Bridging the Digital Divide: Using Free Open-Source Tools to Expand Access to Shared-Use Computers in Schools and Libraries

Abstract

The use of computers in everyday life has moved from hobby and technical professional use to being essential to almost all activities in people’s lives. However, not everyone has a computer themselves or access to the internet at home. To address this, society provides computers that people can use at school, in libraries, at job centers, in community centers, and at government service centers. However, these are not accessible to those who need assistive technologies (AT), and they are not allowed to install the AT they need to use the computers. This puts people who need to use AT at a severe disadvantage to their peers at best and, at worst, prevents them from participating at all where computer use is required. This is a problem when a person is required to use a particular computer instead of their own and is a total barrier to computer use for those who do not own their own computer. Proposed is the installation of a free utility on all public or shared use computers that both a) exposes the built-in accessibility features in computers to make them easier to discover and use, and b) allows AT users to have any AT the need automatically installed on any computer they encounter, and then set up just for them. When they are done, the AT disappears.

1. Introduction

In the rapidly evolving digital landscape, the ability to access and interact effectively with computers is not just a convenience but a necessity for participation in almost all aspects of society. From education and employment to personal communication and access to services, digital technologies play a central role. However, computers are not accessible to many populations, especially those with disabilities, chronic illnesses, mental health conditions, and older adults.

Despite the existence of tools to enable and simplify computer use, such as built-in accessibility features (zoom, text-to-speech, contrast, keyboard behavior adaptations) and third-party assistive technologies (AT) (screen readers, writing aids, alternate keyboards, screen readers), these solutions often are not known to or available to those who need them the most. For example, almost all accessibility features are buried in control/settings panels where they remain unknown or are where users are afraid to go. And those for whom the built-in accessibility tools are not sufficient – and who need 3^rd party AT – frequently are unable to use the computers at all due to the inability to install their AT on computers that they need to use [1].

These challenges are not merely technical, as they are also rooted in the interface design and accessibility feature discoverability of current operating systems. Users who need built-in features are often unaware of their existence, have difficulty navigating and using them, or are unable to configure them to their needs [2].

To address these multiple challenges to both AT and non-AT populations, a free, open-source tool called Morphic was developed, which provides four key features:

1. Easy discoverability of built-in accessibility features along with simplified, one-click access to key features via a MorphicBar,

2. Access to third-party AT on ‘locked down’ computers via AT-on-Demand; access to their AT anywhere as long as they have a license personally or from school or the location).

3. The ability to save, access, and apply their personalized (AT or accessibility feature) settings on any computer and

4. The ability to create custom MorphicBars for those who are unable to understand and use files, folders, programs, etc.

These novel capabilities not only bridge the accessibility gap for AT users but also simplify the digital experience for many who do not consider themselves to have a disability, but nonetheless have trouble using the interface on computers – and bring forth a new kind or level of digital equity.

In this paper, we discuss Morphic’s development from its initial conception to its current iteration, presenting the early findings that guided our process, and the lessons learned along the way. We also discuss the place of this development in the evolution of accessibility and highlight its potential impact on both existing unsolved problems around AT delivery and availability, particularly to users and communities with fewer resources – including its potential to define a new level or standard for digital equity in places that provide public access or shared-use computers.

2. Background/Related Work

2.1. Assistive Technologies and Computer Access

Assistive technology (AT) encompasses a wide range of devices and software designed to aid individuals with disabilities in using technology. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), AT is a critical element in bridging the gap for people with disabilities, non-communicable diseases, mental health conditions, gradual functional decline, and older adults – and can ensure their participation in an increasingly digital world [3]. Although it is understood that access to AT is a human right, only 1 in 10 people in need of AT have access to it, underscoring the global scale of this issue [3].

Accessibility solutions for computer access have evolved significantly from their early inception. Originally, they were all third-party add-ons and involved the use of physical devices and adapters. This was initially due to the lack of a sophisticated operating system. Keyboards and other input and output devices were “memory mapped,” meaning that software would directly read input from keyboards (for example) by reading a location in memory. Computers also didn’t multitask the way they do today. As a result, adaptations were often physical (keyguards or levers that held down shift keys) and alternate keyboards or keyboard substitutes (that plugged into the keyboard port and looked like keyboards). One notable adaptation was the Adaptive Firmware Card (byte) developed by Paul Schwejda and Judy McDonald that cleverly stole CPU cycles and used the most ingenious methods to fake input events and allow alternate interface approaches such as morse code and scanning to control Apple II computers.

