instead of gaining money from sales to the disabled.

Disability Advocacy Groups:

> Disability advocacy groups are gaining more ground in recent years, especially as a result of Target vs. NFB in 2006. However, they have not yet achieved a level of discourse that has affected public policy or corporate actions.

Disabled Individuals:

> Individuals with disabilities are disadvantaged by the current system, but lack the organization and clout to do much of anything about it.