Skip to content

Assistive Technology Reference (1960s 2020s)

Assistive technology included physical products, digital tools, modifications, systems, and related services used to maintain or improve functioning in areas such as communication, cognition, hearing, mobility, self-care, and vision. The category ranged from low-tech tools such as pencil grips, communication boards, and portable ramps to wheelchairs, hearing aids, braille displays, screen readers, speech-generating devices, and environmental controls.

Overview

No single device category or level of technical sophistication met every access need. A person could use several technologies together, use different tools in different environments, alternate between high- and low-tech methods, or reject a product that did not fit. Appropriate provision required more than purchasing hardware. Evaluation, feature matching, customization, fitting, training, maintenance, repair, replacement, and support all affected whether a tool remained usable.

The World Health Organization described assistive technology as an umbrella term that included products and their related systems and services. United States education regulations used a functional definition for children receiving services under IDEA: an assistive-technology device was an item, equipment, or product system used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities. Those regulations separately defined assistive-technology services, including evaluation, acquisition, customization, maintenance, repair, replacement, coordination, and training.

Terminology and Scope

‘’Assistive technology’‘, ‘’adaptive technology’‘, and ‘’assistive products’’ overlapped but were not always interchangeable in law, healthcare, education, employment, or consumer use. A mainstream phone, tablet, keyboard, or smart speaker could function as assistive technology for one user without being marketed as a medical or disability-specific product.

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) included methods that supplemented speech and methods used instead of speech. AAC could include signing, gesture, writing, letter or symbol boards, text-to-speech, speech-generating devices, and communication software. AAC use did not establish a person’s intelligence, language comprehension, diagnosis, or ability to use biological speech at another time.

Disability-language preferences varied among people and communities. ‘’Wheelchair user’’ and ‘’uses a wheelchair’’ avoided the false implication of confinement in ‘’wheelchair-bound’‘. Identity-first and person-first language remained individual and community choices. A device could be understood as equipment, personal property, part of the user’s body space, or a communication voice; no one framing applied to every user.

Historical and Policy Context

1960s and 1970s

Institutionalization, segregated education, inaccessible buildings, and medical control remained widespread during the 1960s. Assistive products existed, but access depended heavily on institutions, rehabilitation systems, family resources, veterans’ services, and local expertise. Disabled people and families also adapted commercially available objects or built tools when formal systems did not provide workable options.

The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 required access in certain facilities designed, built, altered, or leased with federal funds. The first Center for Independent Living opened in Berkeley in 1972 as a disability-led organization. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act became law in 1973, and disability activists’ 1977 demonstrations and San Francisco sit-in helped force the issuance of implementing regulations. These changes did not produce universal access, but they strengthened civil-rights and independent-living approaches in which technology supported participation and self-direction.

1980s and 1990s

Personal computers expanded access to text entry, synthesized speech, screen reading, magnification, alternative keyboards, and switch input. Dedicated AAC systems developed larger vocabularies, displays that changed available words by page, portable hardware, and improved speech output, while low-tech boards and alphabet systems remained in use.

Congress passed the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act in 1988. The law funded consumer-responsive statewide programs and national work involving information, training, financing, demonstration, and access. The Americans with Disabilities Act became law in 1990 and prohibited disability discrimination across major areas of public life. The Assistive Technology Act of 1998 continued federal support for state programs; the 2004 amendments changed the state-grant structure and emphasized continuing access activities.

Internet access created new opportunities and barriers. Email, online communities, and digital documents could support independent communication and information access, while inaccessible websites and software could exclude screen-reader, keyboard, caption, and other access methods. The World Wide Web Consortium issued Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 as a recommendation in 1999.

2000s and 2010s

Broadband, mobile computing, consumer touchscreens, built-in accessibility, and application stores moved some disability access into mainstream products. This reduced the need for separate hardware in some situations but did not eliminate dedicated devices. Consumer products could be less durable, harder to mount, unsupported by a funding program, or unsuitable for a person’s sensory, motor, language, or communication needs.

AssistiveWare released Proloquo2Go for iOS in 2009, before the first iPad launched in 2010. Its arrival therefore belonged first to the iPhone and iPod touch period; the later iPad gave the application a larger consumer-device format. Tablet AAC expanded product choice and availability but did not make one application, symbol system, or grid appropriate for every communicator.

Built-in screen readers, captioning, voice recognition, switch access, video calling, and visual or vibrating alerts became more common across mainstream operating systems. Social media also allowed disabled people to exchange technical knowledge, document access failures, organize politically, and speak publicly without relying entirely on traditional disability organizations or media.

2020s

Remote work, education, healthcare, and public events increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote participation reduced some transportation, fatigue, and environmental barriers while creating or exposing others, including inaccessible meeting platforms, missing captions or interpreters, inaccessible documents, device and broadband gaps, and reduced access to in-person assessment and repair.

Machine learning and generative systems entered image description, speech recognition, word prediction, captioning, navigation, and environmental controls. Their output could increase speed or information access, but it could also be inaccurate, biased, unavailable, or difficult to verify. An automated description, prediction, or caption was not a guaranteed substitute for human judgment or an accessible source.

Major Technology Areas

Communication and AAC

AAC systems could combine unaided methods such as gesture and sign with aided methods such as boards, writing, mobile applications, or dedicated speech-generating devices. Vocabulary organization, language, voice, symbol use, text access, rate enhancement, portability, mounting, and backup methods required individual decisions.

