Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
disabilities to interact with mainstream systems and services. As outlined above, AT
permits a human being's adaptation to the environment-system and also asks users to a
cognitive and cultural modification and adaptation (Federici et al. 2010).
Further on, eAccessibility asks for a general societal adaptation and for respecting and
implementing the mentioned accessibility standards to allow AT-powered interaction
with mainstream systems and services as a prerequisite for participation (Darzentas and
Miesenberger 2005; Miesenberger, 2009a, 2009b). This brings a wide and complex scope
to the psychotechnologist because it is not only the user and their personal technological
framework which is at discussion; with eAccessibility, ICT in general is addressed. The
technological infrastructure, developments, and changes affect our communities and
thereby the possibility and quality of participation. Because of the accepted need to
overcome the traditional separation and exclusion of people with disabilities, a more
intense interaction and communication with mainstream processes is a key objective.
This of course expands the number of potential contexts and in particular the complexity
of changing external opinions, procedures, and processes to suit the needs of AT federated
participation. AT users live and act in diverse contexts, and most of the time they address
inclusion in mainstream contexts; therefore, AT assessment and the psychotechnologists
inherit an according complexity from both the “internal,” person-centered AT and the
“external,” eAccessibility context. “Making AT social” in this wide contextual sense is the
core challenge of AT psychotechnologists.
9.5.2 Psychotechnologist—The need for education
This multilevel complexity underlines the need for a broad set of skills and qualifications.
Analyzing and watching the state of the art (Matausch et al. 2006; Miesenberger, 2006;
Miesenberger et al. 2010) showed that by far no appropriate training and qualification
programs are available. Traditional professions such as ergotherapists, rehabilitation
specialists, or special/inclusive teachers are still very reluctant to take AT (in particular
ICT-related AT, which is a key enabler for inclusion today) and eAccessibility on board.
Education is more or less still oriented toward an “internal” context of a medical,
therapeutical, special educational, or technological approach. The ICT, AT, eAccessibility,
and “Design for All” revolution seems not to have touched ground with traditional
disciplines and the according education.
On the other hand, the last few years are characterized by a constantly growth of awareness
toward aging and disability, also leading to the associated legal framework demand for
eAccessibility and eParticipation (W3C/WAI 2006). Demographic developments clearly
show an increase in older adults and people with disabilities in general (Lifetool 2004).
Several economic sectors already reacted to these developments by starting to produce
apparatuses especially for older adult people that respect and follow the concepts of
eAccessibility and Design for All. Not only are technical apparatuses for a convenient life
of interest for older adults, but so too are support systems to gain independence through
life because this population group is more likely to be affected by a disability. Surveys
show that older adult people aim for autonomy in their lives. People with disabilities and
older adults are able to gain greater control over their own life through the use of ATs. ATs
allow for participation and more contribution to activities at home, school, work, leisure
time, or other communities.
The current educational offer in the field is inconsistent. Expertise is developed through
both learning -by doing and single seminars. Different enterprises that work in the field of
ATs offer seminars, each lasting at most a couple of days. Another offering was SART (1999),