Over time, as operating systems evolved, it became possible to create completely software-based assistive technologies. These AT were able to both read contents from the screen for presentation in speech or braille, and to ‘inject’ fake keystrokes and, later, mouse and other input actions into the operating systems such that they appeared to software running on the computer to be standard input from the standard input devices.

In the 1980s, computer companies, starting with Apple, began building accessibility features directly into their products. Taking features developed in universities such as StickyKeys and MouseKeys, as well as working with 3rd-party AT developers, they build accessibility features directly into their operating systems so that they are available to all users of the computers or operating systems.

This was a breakthrough in accessibility and was among the first examples of ‘inclusive design’ in computers. However, built-in accessibility features were limited, and could not cover the full range of types, degrees, and combinations of disability. This continued to be filled by third-party assistive technology manufacturers. Initially, these companies would attach their assistive technology software by reverse engineering the operating systems and latching onto or injecting information into them. This created problems for both the AT manufacturers and the operating system companies. Since each company was attaching in different places, unknown to the operating system companies, every time, the operating system companies updated their software, they would invariably break one or many different Assistive technologies. Thus, a simple operating system upgrade could disable an AT user for an extended period of time until the company could discover and fix the problem. Sometimes, the place they connected to no longer existed, creating an even more severe problem. Over time, operating system companies worked with AT companies to identify the type of information they needed and the type of control they needed and developed special accessibility APIs that were stable, reducing the effort needed by assistive technology companies and bringing much more stability to third-party AT. Installing multiple ATs on the same computer often created problems with the different AT interfering with each other. This also has been greatly reduced over time but can still exist today if many different assistive technologies are all installed on the same computer at the same time. This can be a problem, for example, for a place wanting to make a wide variety of different assistive technologies available on a single computer at the same time.

2.2. The Gaps Between Availability, Usability, and Use of AT

Although many computer users would benefit from both built-in accessibility features and third-party software, only a fraction use it. This is due to a number of barriers.

Barriers to Use for Built-in Features

• Awareness – many are not aware that the features even exist. A number of studies have been conducted pointing to the disparity between the number of people who could benefit from these features, and the number who are even aware they exist [2, 4].

• Ease of Access – one problem identified in our work was the number of people who found that the features, buried in the control/settings panels, were too difficult and time-consuming to find and turn on each time. Some received negative feedback for using them if they forgot to turn them off afterward (a second tedious task). Some reported getting lost in the settings and finding them very confusing. One honestly said that it just made them feel stupid, so they avoided it.

• Fear – a surprising finding from our work was the number of people who were afraid to go into the control/settings panels. In some cases, they were told to never go into the settings. Others were simply afraid they would “break” the computer. Interestingly, even among people at a library tasked with helping patrons use their computers, some were afraid to go into the control/settings panels and had never done so. For some going into the control/settings panel to make their computer (or the library’s computer) work better for them was akin to asking them to go under the hood of their car (or the library’s or school’s car) and make adjustments to make it work better for them.

Barriers to Use for 3rd Party Assistive Technology

• Availability – For almost all public and shared computers there is no assistive technology installed on them. Sometimes there is a computer or two in some location at the facility with AT on it, but AT users have no ability to use all the computers in all the locations, programs, classrooms, labs, etc., that others do.

• Wrong AT on Computer – When AT is provided on a computer, it is usually just one or two of the 50 to 100 different Assistive technologies that people may use to access computers. Having the wrong assistive technology on the computer is kind of like being given a pair of glasses with the wrong prescription. It might or might not help, but it still leaves you at a distinct disadvantage or completely unable to use the computer.

• Locked Out from Installing AT – The biggest barrier, however, is the fact that AT users are unable to install their assistive technologies on computers they need to use and that do not already have the AT they need on them. This blocks them from using between 98 and 99.9% of all the public and shared-use computers that are available to everyone else. And in many/most locations, it is 100%.