Communication partners affected access as much as the device. Waiting for a message, addressing the user directly, respecting refusals and corrections, and not removing or controlling the system without consent were communication-access practices. Device failure did not erase the user’s language or personhood; it could, however, remove the user’s fastest or most broadly understood method.

Mobility and Positioning

Mobility technology included canes, crutches, walkers, manual and power wheelchairs, seating systems, transfer equipment, prostheses, orthoses, and vehicle or home modifications. Fit, pressure management, propulsion, controls, transportation, repair, and environmental accessibility affected safe use. A wheelchair increased mobility but could not make stairs, narrow doors, damaged sidewalks, or inaccessible transportation disappear.

Vision, Hearing, and Digital Access

Vision-related technology included braille and large-print tools, magnification, white canes, screen readers, optical-character recognition, braille displays, and object- or text-recognition applications. Hearing-related access included hearing aids, cochlear implants, captioning, visual or vibrating alerts, assistive listening systems, and communication services. Individual Deaf and hard-of-hearing people differed in language, culture, hearing technology, and access preferences.

Digital access depended on the content and application as well as the user’s technology. A screen reader could not reliably repair missing labels, an inaccessible document structure, or a keyboard trap. Automatic captions could provide partial access while still producing errors in names, accents, technical language, and overlapping speech.

Daily Living, Cognition, and Environmental Control

Daily-living and cognitive supports included adapted utensils, medication systems, reminder applications, visual schedules, simplified controls, smart-home equipment, and task-specific modifications. Environmental controls could operate doors, lights, temperature, communication, or entertainment through switches, touch, voice, or other inputs.

These tools did not establish incapacity or dependence. They could redistribute effort, reduce risk, preserve energy, or make a task possible without another person’s physical assistance.

Provision, Access, and Material Conditions

Assistive-technology access depended on policy, funding, assessment, trained providers, product availability, language support, repair networks, transportation, internet service, and the user’s control over decisions. In schools, the United States Department of Education emphasized in 2024 that providing hardware alone did not satisfy IDEA when related services such as selection, training, coordination, or maintenance were also needed.

Insurance and public programs used different definitions of medical necessity, educational benefit, workplace accommodation, and covered equipment. A product could be covered in one setting and denied in another. Consumer hardware could lower some costs while shifting purchase, repair, application, and subscription expenses to the user.

The 2022 WHO and UNICEF global report documented extensive unmet need and large international differences in access. Race, income, geography, language, age, immigration status, institutionalization, and the availability of specialists could compound those barriers. The existence of advanced technology did not mean that a particular person could obtain, maintain, or use it.

Public Discourse and Misconceptions

Assistive technology was often framed as either a miracle or evidence of tragedy. Both framings displaced the user. Technology could provide effective access without curing disability, removing fatigue, ending discrimination, or working in every environment.

High-tech equipment was not automatically better than a familiar low-tech method. A communication board did not become invalid because a speech-generating device existed; a manual wheelchair was not an inferior power wheelchair; and a person who declined a prosthesis or implant was not refusing independence.

AAC, wheelchair, screen-reader, and hearing-technology use did not supply a diagnosis, personality, intelligence level, emotional response, or political identity. Those details required person-specific evidence.

Associated People and Devices

Cody Matsuda

After a 1995 anoxic brain injury, Cody became nonspeaking. He communicated through AAC, ASL, writing, facial expression, gesture, intentional vocalizations, and body movement. ASL became his faster and more natural method, while AAC remained important with people who did not sign. His family learned ASL, and typing and AAC were built into the Matsuda-Davis Homeschool Cooperative.

Cody’s exact AAC hardware, software, symbol system, access method, acquisition process, and replacement history remain unestablished. Current canon does not support assigning him a tablet progression, eye-gaze system, fixed device-failure scenes, or insurance-denial history.

Charlie Rivera

Charlie used speech, sign language, gesture, writing, and AAC. His earlier electronic setup used TD Snap on a portable iOS device, and he later transitioned to Grid 3 on Windows. His personalized system included English and Spanish vocabulary, a personalized synthetic voice, and separately message-banked recordings.

The exact hardware models, access methods, and transition dates remain unestablished. His conditions and fatigue did not by themselves establish eye gaze, switch access, a fixed loss-of-speech sequence, family rejection, or an insurance dispute.

Changes Across the Timeline

  • 1968: The Architectural Barriers Act addressed access in certain federally funded or leased facilities.
  • 1972: The disability-led Center for Independent Living opened in Berkeley.
  • 1973–1977: Section 504 became law, and disability-led protests helped secure its implementing regulations.
  • 1988: The Technology-Related Assistance Act created federal support for statewide systems and national projects.
  • 1990: The Americans with Disabilities Act established broad federal civil-rights protections.
  • 1998–2004: The Assistive Technology Act and its amendments continued and restructured state AT programs.
  • 1999: WCAG 1.0 became a W3C recommendation.
  • 2009–2010: Proloquo2Go launched on iOS before the first iPad; the iPad later expanded consumer-tablet AAC.
  • 2020s: Remote participation and machine-learning tools widened some forms of access while preserving device, design, funding, repair, and accuracy barriers.

Sources and Documentation

Cultural Context Assistive Technology Disability Culture