Screening out diversity & innovation?

New technologies are evolving that pull in divergent directions: Testing & Screening pulling in one direction and inclusive technologies in another – this dichotomy poses ethical questions that we should consider.

Screening

Recent advances in medical science mean that it is now easier than ever to predict the likelihood of medical conditions companies like 23&me offer direct to consumer screening which can highlight the probability of certain genetically determined conditions.

Other screening tests are also available via medical professionals that cover a range of different conditions such as searching for the BRCA gene for breast cancer, prenatal testing for downs and spinabifida have existed for many years but either lacked accuracy or were invasive and had a risk of harm.

NIPT

NIPT (Non-invasive prenatal testing) is now able to forecast for Down’s syndrome with 99% accuracy. The reduced risk will surely increase the uptake of such screening.

Many people will see this as a desirable development; indeed newspapers in the UK hailed the introduction of the test as a victory for parents.

Advocates of NIPT say that screening is about informing parents and giving them choice. The reality is most women who are told that their foetus has tested positive for Down’s syndrome chose to terminate the pregnancy. If we look to Iceland where social provision for people with learning difficulties is very advanced and the prospects for a person with Down’s syndrome are good – 100% of women chose to terminate after a positive test for Down’s Syndrome.

It’s ironic that the number of terminations is on the increase just as advances in teaching and integration are enabling many people with Down’s syndrome to complete schooling and hold down jobs.

The Ethical Dilemma

We have moved from a time when people were institutionalised and denied education and the right to a normal life to a point where many people with Down’s can be fully integrated and productive members of society but despite these advances we face the real prospect that screenings will result in the disappearance of Down’s syndrome (also referred to as Trisomy 21), in a generation or so.

“To me people with Down’s syndrome are a type of person. It’s not a disease” Sally Phillips comedienne and the presenter of the BBC documentary “A World Without Down’s Syndrome”.

Only last week I attended a conference where Sara Ruh who has Trisomy 21 addressed an audience of 500 people talking about her outlook on life and work.

Sara & Debra At the Funka Conference - Sara's slide says don't underestimate me.

Picture by Eva Westerhoff

Whilst Down’s syndrome  is the most high profile condition to be screened there is a lot of research being undertaken looking to screen for neurological differences such as autism and dyslexia. Google has teamed up with Autism speaks to research into a cure for autism.

Many people who are not directly affected see these developments as a wholly good thing but we should consider carefully the ethical and societal questions.

There is much evidence that diversity enriches society, diverse teams produce better results & ideas. Diversity goes beyond embracing differences of nationality, gender and religious beliefs. Our concept of diversity needs to embrace both disability and also the concept of neurodiversity. I believe that unless we make the case for the benefits to society of embracing disability and neurodiversity we risk losing some of the most potentially creative members of our society.

Neurodiversity & Creativity

Neurodiversity is a term that has been coined to describe the fact that people have brains which are wired differently (neurodivergence) from neuro typical people (your average Joe if there is ever such a thing as your average Joe). It encompasses a variety of different conditions such as ADHD, dyspraxia, dyslexia, dyscalculia, autistic spectrum and Tourette’s amongst others.

Some of our brightest thinkers are and have been neurodivergent individuals. There is speculation that Einstein was dyslexic, some of our brightest entrepreneurs such as Steve Jobs and Richard Branson are or were dyslexic, and many technology companies are now competing with intelligence agencies to recruit people on the autistic spectrum because they are able to formulate ideas and see patterns that others are unable to.

Being wired differently has its advantages as well as the disadvantages that have for so long been treated as a disability:

The Make up of neurodiversity Created by Mary Colley - an overlapping diagram of difficulties / traits experienced by neurodivergent people with conditions such as Autistic Spectrum Conditions, ADHD, Dyslexia, DCD. Dyscalculia & tourettes.

New technologies are revolutionising how we communicate and consume data.

We now live in a time where technology has enabled us to ameliorate many of the difficulties faced by people with dyslexia.  I am dyslexic and I am dictating this article using speech recognition software, I also frequently use text-to-speech systems to help me with proofreading. Tools are now available which enable autistic people who are non-verbal to be able to communicate with complex vocabularies using symbols.

Previously many of these individuals were considered beyond help because they were not able to communicate; many were confined to institutions with no prospects of ever leaving. Now advocates for neurodiversity point out that it is merely a different method of communication that is required to access opportunities for these individuals. I work with a number of brilliant individuals who are autistic dyslexic and ADHD some of them are non-verbal some of the time and yet they make a fantastic contribution to the ongoing work in accessibility.