• Cost for AT and Computer to Run it on – Another final barrier is cost [3, 5]. While some assistive technologies are free, many assistive technologies are expensive. But a big barrier can be the need for AT users to have their own computers, due to the above factors. In many cases, an individual with a disability is qualified through a state or insurance program to be provided with assistive technologies. The same programs, however, will not provide the individual with a computer to run their AT on. Without the ability to install and run these AT on public computers, the AT is of no value to the user. In other cases, students may be able to have assistive technologies provided to them through their school. However, these schools/programs do not usually provide the individual with their own computer as well. As a result, the individual again has no ability to use the AT outside of the school in order to do homework, etc. And they are unable to use it in the school as well except on a particular computer - and not on all of the computers in all of the classrooms, labs, etc. that the other students can. As a result, even if the AT is free or is provided to the individual, without the ability to afford their own computer, their inability to install the AT on other computers prevents them from being able to use any 3rd party AT they may need.

2.3. Research Efforts and Existing Solutions

While there have been numerous AT solutions developed over the years, and some applications such as SA2GO (no longer available) that could run on computers without being installed, there has been no general solution to allow AT, which a user needs, to be installed to work on public and shared use computers. There have also been mainstream programs like AppsAnywhere that can be used to allow apps to be installed or run on demand. They are quite expensive, though, and do not include the ability to set up the programs to match user’s needs.

In order to meet the needs of libraries, schools, community centers, government programs, and other places where there are public and shared-use computers, there is a need for an affordable and safe (i.e., no data mining of users) solution that provides better access to a computer’s built-in accessibility features and anywhere access to a user’s AT. In order to be universally deployed in all schools, libraries, and communities, including small, rural, and low-resource communities (rural and urban), such a utility would need to be free or essentially free.

3. Morphic and AT-on-Demand

3.1. Morphic’s Evolution

Initially, the goal of the effort was “auto-personalization,” a settings transfer capability for AT users who encountered difficulties using computers that were not their own and needed to have their AT settings applied to other computers. However, over the course of development and working with schools and job centers, two much broader problems were discovered. First, even when accessibility features were already built into the computer, users were unaware of it, or afraid to use it, because it was buried in the control/settings panels. Secondly, the benefit of being able to transfer one’s AT settings to a computer is severely limited if their AT is not on that computer – and there is no mechanism for the user to install their AT on that computer. This latter problem is particularly severe since the AT they need is seldom on the computers they need to use, making it impossible for them to use the computers.

3.2. Low Awareness and Use of Built-In Accessibility Features

As noted above, a key finding from our efforts was the discovery that there were large numbers of people who needed, but were not using, the accessibility features that are already built into computers. This, in itself, was not unexpected, as this had been found in numerous other studies. What did surprise us was all the reasons:

• Scale of the Lack of Awareness – We were surprised that not only users and people at libraries whose responsibility was to help people use computers, but we even found people in accessibility programs were not aware of the features built into the operating systems.

• Too Hard or Too Much Effort – Even when people did know of a feature, many found that it was too difficult to find it buried in the control/settings panels. Others said it was too much work to navigate all the way into the panels to find the settings to turn them on – and then again to turn them off.

• Fear of Breaking the Computer – We first heard people in American Job Centers expressing a fear of breaking the computer when they used it, or particularly if they did anything different than they had in the past. We thought this was a problem experienced just by people who weren’t used to technology. Then we heard it in a community college with people who are “digital natives.” Then, we heard it spontaneously uttered by someone in a major research university. In exploring further, we found that such feelings were widespread and prevented people from using accessibility features even when they were aware of them. Being located in the control/settings panels seemed to contribute to this.

To address these issues, we first tried using NFC cards that could sit next to the computer with signage showing how to use them to adjust one or more features on the computer (Fig. 1). However, even with a demonstration, we did not see usage. One subject who thanked us profusely after we demonstrated a “zoom screen” function was seen using the computer but not the NFC cards a few days later, saying she was afraid to use it.

Fig. 1.

User holding an NFC card up to the side of a computer screen to activate special accessibility features built into the operating system. Instructions are provided on the stand-up card next to the computer and on the card attached to the side of the computer. A rack of additional NFC cards, each with different accessibility settings, is to the left of the computer.

