FodnessFinalProposal

Disability & Cyberspace: The Path to Accessible Web Technologies for All
 * Title**

This study will document and analyze the laws, practices, and norms that surround accessibility in cyberspace for individuals with disabilities. It will use in-depth interviews and policy research to determine the current state of post-secondary IT education, software design, browser design, and accessibility features relating to how individuals with disabilities use cyberspace. The study examines how these elements fit together to provide accessibility features that work very well, and shows the areas where the disabled are underserved by the current approach. The study provides recommendations for change in policy, browsers, norms, software design, and activist activity, in order to provide more and better accessibility features to ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to use cyberspace as well as the traditionally abled. It will contribute to studies on user centered design, universal design, disability studies, cyberspace studies, and policy studies. The study will result in journal publications, presentations at STS and IT conferences, and a book, which will be usable as part of the IT curriculum for software engineers at post-secondary institutions.
 * Abstract**


 * Disability & Cyberspace: The Path to Accessible Web Technologies for All**

The proposed study focuses on the ability of individuals with disabilities to use cyberspace. It will document and analyze the experiences and perceptions of individuals with disabilities using cyberspace, and the structural conditions that shape cyberspace as it is currently imagined. Structural conditions will be evaluated at the level of norms, laws, architecture, and market forces (Lessig). A combination of policy analysis and ethnography will be used to evaluate the structure of the current system of web development, and to develop alternative pathways (Hess) that will afford greater access to cyberspace for individuals with disabilities. The goals of this study are to understand
 * Overview**

1.how cyberspace is constructed for the disabled, 2.how national and international priorities about accessibility are set and codified into law, and 3.the process of negotiation between web developers, managers, and clients regarding web development and accessibility components.

Individuals with disabilities are an underserved community in cyberspace. Many websites are inaccessible to individuals with disabilities, especially the blind, who rely on software called a “screen reader” to read the contents of a website aloud. Published standards exist for website code, as well as standards and guidelines for web accessibility. However, the published standards are often not followed. In the United States, the legal and regulatory framework is ambiguous about the responsibility of corporations to make their websites accessible. As a consequence, so most websites have not been made to be accessible.

Support for standards compliance and accessibility is rising. The series of “ACID” tests made public by the Web Standards Project (http://www.webstandards.org) are being taken seriously by browser manufacturers, who are trying to make sure that their browsers are in compliance with published standards, which include accessibility features. The National Federation of the Blind sued Target in 2006 because Target's website was inaccessible to the blind. They won, which established a legal precedent for citizen groups suing a private company for a website being inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. Since individuals with disabilities are an underserved community in cyberspace, various steps need to be taken in order to make sure that this discrimination does not persist.


 * The primary research questions that are driving this study are:**

How do individuals with disabilities use cyberspace? Are they more, less, or equally able to use cyberspace than traditionally abled individuals? What international, federal, and state policies exist with respect to requirements for designing accessible websites? What software-level restrictions are in place for enforcing assistive functionality? Is assistive functionality provided actively or passively in browser technologies, and why? What criteria are used to determine how browsers should handle non-compliant code and non-accessible code? What educational frameworks exist at the trade school and university level for teaching development of websites for individuals with disabilities? What criteria are used to justify creating non-accessible websites at the managerial level? How do web developers feel about creating non-compliant, non-accessible sites? What assistive technologies are in use today, and at what level are they deployed (OS, browser, webserver, client, third party)? On sites that have user-generated non-accessible content (YouTube), what automated accessibility mechanisms are in place, such as automated subtitlers based on voice recognition? If they are not in place, what was the decision making process like about how individuals with disabilities would be able to access and use the site? What are the core beliefs of educational institutions regarding the importance of accessibility? Are these values incorporated into the classroom? Do they become incorporated into the graduates? Who is currently championing greater regulation of private corporate websites to enforce accessibility features? What are activist organizations doing in this regard? Who is making the counterarguments, and what are the counterarguments?