Only recently a fertility clinic in the UK decided to refuse sperm donations from people with dyslexia. They made the assumption that people would not want to have a child that was anything other than neuro typical, and yet we are in an age where the ability to read and write is less important than it was even 20 years ago, because technology can enable people to access information orally once more.  For most of human history knowledge was transferred orally and as we move towards conversational interfaces with computers and artificial intelligence becomes commonplace I see that the requirement for reading and writing skills will dwindle over time.

New technologies are evolving that pull in divergent directions Testing & Screening pulling in one direction and inclusive technologies in another.

Reading and writing once the preserve of the elite and then democratised through education has enabled great progress for mankind, it has helped spread knowledge and been the driving power behind many scientific discoveries. But now we are past that point where it is the only way of accessing such information. As text has been digitised it has been transformed into data which can be consumed in a multitude of different ways this flexibility has been the foundation stone for the levelling of the playing field for people who are neurodivergent. It enables people to communicate in the ways that they wish and feel comfortable with rather than those prescribed by society.

Moving on from neurodiversity to consider many other disabilities there are opportunities brought to us by technology that will enable us to augment ourselves as human beings and to find ways of overcoming nature’s shortcomings. For example advances in prosthetics and robotics mean that already we are in the process of demonstrating robotic hands that can feel, other examples are implants that can help restore sight or hearing are on the cusp of becoming commonplace. Exoskeletons can help people to walk who were once immobile. These are exciting times for people with disabilities as technology holds much promise for greater independence and opportunities.

Enabling informed choice

So if we are on the cusp of so many innovations that can significantly improve the lives of people with disabilities my view is that we should think long and hard before making the decision to effectively remove people like me from the collective gene pool.

We need to be making the case to train medical professionals especially those that are encouraging screening to have a clear view that disability is not necessarily tragedy. Of course tests will be invented and people will screen for illnesses and disabilities but if they are informed properly then they will be able to make a choice based upon all of the information about the quality of life that a person with a disability can expect in the 21st century, the contribution to society that they can make and not just fear that they will be a burden.

Accessibility Is Joyous

Let’s Celebrate Accessibility & Inclusion

It’s the 3rd Thursday in May so I am writing my ritual blog post for GAAD (Global Accessibility Awareness Day)

2016 Calendar with a red ring around may 19th

Mark Your Calendar For GAAD

It seems like every day is a Global this or International that day – indeed, often days have multiple causes assigned to them. It can be all to easy to switch off & carry on as normal and to be honest a lot of the time I think that we all do.

Why do I choose to celebrate GAAD?

Firstly I live and work in accessibility:

  • I’m immersed in it, I believe passionately that inclusion is good for both individuals and society. 
  • I use Assistive Technologies as well as supply them and I benefit from accessible products and features.
  • As I have blogged previously 1 billion people with disabilities is not a niche, it’s a demographic megatrend.

Secondly, GAAD is a community day it’s not designed to raise money the sole purpose is awareness. Jennison and Joe the founders have done a great job of energising the global accessibility community to get behind the day and share their knowledge and experience.

GAAD is paying it forwards

It’s about sharing skills and knowledge with new people, exposing the wider world to the work that is important to enable many people to participate fully in an increasingly digital world.

Thirdly and it’s a related point, that sometimes working in accessibility can be a bit of a lonely job. Many colleagues are the only person in their company in that role so GAAD is also a chance to come together and celebrate with friends and make new ones.

GAAD is a day when we can help demystify accessibility

As Gareth Ford Williams says “Accessibility is not a dark art” today is our chance to shine a light on and spread the love for accessibility.

Along with the Atos team of Accessibility Specialists and a bunch of amazing speakers we’ll be gathering at our HQ in London for an all day celebration. We’ll be sharing stories and knowledge both hands on and virtually.

For those that are interested, there will be a captioned live stream of the presentations.

Captioned live stream (10am – 4.30 pm)

I plan to post the recordings afterwards for those that can’t be with us in the day.

Truly celebrate GAAD because accessibility is joyous.

Jumping For  Joy

People Jumping For Joy

Enjoy your day I know I will enjoy mine.

Is Accessibility Middleware Really The Equivalent Of Snake Oil?

Sometimes the Internet is likened to the Wild West, it contains exciting unexplored territory, people have freedom to do all kinds of things and rules are not always rigorously applied.

A cowboy on his horse overlooking a valley in Utah

Photo Credit Mark Gunn

One area where this laissez-faire attitude has significant impact is web accessibility.