Our next idea was to create a simple keypad with the name of each function on one of the keys. Our theory was that they might feel more comfortable pressing keys that looked like keyboard keys since they were already pressing keys like this. This idea, however, did not survive our first meeting with the IT staff at a community college. Even if we provided the keypads for free, they said that adding a keypad was a nonstarter. Keyboards were one of their largest points of failure and adding one would be a problem. They also cited the speed with which mice disappeared and the lack of space at the workstations.

This led to our third and penultimate approach of putting each of the accessibility features directly on the bottom of the screen in a pop-up bar we called the QuickStrip (Fig. 2). This approach was successful, and users found features they did not previously known were there, and felt comfortable using them since they were right there on screen. This worked, but a person had to first click on a feature, and a pop-up menu appeared. They would then click on a button in the pop-up. This provided more options but added complexity, and for features that needed to be turned on and off, it added extra button clicks. Also, it was less obvious what items did before you clicked to open them. Finally, the number of choices made the bar somewhat intimidating.

Fig. 2.

A Windows 10 computer with the QuickStrip across the bottom. Each of the 13 buttons popped up a menu allowing the user to activate and/or adjust that feature.

The current implementation goes further in simplifying the bar (now called the MorphicBar) (Figs. 3 and 4). First, any settings that are not frequently used (e.g., used once to set up but not again after that) were moved to the MorphicBar menu, where they were still easy to discover but more out of the way. This simplified the look of the MorphicBar, making it more attractive to users. Second, the pop-up menus were eliminated, making all items 1-click items. With the new design and the accompanying explanatory pop-up, it was faster, simpler, clearer, and friendlier. We found that people were using it without any introduction or instruction.

Fig. 3.

Closeup of the new (current) MorphicBar.

Fig. 4.

New, Current MorphicBar, shown here on Windows 11. The small Morphic icon on the system tray shows and hides the MorphicBar.

3.3. Just Transferring Settings is Not Enough

Although transferring the settings for built-in accessibility settings would be helpful, these features have relatively simple settings, and with the MorphicBar, they were easy to get to and adjust if needed. The larger need for transferring settings was for transferring the settings of assistive technologies, which can be quite a bit more complex and involved. However, in most instances where a person needed to transfer their AT settings to another computer, the other computer would not have the AT they needed, installed on it. Even the few computers that had AT on them, only had one or a few and usually not the AT that a person needed.

This led to a renewed effort to implement an idea long in discussion but not yet implemented: AT-on-Demand. With AT-on-Demand, when a person sat down to a computer with Morphic installed on it, Morphic would determine that the user’s AT was not on the computer and use its AT-on-Demand functionality to install a copy of their software and then configure it for them. Although a simple concept, it was difficult to implement reliably on locked-down computers while preserving or improving site security.

4. The Development Process

At the beginning of our study, we collaborated with job centers to identify the challenges their clients faced, which we found revolved around AT. Although job centers had these accommodations for blind users due to support from Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) agencies, findings revealed a significant knowledge gap among job center staff. Many were unaware of the functionalities of AT at their center or even if it worked. Frequently, the designated computer with AT was older and had remained unused for extended periods. For example, one job center mentioned that they had not powered on this particular computer for approximately five years. If a client arrived at the center and encountered issues with their AT, job center personnel were unable to diagnose the problem or determine if the AT was functional, as they had limited or no expertise with it. Their understanding was limited to the existence of AT and their intended audience.

Subsequently, while engaging with libraries and job centers, we learned that none of the built-in accessibility features within the computer operating system were being used and, most of the time, were not even known about. Therefore, the necessity of exposing the built-in operating system features became evident, and we expanded our focus to include these. In exploring these, the design underwent several iterations, as described above, to determine the most useful and effective approach.

To understand which features might be most useful to patrons, we conducted both interviews and in situ observations. These observations revealed that individuals frequently exhibited behaviors such as squinting or closely approaching computer screens. These behaviors indicated a potential preference for features related to screen enlargement and magnification. Additionally, when developing the tool, we aimed to include features that were obvious and provided immediate feedback, whether through visual or auditory means. Ensuring this immediacy was critical, as it eliminated any ambiguity for users wondering if the feature had been activated successfully.