This study will examine the ways in which cyberspace is constructed for the disabled, and what constitutes disability in the context of cyberspace. It will detail the current state of post-secondary IT education, web browser development practices, website development practices, activist activities, and legislation relating to how individuals with disabilities use cyberspace. It will identify strengths and weaknesses in the current approach and recommend solutions to fix the weaknesses.

Policy research will be conducted to detail the strengths and weaknesses of the current regulatory framework, including the type and level of enforcement of existing law. Sixty interviews will be conducted across a broad spectrum of representatives from educational institutions, web developers, web browser manufacturers, activists, legislators, and the disabled. The interviews will demonstrate the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach to software design, disability advocacy, legislation, and post-secondary IT education. Pure archival and policy research or pure ethnography would not be sufficient to detail the problem and provide space for workable solutions, so a hybrid approach is required. The data for this study will consist of the results of researching policies at the international, United States, and state levels, articles published by other scholars working on similar research, press releases and publications by advocacy groups, and interviews with individuals with disabilities, web browser manufacturers, web developers, advocacy groups, legislators, and educators.

The expertise that I have gained from designing accessible websites professionally will aid in my understanding of the issues and possible solutions. I also have expertise with working with other groups on accessibility projects in an IT context, especially for the web. I will prepare myself for the study by getting proper training on how to conduct interviews, and by reading current publications (both scholarly and technical) on the issue, as well as familiarizing myself with the work of activist groups working on this issue. I have already conducted extensive research into the current regulatory and legal frameworks governing this issue, and have presented my results in a scholarly paper. I will interview individuals with disabilities first, so I can get the best sense of how they use cyberspace, what their limitations are, and what they would like to see changed.

The study will draw on and contribute to literature in the fields of STS, IT, and disability studies. It will draw on design studies literature in STS and IT, such as the work of Donald Norman, as well as literature in the disability studies canon surrounding disability and cyberspace. The intellectual contribution of this study will be in:

- adding to the empirical record detailed information on the barriers that individuals with disabilities face in cyberspace, which has been an understudied phenomenon in STS, - analyzing the current role of policy in requiring websites to be accessible, and making recommendations for change, - analyzing the process of negotiation between educators, web developers, managers, and clients to create websites with and without accessibility features present.

The study will result in publications in major journals in the field of STS and Information Technology, such as Science, Technology, and Human Values, Technology and Culture, and Information Technology and Disability. It will also result in the publication of my Ph.D. Dissertation in the STS department at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), which will eventually be published as a book for dissemination to an STS and IT audience.


 * Intellectual merit & Broader significance**

This project contributes to the intellectual formations of STS and IT in at least three ways:
 * Intellectual merit**

1.The project contributes to the empirical record of barriers that individuals with disabilities face in accessing and using cyberspace. This contribution is significant because web accessibility is an understudied phenomenon in the STS literature. The majority of literature on web accessibility comes from a practical application perspective, and resides in the IT literature. 2.The project contributes to theoretical work on disability in general, and specifically by critically examining what it means to be disabled in the context of cyberspace, and how cyberspace is constructed for the disabled. 3.The project contributes to the STS body of work concerned with negotiation amongst technical professionals about competing social and economic priorities.

This project is of significance to those outside of STS academic circles in the following ways:
 * Broader Significance**

- Individuals with disabilities are an underserved community in cyberspace, and any work that can be done to “level the playing field” by encouraging web developers to create accessible websites will help reduce barriers faced by the disabled in cyberspace. The project will also serve as a way for individuals with disabilities to spread more information about the difficulties that they face in cyberspace, which are not widely known. - Educators of web developers may not know about, or fully understand, the barriers that inaccessible web design places on individuals with disabilities. The project will seek to inform educators of the users that are inconvenienced or blocked from access to inaccessible websites, and can be used as a teaching tool to reinforce the need for accessible web design to be taught in post-secondary schools. - Web developers and web development companies can use the information contained in the study to better educate themselves about the difficulties that individuals with disabilities face while using their websites, and could begin to require that the websites that they develop for their clients be fully accessible. - Web development companies could use the information contained in the study to convince their customers that it would be in their best interest to have their website be as accessible as possible, even if doing so results in a higher up front cost of development. - The study could be used as a guide for policy makers to demonstrate the flaws with current regulation, and what could be done to make regulation truly serve the needs of the disabled online. - Companies that make innovative web technologies that are not inherently accessible, such as YouTube (which allows videos to be uploaded without closed captioning or subtitling), could use the recommendations in the book to pursue a development trajectory that would include automatic accessibility features, such as auto-subtitling of user created videos using voice recognition technology. - This study will prepare me, as a graduate student researcher, for an academic career in which I will continue to study how various groups of people use the Internet.