The impact of poorly written code and technology implemented without adherence to accessibility standards makes it difficult or impossible for users of assistive technology to make use of many of the things that the Internet has to offer.

This is hardly a new problem, web accessibility guidelines have been around for a long time and are well established (WCAG 2.0 is now an ISO standard). There are a multitude of reasons this (some might say excuses); either people are not aware or do not care about standards or are using tools or CMS/publishing platforms that make it impossible to deliver an accessible website or product.

Accessibility is broken for many people despite a lot of hard work.

Broken pane of glass

Photo credit  Jef Poskanzer

Given the explosion in user generated content on the Internet, this problem is not going away any time soon. So what is the best way to enable people to access services and information online when much of the content and the frameworks are not fully accessible?

How can we fix this thing?

There have been a number of articles written recently discussing the pros and cons of using accessibility add-ons or overlays to add features or fix inaccessible code.

Firstly there was Adrian Roselli’s post Be Wary of Add-on Accessibility” followed by Debra Ruh’s article on accessibility overlays in the Huffington Post and then a Karl Groves post in response  with Adrian commenting on both articles in an update of his original post.

Add-On Accessibility

The current state of web & intranet accessibility is poor and the tools that were discussed in Debra’s article were created in response to a general lack of access.

There are multiple different ways of describing add-on accessibility, middleware or overlays:

The first approach

The “separate but equal approach” of creating a second website accessible to assistive technology users. Like Adrian I am surprised that the 21st-century this is still happening given that creating a second site doubles the workload and usually delivers nothing like an equal experience.

The second approach

Provide embedded assistive technology. I have historically been very sceptical of this approach because if you really need assistive technology in order to use a product or service on the web you are going to need it in order to get to the website in the first place.

Embedding assistive technology into your website is like creating an island of accessibility in a sea of inaccessibility.

Island_near_Fiji

A Desert Island Near Fiji (Source Wikimedia Commons)

Despite this, my line on embedded assistive technology has softened somewhat as products have become available that don’t interfere with the assistive technology that many people with disabilities will have on their own computers.

In limited use cases these tools may have functionality that people may have therefore who am I to say not to use them if they do not break web accessibility guidelines.

The third approach – Cures what ails you?

The issue that has been most hotly debated has been over the concept of products aimed at dynamically repairing accessibility issues in websites whilst leaving the underlying code untouched.

Wormer's Famous Rattlesnake Oil advertisement

Source Wikimedia Commons

These middleware tools and their vendors appear to have a reputation in the accessibility industry as being the digital equivalent of snake oil.

Our Choices

Right First Time

Let me be clear from the outset my preference is for planning and delivering user experiences that are accessible from inception, either by making or buying products that meet standards and have been tested to meet people’s differing needs.

The reality is my preference does not match the day-to-day experience of your average browser user be that on the web at large or within companies intranets.

Fix at source / Fix the Source?

Most people are not building their own websites, they have little or no knowledge of the code that lies beneath. Despite what trends would have you believe most people won’t be learning code any time soon, if ever. They will also not have a clue about accessibility standards, that is a fact of life and it’s not going to change any day soon.

If you thought the internet was inaccessible…

Just wait until you get to look at nine out of ten large companies’ intranets. The tools that are used by organisations for many of their core intranet and business functions, portals and ticketing systems are not the sort of thing that can be easily thrown together.

No Entry Sign

Source Wikimedia Commons

They are usually made by big enterprise software companies and most IT departments attempt to deploy as close to out of the box as possible. Despite that there is a complex interplay of hundreds of dependencies; company IT and Security policies and interdependency with other parts of the company ecosystem including legacy IT.  Unfortunately they are usually not paragons of virtue when it comes to inclusive design.

An oft overlooked point is that companies that implement these systems often do not own the source code they are reliant on the vendors.  Once they’ve signed on the dotted line most of their power to influence that vendor evaporates.

Enterprise IT is a complex and often beauraucratic beast projects cost many millions and run for months and years.

Much as we may want to tear it up and start again…

Sometimes you have to admit that even if you do get the go ahead to fix at source the users may not see the benefit for months or even years.

Given the long lead times and complexity of fixing things in corporate environments I can see how middleware that solves the user access issues is attractive and even a valid choice in certain scenarios.

The vendors of these tools should be upfront about the capabilities of their tools and also the level of knowledge, training & intervention required to set them up so that the problems for users are resolved.

Equally people looking to purchase these tools should not expect a magic wand.