Various methods were explored to promote awareness and understanding and encourage utilization of these features, including textual descriptions, NFC (Near Field Communication) cards, on-screen toolbars, and finally, on-screen toolbars with pop-up large print help text.

Descriptions of the access features and how to find and access them were initially tried but proved ineffective. Next, we attempted to introduce NFC cards as a means of activating features. With this method, each of the computers was equipped with screens that had NFC readers embedded in their right screen border. The NFC cards were accompanied by signs with instructions such as “Touch your card here.“ Written on the NFC cards were the feature(s) each card would activate, such as “large print” and “large print with high contrast.“ The intended user interaction appeared to be simple: pick up the card and touch it to the screen to trigger the corresponding feature. However, this method encountered limited success as well. Exploration identified several reasons.

Primarily, users were unfamiliar with the concept of using cards for this purpose, and the process was not intuitive. An illustrative anecdote involved a woman who was struggling to see items on the computer screen and resorted to squinting. After being guided by a team member to employ the NFC card labeled “large print,” she experienced an immediate improvement and expressed appreciation for the assistance, even hunting down the researchers when she was done for the day to say thank you and how much easier and faster it was to use the computer. However, on a subsequent visit, she returned to squinting at the screen from close range rather than touching the “large print” card to the screen as shown before. When asked, she said that she was afraid to use the card for fear of inadvertently causing damage to the equipment, a sentiment shared by multiple users. When the researcher questioned her further, noting how simple it was when they were shown the last time – she replied that we might feel safe doing that, but not her. Despite being aware of the card’s functionality and ease of use, users were apprehensive about independently employing something that they were not already used to doing.

As a result, we sought to find a method that would be more like what they were already used to doing. First, we looked at using a keypad with one key per function since pressing keys on the keyboard was already a familiar task – though pushing a key to carry out a function was not quite the same. As noted above, that was nixed by the head of IT over concerns about adding a new piece of (easily removed) hardware to every computer. Next, we turned to an on-screen toolbar with buttons, since pressing buttons onscreen was a common activity. This last approach ultimately proved successful.

In its initial configuration, this toolbar comprised ten settings or functions, each leading to a pop-up menu, enabling users to toggle features on or off and make adjustments. However, this design proved somewhat confusing for users. First, the number of buttons made it look complicated. Second, the number of features was sufficient to be less inviting for people to just try one. The pop-up menu added more complexity and less immediacy and made it harder to turn things on and off in use – or to explore. Also, our attempts to put prompts or descriptive information on the pop-up menus along with the action buttons to make it clear what the buttons were for and how to use them, only made it more complex.

What proved effective in the end was a) prioritizing features that were more commonly used and that provided immediate and obvious results, b) moving features that were set-and-forget (one-time activation) off the bar and into a general menu to simplify the bar, c) making all of the functions single click actions. With this new setup - instead of navigating through multiple steps to activate or deactivate the magnifier, a single click would show the magnifier, and a single click would put it away. Similarly, rather than requiring users to pop up a menu to make the screen a little larger – each single click made everything larger until it reached the level desired by the user. This revised approach improved not only efficiency but also user comprehension, rendering the system more straightforward and user-friendly. It also had a gamification effect in that there was essentially no bar and nothing to learn in order to try just one button to see what it did. The pop-up large print help text also lets them know exactly what would happen, before they press it, reducing their fear of trying something. Once one button was clicked, and users found they could easily change it back with one click, users usually would move down the line with some confidence trying other features.

To further promote social acceptance and alleviate the potential stigma surrounding accessibility or disability-related tools, common usability features such as “snip” (i.e., screenshot) and “dark mode” were added alongside the accessibility features. In this manner, it became more of a utility bar rather than a ‘disability bar,’ allaying users from feeling like they were identifying as disabled if they used the bar.