My background has prepared me well for this project. I have been developing websites personally and professionally for over twelve years, which has included a strong focus on best practices, standards compliance, and accessibility. I have been educated in IT at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute with a focus on web development, so I have at least one perspective on the ways in which post-secondary education instructs web developers on how to create accessible websites. I have performed extensive analysis on websites for accessibility features and problems, and have updated clients' websites to meet a minimum standard of accessibility. While working on a contract for the U.S. Department of Labor, I became familiar with Rehabilitation Act Section 508 standards for web accessibility, and worked with web development groups to properly implement the controls.
 * Background & Preliminary results**

I have written a paper, yet to be published, on the regulatory framework surrounding web accessibility and corporate responsibility in the United States. This paper involved extensive research into not only what policies are in place in the United States, but what policies are in place in other countries, and what the legal interpretations of those policies are, as evidenced by court rulings. I analyzed the policies for strengths and weaknesses, and recommended changes to the policies where applicable to better serve the needs of individuals with disabilities using cyberspace (Fodness, forthcoming).

1.Education – Based on my experiences at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in the IT program, and based on discussions with web developers who attended other educational institutions for IT training, accessibility was at best an afterthought in the web development curriculum. In most cases, standards compliance and best practices were not taught, and accessibility was barely mentioned, if at all. The post-secondary educational system in the United States is ill-preparing its graduates for careers in web development that include a strong focus on creating standards compliant, accessible websites.
 * My preliminary results are as follows:**

2.Negotiation of Requirements – From working as a web developer professionally, and working in IT in general, there is a marked tension between best practices, customer requirements, and management pressures to finish a project on time and under budget. Therefore, there is a process of negotiation amongst managers, web developers, and clients to determine what features will be kept, and which ones will be lost. Often, this process of negotiation involves “corner cutting,” which is abdicating best practices in the interest of time and money, which often involves accessibility features.

3.Policy – The paper that I wrote on analyzing current regulation of web accessibility allowed me to come to the conclusion that web accessibility is not explicitly guaranteed under United States law, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act needs to be modified to include an explicit provision for web accessibility. There are four laws that govern accessibility of information technology – the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, especially Section 508, details specific requirements for the federal government and all organizations receiving federal funding to follow in order to make their information technology infrastructure accessible to individuals with disabilities. However, the explicit protections for accessibility in the Rehabilitation Act do not extend to the private sector. The Americans with Disabilities Act states that places of “public accommodation” are required to provide equivalent access to individuals with disabilities, but since the law was created before the first commercial web browser was released, places of “public accommodation” are not defined as websites. Therefore, most corporations interpret the law to mean physical buildings, and do not make accessible websites. The Telecommunications Act only covers telecommunications devices and their manufacturers, which include items such as telephones, pagers, and cell phones, and does not cover web accessibility. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) defines accessibility requirements for public schools, but does not explicitly mention web accessibility, and certainly doesn't require it for the private sector (United States Department of Justice, 2005). There is a UK law called the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) of 1995, which explicitly calls for web accessibility in the private sector, and could be used as a model for modifying the ADA in the United States (OUT-LAW).