Middleware is not snake oil if:

  • It enables users access where they didn’t have it.
  • It expedites access reducing the glacial time-scales of mega-corporate IT.
  • It does not interfere with existing ATs.
  • Implimenting it helps create processes for handling accessibility issues better in future.

So why does it feel like the accessibility industry is circling the wagons?

Wagons in a circle

Photo Credit Don Graham

Partly I think it’s fear of change – people are used to solving a problem in a particular way.  That way is still valid for individual projects but I want to be open minded and embrace the idea that technology just might be better at solving the problem than we currently give it credit for.

I don’t think it’s because people’s income is threatened because there is plenty of broken stuff to keep everyone in the industry working for years to come.

Accept that we cannot fix accessibility piecemeal.

The greatest technology giants of our time know this and that is why they are looking at using their computational power to solve the problems of inaccessible content:

  • Facebook is experimenting with computer generated image descriptions. I don’t know about you but I don’t much feel like retrospectively writing alt text for the worlds face book feeds.
  • Nor do I fancy writing the transcripts to all of youtube’s content in order to produce captions – the 30 minutes per week that we do for #AXSChat is labour intensive enough as it is.  I welcome Youtube’s effort with auto-captions.  They are far from perfect but I do believe that their approach is the right one.

If technology genuinely removes barriers it’s OK in my book.


 

Why not join the #AXSChat conversations that Debra Ruh, Antonio Santos and I host every Tuesday on twitter or catch up with the video interviews that we’ve done with a wide range of people over the last year. www.axschat.com

Interesting Yet Inaccessible: To Share Or Not To Share?

Image

My Dilemma

Today I got called out on twitter by David MacDonald – a fellow accessibility professional for reposting a tweet by Jared Spool which contained an image of text.

I frequently get faced with a dilemma when someone posts content that is not accessible yet I find interesting and worthy of sharing.

David MacDonald calls out Neil for retweeting an image of text posted by Jared SpoolDo I share?

When I make content I strive for it to be accessible but a lot of stuff on social media is not created by me but I may think people would like to know about it.

Do I never share?

That would stop me from sharing a lot of interesting stuff on principle. But what little content I did would be fully accessible.  Maybe if you consider social media to only contain ephemera then this should be your course of action.

Do I fix other people’s content?

In this case I have fixed someone else’s content.

However it’s taken me much more time than the collective effort of all the people who created the original content and responded to it so is not realistic on every occasion:

What about when the medium is innately inaccessible?

Twitter is a short form medium. I wish that it provided the opportunity to create alt text inbuilt. I wish that the default mobile clients supported these features – they don’t yet. As a consequence sometimes I share stuff that is not accessible.

The Text In The Offending Image:

I hope that in this year to come, you make mistakes.

Because if you are making mistakes, then you are making new things, trying new things, learning, living, pushing yourself, changing yourself, changing your world.

You’re doing things you’ve never done before, and more importantly, you’re Doing Something.

So that’s my wish for you, and all of us, and my wish for myself. Make New Mistakes. Make glorious, amazing mistakes. Make mistakes nobody’s ever made before.

Don’t freeze, don’t stop, don’t worry that it isn’t good enough, or it isn’t perfect, whatever it is: art, or love, or work or family or life.

Whatever it is you’re scared of doing, Do it.

Make your mistakes, next year and forever.” — Neil Gaiman

Design choice is more than just about taste. It’s an accessibility issue.

This post was written as my contribution to Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD).

You can find out more from the GAAD website or searching the #GAAD hashtag.

The Day Job

I spend a lot of time dealing with the technicalities of making stuff work with Assistive Technology (AT). If I’m honest even more time in meetings dealing with the organisational politics surrounding it and giving talks on the technicalities whys and wherefores of making stuff work with screen readers, magnifiers and other ATs like Dragon and Texthelp. This is probably pretty familiar stuff to many of my readers and colleagues. It’s recognisably accessibility work and it’s work that I am proud to do.

The Second Job

However, recently I have been spending some spare time as a contributor to the Cognitive Accessibility Taskforce for W3C and this has caused me to reflect on my own needs and preferences for using technology. I’ve long been passionate about UX and usability and talked about the overlap between the disciplines but I’m currently reading a lot on cognitive load.

I have dyslexia and whilst I do make use of AT it isn’t my main way of interacting with technology. Often I am just using a smartphone tablet or laptop and interacting with apps and websites.

Poor working memory and difficulties with sequencing play a significant role in making life challenging. Both individually and collectively they reduce my ability to deal with and make sense of information – cognitive load – or in my case overload.