5. How Morphic and AT-on-Demand Work in Use

First, a user starts out on a computer that has been set up for them. This could be their personal computer or a computer at a clinic, or school, or AT center. With Morphic installed on the computer, the “Save this Setup” is chosen from the MorphicBar menu. This will cause Morphic to see what AT is installed on the computer and active. It will then note these AT and collect all their settings – as well as accessibility settings on the computer. These are then saved into an encrypted “Vault” in the cloud that only the user has access to and is only used by and for the user.

When the user sits down to any other computer with Morphic installed on it (any computer at the library, school, community center, government program, etc.) and signs in, Morphic will call up the list of their AT and the AT’s setting. If the AT is on the computer, it will set it up for the user. If the computer does not have the user’s AT on it., Morphic, with its AT-on-Demand, will pull a clean sterile copy of their AT from a special bundle of AT installation packages the Morphic has provided to the institution and that is installed on the institution’s own server. Thus, no software is downloaded from outside of the firewall as part of the AT-on-Demand operation. The clean copy of the user’s software is installed and configured to fit the person, using the settings they have saved to the cloud. When the user is done, the AT and all the settings disappear from the computer.

Morphic exceeds all user privacy regulations, and all user data is strictly limited to operational needs, secured, and encrypted. To underscore our commitment, an external Privacy and Data Ethics Council has been established that oversees the implementation and privacy measures.

6. Evaluators Tool

The existence of Morphic with AT-on-Demand also opens the possibility of an evaluator tool that would, for the first time, allow people evaluating children or adults for the use of computer assistive technologies to be able to have all of the assistive technologies available at their fingertips. Using the AT-on-Demand’s bundle of installation packages, and a special program, they would be able to pick any technology, and have it instantly installed on their computer, ready to try with a client. With Morphic ability to store different configurations, they could also have multiple configurations for each assistive technology. Instead of evaluating a person with only the few assistive technologies they may have on hand, they would be able to evaluate them with the full spectrum of assistive technologies available. All AT companies contacted to explore this concept have said they would be happy to provide the ability for evaluators to use their software free of charge for evaluation purposes. Many also offered to allow users free trial periods. With Morphic, a clinician could also save the configuration they developed for the user for one or more assistive technologies and share them with the user. When the user gets home, they could have Morphic automatically download the software and install it on their personal computer (or install it temporarily while they are using it at the computer at the library, school, or community center) all set up for them, just as the clinician/teacher/AT specialist set it up for them.

7. Problems Addressed by Morphic and AT-on-Demand

Some examples of existing barriers that AT-on-Demand could now address.

7.1. Problem: Schools, Job Centers, and Government Agencies Provide Computers for Shared or Public Use - but not to AT Users.

This is a common problem in places with shared-use or public-access computers. Due to lack of funds or technical problems installing all AT on all computers, they have no AT on all of their computers, and for security reasons, they cannot allow users to install their AT. Even the few places that have AT on 1 or 2 computers – only have 1 or 2 AT.

• Since AT-on-Demand supports a full spectrum of AT, it would allow students, patrons, or the public to use any computer, in any room or program, at any location, and have the particular AT and settings each individual needs.

7.2. Problem: K-12 Students Who Can’t Use Their School-Licensed AT at Home, or Anywhere Else Outside of School – so No Homework or Independent Work.

Many K-12 students cannot use school-provided AT at home due to licensing restrictions. Many AT companies are willing to let students use AT outside of school, but the school can’t disclose who their students are.

• By providing an anonymous verification method for using school licenses outside of school, AT-on-Demand would enable K-12 schools to offer their students easy access to the school’s AT at home, library, community center, etc. – without compromising privacy.

7.3. Problem: Programs (School, State, or Insurance) Will Pay for the AT a Person Needs - but Will Not Pay for a Computer to Use It On. If the Person Has No Computer – They Can’t Use the AT.

Generally, when families cannot afford a computer, their children use computers at libraries or community centers for homework, etc. But when those computers don’t have the AT that the child needs, they have no place to go.

• With AT-on-Demand, they would be able to use the school/state/insurance-provided AT license on any computer in the community, allowing them, for the first time, to use the same computers as their peers. Essentially, any computer they sit down to would instantly set up to be their “personal, accessible-to-them” computer – and then change back when they are finished. (This also helps those without a home or a safe place to keep a computer.)