4.Legal Interpretations – The United States Department of Justice issued an opinion in 1996 that stated that the ADA applied to the Internet, and that the Internet was a place of “public accommodation” (United States Department of Justice, 1996). In 2000, a Congressional hearing determined that the ADA applies equally well to websites as it does to physical architecture (OUT-LAW, 2004). The Organizing Committee of the Sydney Olympic Games was requested to modify their website to make it accessible to the blind, and they refused, so they were ordered to do so by a court of law, and still refused, and were therefore fined AUS $20,000 in 2000 (OUT-LAW, 2004). Two cases were settled out of court in the United States – National Federation of the Blind versus Connecticut and National Federation of the Blind versus AOL – based on the accusation that elements of the websites of both organizations were inaccessible to the blind (OUT-LAW, 2004). In 2004, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer sued Priceline.com and Ramada.com under the ADA because their websites were inaccessible to the blind, and won. Priceline.com and Ramada.com had to pay the costs of the investigation and make their websites accessible by a specific date (OUT-LAW, 2004). In 2006, the National Federation of the Blind sued Target corporation because its website was inaccessible to the blind. Target was given the opportunity before the lawsuit to make its website accessible, and refused, so the lawsuit proceeded. Target was found guilty under the ADA of not providing equivalent access, ordered to pay damages, and to make their website accessible (National Federation of the Blind). A blind UK woman sued a United States based business, the Project Management Institute (PMI), under UK law because she was unable to use their website. Again, PMI was given ample opportunity to correct the problems before the lawsuit went forward, but refused. PMI disputed the case on jurisdictional grounds, since it was based in the United States and the law being violated was from the UK. In 2006, the UK court found PMI guilty, and ordered PMI to pay damages and fix their website. PMI appealed the ruling, and in 2007, the appeals court upheld the original ruling (OUT-LAW, 2007). Although the courts have been upholding the right of individuals with disabilities to use the websites of private companies equivalently to the traditionally abled under the ADA and other laws, the interpretations of these laws between courts differ. The courts cannot be relied upon to continue interpreting vaguely worded legislation such as the ADA to include web accessibility, and a stronger policy is needed.

5.YouTube and User Generated Content – Sites like YouTube operate off of user-generated content, which means that accessibility on sites like YouTube is up to the individual user. If a user does not post a closed caption file with their video, deaf users will have no way of knowing what the audio content of a video is. Centralized video sites, such as those presenting television content, are not much better. There is not currently any automatic closed captioning software based on voice recognition in place on YouTube or similar sites. There is clearly a large amount of work left to be done on this project, but the preliminary results listed above detail why this project is viable and needed at this particular historical moment.

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international, participatory community that exists “to lead the World Wide Web to its full potential by developing protocols and guidelines that ensure long-term growth for the web” (W3C 1). The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) is a branch of the W3C that deals with creating accessibility standards and guidelines to help make the web accessible to individuals with disabilities. The WAI publishes the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), which are the specific recommendations of the WAI for accessibility. The WCAG will be used in my project as the definitive source of accessibility guidelines for the web (W3C 2), and will demonstrate the elements of accessibility necessary to constitute a “good design.”
 * Literature review**

Donald Norman's design studies work outlines some requirements for what constitutes a “good design.” According to Norman, design should:

- Make it easy to determine what actions are possible at any moment (make use of constraints). - Make things visible, including the conceptual model of the system, the alternative actions, and the results of actions. - Make it easy to evaluate the current state of the system. - Follow natural mappings between intentions and the required actions; between actions and the resulting effect; and between the information that is visible and the interpretation of the system state (Norman 1990: 188).

In order for a web design to be considered a “good design,” it needs to be able to do the above for the traditionally abled as well as the disabled. “Good design” should be one of the main guiding principles of web development to ensure that the needs of all users are met.

Lindblom and Woodhouse recommend “more democracy” as a solution to policy problems. They contend that in order to make policymaking more equitable, and to represent the needs of most people, there needs to be equal competition of ideas (Lindblom and Woodhouse 1993: 150). I contend that the process of developing and revising the WCAG is an open and participatory process, which allows for the equal competition of ideas. By linking policy to the recommendations of the WCAG, the goal of adding “more democracy” to the policy making process will be attained.

David Hess discusses the possibilities for “Alternative Pathways” in creating more equitable technology, and the opposition that advocacy groups face in advocating for their cause. Hess points out that since industry and governance structures have become globalized, it is imperative that movements become transnational as well in order to compete (Hess 2007: 13). I argue that the W3C is an example of a transnational organization that is able to work with a variety of regulatory frameworks in many countries in order to provide participatory governance over web accessibility, and can create an “alternative pathway” to governance in general. This view is compatible with Gramsci's ideas of “organic centralism” or “democratic centralism” (Gramsci 1971: 189), in which there is no group of ruling elites controlling policy.