Up until about 18 months ago I was a pretty happy guy.

I liked my apps I loved my iPhone, iPad and my Nexus and Windows 7 felt comfortable and familiar.

Metro changed everything.

The new Microsoft UI that debuted with Windows phone 7 was certainly different. I wanted to like it but the more I used it the more I hated it. From the day glow tiles and unfinished words running off the screen to the flatness of it. It was just plain hard to use, downright confusing. I avoid using windows 8 touch screen UI for the same reasons.

iOS7 makes me want to cry.

It may well be the most accessible mobile OS in terms of inbuilt AT but it is a real step backwards for users with cognitive difficulties such as dyslexia.

Johnny Ive won his battle against the skeuomorphs and the resulting iOS 7 is flat skinny and by turns blinding glaring white with poor contrast and skinny fonts. The UI is confusing – and frequently pulls the rug from underneath you. You may have been bored with “lickable buttons” book binders and leather textures but at least I could make out when something was a button or required action.

Studies have shown that iOS7 places a higher cognitive load on users than it’s predecessor. I make more mistakes, recover from them more slowly and feel tired from the stress of the extra effort of using it.

7.1 has added the ability to reduce the glare and make the buttons more obvious, it’s an improvement but I still find it easier to use the unfashionable iOS6.

The App ecosystem exacerbates and amplifies the problem.

App developers and web designers are also following the trend so that their products have a consistent look and feel. Everywhere I look is going flat and skinny and my heart sinks every time I see an update.

I am not saying all flat design is bad.

Great flat design can be simple clean and satisfying to use but a lot of flat design feels abusive to me as a user and who wants to use an app or service that makes you feel stupid?

Look back to the POUR principles of WCAG 2.0

The POUR Principles are: Perceivable, Operable, Understandable and Robust . The W3C explain the principles here
If I can’t make out whether something is a button or cannot read stuff I can’t operate it as intended.

My plea.

Please do the stuff to make your product accessible to ATs and then think about the cognitive load you are placing on your users when you choose colour schemes and icon sets – what you think of of as the design is for me and millions of others like me an accessibility issue. If you really want to go with a certain look and feel – make it the default and offer user the option to customise it to meet their needs.

Digital By Default

This week I spent a day and a half at the National Digital Conference (twitter hashtag #ND13).

It was interesting talking with civil servants, members of the third sector and businesses about their interests and efforts to growing digital engagement with the wider public.

This is part of a strategy called Digital by Default being led by the Government Digital Service (GDS). They put forward some compelling facts and figures on the benefits to individuals and society in general for their approach. They are responsible for the new UK government web site that recently won the Design of the Year Award.

Here are the GDS core principals:

A list of the ten Gov.uk design principles see text below.

1 Start with needs*
2 Do less
3 Design with data
4 Do the hard work to make it simple
5 Iterate. Then iterate again.
6 Build for inclusion
7 Understand context
8 Build digital services, not websites
9 Be consistent, not uniform
10 Make things open: it makes things better

The idea is to make services available primarily via the Internet. The web is the first point of call and the premise is that it will bring benefits for the user

We had some really interesting speakers on a range of topics from Martha Lane Fox, Lord Young, Phillip Blond and Emma Mulqueeny.

The First Major Topic Was Assisted Digital

This is what GDS say about Assisted Digital.

“The Assisted Digital team at GDS is working with departments to develop assisted digital support for digital services. This will give the 18% of UK adults who are offline access to digital by default services”

Read the Cabinet Office Assisted Digital Strategy

Assited Digital is NOT about accessibility the GDS believe that they have that covered in their strategy when they say “build for inclusion”.

And lets remember that digital accessibility only works if the users have the Assistive Technologies to interact with and the knowledge if how to use them.

Some of this Assisted Access of this will mean Digital By Proxy as the “Default” services are accessed on behalf of citizens who cannot access them unaided.

Another core strategy is to teach digital skills to those that currently don’t have them. A large contingent of this group is made up of people with disabilities and the older population. Many of these people are effectively socially excluded. The idea is that they get help right now but they will be encouraged to become more and more digitally independent.

The thing that struck me was that whilst there was a lot of talk about the huge benefits of getting people online, how much money people will save, how it empowers consumers and makes access to government services and information easier and more streamlined but little thought on the other effects it might have.

To me it seems like we are missing a few pieces of the jigsaw:

We don’t routinely provide Assistive Technology to all citizens that need it.
Grant provision for AT whilst excellent in Higher Education and available in the workplace is missing for the wider population on disability benefits.