7.4. Problem: Small Libraries, Community Centers, Shelters, and Other Places with Public-Use Computers Often Cannot Afford/Manage the Range of AT Needed by Different Patrons, Seniors, Veterans, and Other Users.

Librarians at small, rural libraries with only a couple of computers, struggle to make their libraries as accessible to anyone as large libraries. But they have limited resources, and no staff to think about, much less address, the diverse AT needs of their patrons. And IT support doesn’t understand AT at all. Ditto for community centers, homeless shelters, etc.

• With AT-on-Demand, small libraries, senior or community centers, etc., can allow patrons to use any AT the patron has a license for, on any of the computers—with no cost to the library/community center – and all AT management is done by RTF/AT-on-Demand.

• To address the needs of libraries with users who do not have their own AT license, funding for a “small library program” is being explored to allow them to provide AT free, or at a reduced price, for those who do not have their own licenses.

7.5. Problem: Even for Large, Well-Funded Libraries, Full Digital Accessibility Hasn’t Been Possible.

While most libraries work to ensure their entire building, including all rooms and programs, are accessible to people using mobility AT, such as walkers and wheelchairs, they have not been able to ensure the computers in all these rooms are accessible to people who need digital AT. The result is the exclusion of these AT users from programs and spaces.

AT-on-Demand revolutionizes digital accessibility both for libraries and schools, closing the gap between physical and digital accessibility by providing a safe, secure solution to providing the wide range of AT that patrons may need, and providing it on any computer, in all locations in the library, school, etc.

7.6. Problem: AT Is Often Not Provided – or Limited to Just a Few AT on a Few Computers, Due to Real IT Dept Constraints.

IT departments are understaffed and unable to understand, install, update, and ensure security for the wide range of AT that users need. And for security reasons, they cannot allow users to install software themselves on computers.

• AT-on-Demand is designed to support the needs and constraints of IT departments:

  • It decreases or eliminates the need for IT staff to learn about all the different AT.
  • IT department staff no longer need to individually install and keep AT updated.
  • AT is only installed if there is a valid AT license (library or user).
  • Security is assured since AT is only installed from IT dept servers using install packages pre-screened (also screened by IT themselves if desired).
  • Compliance with Privacy laws is assured by an international Privacy and Data Ethics Council.

7.7. Firsts

Morphic with AT-on-Demand presents the field with several first capabilities for AT vendors, AT users, and any place wanting to make its computers cross-disability accessible.

For the first time.

• AT users can use any computer at school, library, work, a relative’s, etc.– even if the AT they need is not on the computer.

• People who don’t have their own computer can use any computer in their community - just like their peers.

• Interns or new hires can have their company computer set up for them, the same morning they come onboard.

• If an AT user’s computer fails or is lost, a new one can be set up with all their AT and specific settings – in minutes rather than days.

• Institutions can have AT available on all computers at all their locations, so their users who need AT can use them - on an equal footing with everyone else.

• IT departments can provide any assistive technology on any computer a user needs, anywhere at their location – instantly – without having to install it on any computer. They can also use a single disk image for all computers rather than having to maintain a special image for special computers with AT on them.

8. Conclusion

The development and implementation of Morphic and AT-on-Demand represent a paradigm shift in the approach to digital accessibility. In the past, a school or library was considered to be providing good, or at least sufficient, accessibility for computers if they had one or two computers with a few AT located somewhere in their library (or even library system). This is quite a different standard than for wheelchair access, where all rooms, programs, labs, etc., would need to be accessible. With AT-on-Demand, computer accessibility can be provided on a similarly equal basis for AT users as for other library patrons. For pure software AT, they would be able to use their AT, which is automatically set up for them, on any of the computers. For AT that has a required hardware component such as a switch or braille display, they would be able to bring that switch or braille display with them and use it on any computer at the library, with Morphic and AT-on-Demand downloading and installing all of the necessary software and drivers. In both cases, any individual with an assistive technology would be able to use it on any computer at the library in the same way that mobility aid users are able to use their assistive technology (their wheelchair or walker, etc.) anywhere in the facility.

If these free, open-source utilities can be deployed universally, this could represent an entirely new level of digital equity for AT users – especially those with fewer resources or from low-resource communities.