In analyzing the regulatory framework, I will deploy Foucault's six rules governing the power to punish. I will contend that the laws are not clearly defined, which violates the Rule of Perfect Certainty (Foucault 1995: 95); and that the disadvantages of not making accessible websites and getting caught are not greater than the advantages of not dealing with it, which violates the Rule of Minimum Quantity (Foucault 1995: 94). I will use Foucault's discipline framework for analyzing the state of post-secondary IT education.

Lawrence Lessig contends that “lex informatica,” or “code is law,” in cyberspace (Lessig 2006: 5). What Lessig means by this is that the “laws” of cyberspace are not the laws of the physical world, but are defined by the code that runs cyberspace. What is possible and impossible in cyberspace is defined by the code of web browsers and the (X)HTML code that runs webpages. Therefore, the experiences of individuals with disabilities in cyberspace are structured by the code that has been developed by web browser manufacturers and web developers, and whether that code is accessible or not. Lessig contends that individuals are affected by four forces: market, architecture, norms, and law (Lessig 2006: 123). These four forces will be used to analyze the ways in which individuals with disabilities use cyberspace, and how and why accessibility features are included or excluded from website design.

Manuel Castells contends that the State can be an engine for developing new technology (Castells 2000 10). The United States has done this by passing Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which forces businesses and organizations that receive federal funding or do business with the federal government to make their IT infrastructure accessible, which includes websites. Section 508 is built off of the WCAG, which is an example of the United States federal government linking a law to the recommendations of a democratic and participatory community, and innovating both at the technological level and the governmental level. Castells' concept of “real virtuality,” by which he means a virtual environment that is nonetheless real for the user who is experiencing it (Castells 2000: 404), can be deployed to help explain how cyberspace is constructed for the disabled.

In this section, I describe the components of the study, list my primary interview sites, outline my research schedule, and describe my approach to research ethics. I also present an interview guide.
 * Research methodology and plan of work**

Data collection for this study will come from sixty interviews of broad scope, in addition to policy analysis and literature review surrounding web accessibility. The interviews will be conducted with educators at RPI, MIT, RIT, and Virginia Tech, as examples of schools with strong IT programs. Interviews with web development companies will occur at to be determined sites, but most of which will be in the greater New York City area. Interviews will be conducted with policymakers, most likely in Washington DC, and activist groups, which will also most likely be located in Washington DC. Individuals with disabilities from various locations will be interviewed. The YouTube team for Google will be interviewed as well in Palo Alto, California.
 * Methodology**

Data sources: Data for this project will come from the interview subjects listed above, policy analysis in the United States and abroad, and contemporary literature in the design studies, disability studies, and accessibility fields.

Field sites: The primary field sites will be web development companies in the greater New York City area; educational institutions, including RPI, MIT, RIT, and Virginia Tech; policymakers' offices and activist organizations primarily based out of Washington DC; and the YouTube offices in Palo Alto, California. The New York City area provides fertile ground for analyzing the activities of major web development firms, since it is the east coast hub for IT companies in general. The four schools chosen – RPI, MIT, RIT, and Virginia Tech – are all examples of schools with outstanding IT programs, and should represent a cross-section of IT education in the United States. These locations have the added benefit of being within a reasonable distance of the researcher, which will allow for face-to-face interviews and followups more easily. Most legislators and activist organizations are based in Washington DC, so the choice of Washington DC as a field site comes naturally. Finally, YouTube is an example of a cutting edge technology using user generated content that could be automating accessibility features but isn't. Therefore, the main YouTube development offices would be an excellent location to find out more about how the development process works, and how decisions about accessibility are made.

Rationale for research methodology: The issues in this study are complex and intertwined. In order to get a full snapshot of the problems, and in order to develop responsible solutions to those problems, all aspects of the problems need to be analyzed. This analysis must include tracing the problem from law to the educational system to the workplace to the end user, and investigating all of the actors that participate in this process.