The Access to Work scheme is a net contributor to the treasury. Other Government schemes such as Motability have given many people much greater independence, so why not have a targeted scheme for access technologies along similar lines.
Without the AT and the skills to use it there’s a lot of wasted effort making stuff accessible.

Furthermore many of those that currently use face to face analogue services now value the human interaction – the visit to the Post Office or Council office might be the only human contact they have. Phillip Blond made an interesting point – isolation and loneliness has a more immediate detrimental effect than smoking.

I applaud much of what the government digital strategy is attempting but I will leave you with these questions:

If all we go digital does it not bring it’s own perils?

Is it not like squeezing a balloon – with actions (the stated benefits) in one direction causing reactions (challenges) in another direction?

Footnote

I’m a naturalised digital citizen – I’m connected all of my waking hours and my digital presence is awake even when I am not. I have many connections and virtual interactions. I can work from anywhere and yet I chose to brave the rush hour crush. Why do I do this?

There is something valuable about proximity and the spontaneity of old fashioned analogue contact. If all our transactions go digital the. We need to find another and better way of engaging with the socially excluded.

Hands squeeze a balloon and it bulges outwards.

Tribal warfare

John’s Nice Idea

Long standing accessibility advocate John Foliot often refers to people working in the accessibility world as members of the Tribe – itinerant, dispersed and yet connected with some commonality of purpose. John has a very positive outlook and it is one that I admire; he advocates finding solutions rather than pointing out problems, being a fireman taking action to prevent fires rather than a policeman arresting villains…

I admire all of this and subscribe wholeheartedly to this approach.

But it is not reflective of the reality in which we currently live and work.

What we actually have is a load of different tribes

Rather than harmony we have tribal warfare.

Tribes at warLet me give some context to my comments:

I recently attended a meeting of the eAccessibility forum at the Department for Culture Media And Sport (DCMS). It was intended as an opportunity to contribute to future legislation and policy to further digital inclusion for people with disabilities.

The session to explore the challenges and opportunities for accessibility presented by the rapidly changing technology landscape and to share ideas and potential solutions quickly fell apart.

One of the keynote speakers was harangued for being too personal despite advocating a broad brush pan disability approach.  She was advocating a rational, realistic and inclusive approach to the issues at hand.

The first person to stand up and criticise professed to have broadly the same aims as the speaker but attacked all the same only to get a smattering of applause.

For nearly two hours most of what I saw was people pushing their own personal agendas, complaining about this or that failing. Bemoaning that access was not 100% perfect. Wilfully misunderstanding and dismissing or ignoring each other.

It was like listening to a room full of broken records. The voices of the rational and reasonable (yes there were some there) drowned out in the clamouring.

Fragments of broken records

What happened to the concept of doing things for the greater good?

Or contributing for the benefit of all?

There was a fundamental lack of respect in the room which saddened me. Not from everyone but from enough to make the meeting unworkable as a useful forum.

Instead of thinking about the digital landscape in 5, 10 and 20 years time and what benefit we might bring to all people were fixated with their pet topics or asking for the impossible.

The one good idea of the whole event was tax breaks for accessibility.

This has some potential as a carrot to encourage businesses to do more.  We have the legislative sticks but businesses always look at the bottom line and incentives can and do make a difference.

He Who Shouts Loudest

After the event I sat mulling things over as to why people had behaved in such a way.  It occurred to me that this behaviour was not natural but had been adopted and learned.

Man with a megaphone

Advocates from disability groups had seen people have a measure of success by being vocal and forceful. So they assumed that this was the most effective approach to break down the barricades.

What this approach fails to recognise is that the war is over.

There may still be a lot to do but there is legislation in place and we were sitting in a government building being consulted and this is how people behaved…

It is no wonder legislators and companies shy away from us if we behave like terrorists.  Even the IRA recognised that the best way forward was to negotiate and compromise. Now one of their former number is the Second Minister in Northern Ireland.  They may not have everything they want yet and they may never but working peacefully and collaboratively has achieved more than all of the bombing.

What works for one group of users may not for another, the needs of businesses to pay their owners and staff and governments to run their countries mean that there will be no accessibility promised land.

100% accessibility of 100% of the web and Media for 100% of all the disability groups is a pipe dream but…

We can still make things a lot better

This is why we need to lay down the megaphones we use as weapons and start thinking about a pragmatic inclusive approach to technology and accessibility.  Think about what the challenges are for business and align with them to achieve far more for a wider group of people than ever before.