Most people acknowledge that personal computers have enormously enhanced the autonomy and communication capacity of people with special needs. The key factor for accessibility to these opportunities is the adequate design of the user interface which, consequently, has a high impact on the social lives of users with disabilities. The design of universally accessible interfaces has a positive effect over the socialisation of people with disabilities. People with sensory disabilities can profit from computers as a way of personal direct and remote communication. Personal computers can also assist people with severe motor impairments to manipulate their environment and to enhance their mobility by means of, for example, smart wheelchairs. In this way they can become more socially active and productive. Accessible interfaces have become so indispensable for personal autonomy and social inclusion that in several countries special legislation protects people from 'digital exclusion'. To apply this legislation, inexperienced HCI designers can experience difficulties. They would greatly benefit from inclusive design guidelines in order to be able to implement the 'design for all' philosophy. In addition, they need clear criteria to avoid negative social and ethical impact on users. This paper analyses the benefits of the use of inclusive design guidelines in order to facilitate a universal design focus so that social exclusion is avoided. In addition, the need for ethical and social guidelines in order to avoid undesirable side effects for users is discussed. Finally, some preliminary examples of socially and ethically aware guidelines are proposed.

Creating adaptable solutions to address diverse users and situations.

This paper raises the need for quantitative accessibility measurement and proposes three different application scenarios where quantitative accessibility metrics are useful: Quality Assurance within Web Engineering, Information Retrieval and accessibility monitoring. We propose a quantitative metric which is automatically calculated from reports of automatic evaluation tools. In order to prove the reliability of the metric, 15 websites (1363 web pages) are measured based on results yielded by 2 evaluation tools: EvalAccess and LIFT. Statistical analysis of results shows that the metric is dependent on the evaluation tool. However, Spearman's test produces high correlation between results of different tools. Therefore, we conclude that the metric is reliable for ranking purposes in Information Retrieval and accessibility monitoring scenarios and can also be partially applied in a Web Engineering scenario