 * Study components**

Literature Review – I will review the literature on design studies and disability studies prior to beginning my interviews. I have already begun this process, but future research will allow me to better shape the content and aims of my interviews. Interviews – Interviews will be conducted with individuals with disabilities, educators, web developers, managers at web development companies, activist organizations, legislators, and web development companies that create innovative and inaccessible technologies, such as YouTube. The interviews will shape my analysis of policy and my recommendations for change.

Policy Analysis – Most of the policy analysis has already been done, but it will be revisited in the later stages of the project to update it for current trends in web accessibility law. The policy analysis will be informed by the information gleaned from interviews.

Data Analysis and Interpretation – The literature review, interviews, and policy analysis will be reviewed and interpreted to get a sense of how individuals with disabilities use cyberspace, where the holes are in policy and in corporate compliance, and the various forces that cause the process of negotiation between technical professionals and clients to exclude individuals with disabilities from consideration in the design process of many websites. The analysis and interpretation will help to generate a coherent set of recommendations for web developers, policymakers, activists, and individuals with disabilities.


 * Ethnographic interview guide**

Aim: To understand how cyberspace is constructed for the disabled. How do individuals with disabilities use cyberspace? Are they more, less, or equally able to use cyberspace than traditionally abled individuals?

Aim: To understand the legal and architectural (code-based) regulations on accessibility in cyberspace. What international, federal, and state policies exist with respect to requirements for designing accessible websites? What software-level restrictions are in place for enforcing assistive functionality? Is assistive functionality provided actively or passively in browser technologies, and why? What criteria are used to determine how browsers should handle non-compliant code and non-accessible code?

Aim: To understand the state of post-secondary IT education as it relates to creating accessible websites. What educational frameworks exist at the trade school and university level for teaching development of websites for individuals with disabilities? What are the core beliefs of educational institutions regarding the importance of accessibility? Are these values incorporated into the classroom? Do they become incorporated into the graduates?

Aim: To understand the process of negotiation between web developers, managers, and clients in creating websites, and how accessibility factors into this process. What criteria are used to justify creating non-accessible websites at the managerial level? How do web developers feel about creating non-compliant, non-accessible sites?

Aim: To understand the logic behind how current assistive technologies are constructed and used. What assistive technologies are in use today, and at what level are they deployed (OS, browser, webserver, client, third party)?

Aim: To understand the process of negotiation between developers working on a project that enables non-accessible content creation. On sites that have user-generated non-accessible content (YouTube), what automated accessibility mechanisms are in place, such as automated subtitlers based on voice recognition? If they are not in place, what was the decision making process like about how individuals with disabilities would be able to access and use the site?

Aim: To understand the role of activist organizations and individuals with disabilities in fighting for the right to have websites be accessible. Who is currently championing greater regulation of private corporate websites to enforce accessibility features? What are activist organizations doing in this regard? Who is making the counterarguments, and what are the counterarguments?

Spring 2009: Policy analysis paper outlining what laws currently exist and what the problems are with current regulation Paper for 4S outlining problems with accessibility education at RPI Summer 2009: Reading books and articles concerning disability and accessibility design to get a sense of what exists, and to build the literature review Fall 2009: Continued research, preparation, honing questions and areas of research Spring 2010: Continued research Ph.D. Comprehensive Exams Summer 2010: Begin writing dissertation proposal Make connections with educational institutions, software companies, and individuals with disabilities for future interviews Fall 2010: Defend dissertation proposal Spring 2011: Begin writing non-fieldwork components of dissertation – extended policy analysis, literature review, interviews that can be done at RPI, etc Summer 2011: Fieldwork & interviews with software companies, educational institutions, and individuals with disabilities Fall 2011-Spring 2012: Confirm contents of interviews Write up interviews and incorporate into chapters of dissertation Identify missing sections / areas where more research is required Summer 2012: Conduct any outstanding fieldwork Fall 2012: Polish dissertation, submit for review and suggestions Spring 2013: Defend dissertation
 * Research schedule**

I will endeavor to ensure that the interview questions, and the interviews themselves, are constructed in such a way that the subjects are free to speak in their own voices, and that I am not injecting my personal bias into the content of the interviews. All interviews will be voluntary. Interviewees will be given the opportunity to be anonymous, to stop the interview at any time, and to decline to answer specific questions. They will also have the ability to retract all or part of the interview before publication.
 * Research ethics**

The participants will be given the opportunity to define the extent to which their names will be associated with any (or all) statement(s) during the interview, and will be given the right to retract any statement at any time prior to publication of research results. Any statements that participants designate as “off the record” will not be attributed to the participant, nor used in a way that would link their statement to said participant. As is detailed in the Informed Consent Form, which will be distributed to interviewees, I will use any such comments only as background information, and will not quote them in either an attributed or unattributed fashion in any of my future work.

All interaction with interviewees will follow the established code of ethics of the American Anthropological Association. The research will be approved by the Institute Review Board at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute prior to commencement.

I am a first year PhD student in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. I hold a bachelor's degree in Science and Technology Studies with a strong concentration in Information Technology from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. I have spent the past twelve years of my life developing websites that are standards compliant and accessible, both personally and professionally. I have experience working for the United States federal government, under the United States Department of Labor, on projects that fell under the jurisdiction of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and thus have first-hand experience working with accessibility law at the federal level.
 * Background information on the researcher**

My studies at RPI have prepared me for conceptualizing disability and policy solutions in a way that is strongly grounded in the theoretical work that makes up the basis of the field of STS. Utilizing these various frameworks will enable me to come up with solid recommendations for change.

The research outlined above will be used to create papers for presentation at various conferences in both the STS and IT circles, and will be compiled into my dissertation upon completion. My dissertation will be published as a book shortly after. I plan on obtaining a job in an STS or IT department at a post-secondary institution, and continuing my research on the ways in which various groups of people use the Internet, especially the disabled. I believe in bridging the gap between theory and practice, and will continue to be active in the web development community by designing and implementing accessible websites, and staying current on technological advancements in the area of web accessibility.
 * Future plans**

It is my hope that the book will be able to be disseminated amongst scholars in STS, IT, and disability studies, and that it would be used by educators, policymakers, activists, and web developers to inform their practices.

1.Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society, Second Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000. 2.Fodness, Kevin R. Web Accessibility: A Policy Analysis. Unpublished manuscript. 3.Foucault, Michel. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1995. 4.Gramsci, Antonio. Selections from the Prison Notebooks. New York, NY: International Publishers, 1971. 5.Hess, David J. Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry: Activism, Innovation, and the Environment in an Era of Globalization. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2007. 6.Lessig, Lawrence. Code Version 2.0. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2006. 7.Lindblom, Charles E. and Edward J. Woodhouse. The Policy-Making Process: Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993. 8.National Federation of the Blind. 2006. Legal Precedent Set for Web Accessibility. National Federation of the Blind Website, September 7. http://stage.nfb.org/nfb/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=24&SnID=150915497 (accessed April 15, 2009). 9.Norman, Donald A. The Design of Everyday Things. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday, 1990. 10.OUT-LAW News. 2007. Computer-Based Exam Discriminated Against Blind Candidate. OUT-LAW.COM: IT and e-commerce legal advice and support, January 24. http://www.out-law.com/page-7692 (accessed April 14, 2009). 11.OUT-LAW News. 2004. Travel Sites Settle New York Accessibility Investigation. OUT-LAW.COM: IT and e-commerce legal advice and support, August 23. http://www.out-law.com/page-4823 (accessed April 14, 2009). 12.US Department of Justice. 2005. A Guide to Disability Rights Laws. ADA Home Page, September. http://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm (accessed April 14, 2009). 13.US Department of Justice. 1996. Memo to Senator Tom Harkin. United States Department of Justice Homepage, September. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal712.txt (accessed April 22, 2009). 14.World Wide Web Consortium. About W3C. W3C Homepage. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ (accessed April 28, 2009). 15.World Wide Web Consortium. WCAG Overview. WAI Homepage. http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag.php (accessed April 28, 2009).
 * Bibliography**