2004 Summer Institute : Final Report

Monday, June 14, 2004

"How have people with disabilities identified challenges and benefits of new technologies?"

Laurie Beachell (Council of Canadians with Disabilities) acted as a strong voice for people with disabilities throughout the institute, particularly regarding issues to do with access, isolation, and poverty. He began this session by commenting that, in his opinion, the disability community is both ambivalent towards and overwhelmed by the topic of information technologies. He asserted that "Technology becomes either the great liberator or the creator of new barriers for people," and gave the example of the Council of Canadians with Disabilities' (CCD) former Access to Information Committee, which was primarily concerned with access to automated banking. He commented that

Beachell described this example as typical of the ways in which new technologies have created and continue to create new barriers for people with disabilities.

Beachell also gave an example of how technology can be beneficial to people with disabilities. He talked about the CCD's involvement in the E-Democracy theme of the Dis-IT Research Alliance as a positive example of the use of technology to attain full citizenship for people with disabilities.

Panel discussion

Introduction and Closing Remarks: Jim Derksen (Council of Canadians with Disabilities, Winnipeg)

Panelists: Ross Eadie (Info-Equity), Tanis Woodland (University of Manitoba), Gary Birch (Neil Squire Foundation), Jim Derksen (Council of Canadians with Disabilities)

Introduction

Jim Derksen began by discussing his personal experiences as a bank customer. He commented that in-person banking was quite accessible, with the exception of the height of the counter in front of the bank tellers. One of the banks he uses has lower universal design counters. He described his experience with automated banking machines: "In my own case, I was able to use a very low teller machine, but then my bank moved to another location, and they put in the newer model. And although they were supposed to be accessible, I had lost some stretch so I could no longer reach as high, and the new accessible machines were not usable." Luckily, however, Derksen knew the manager and other people at the bank and had been a long-time customer, so "they actually rescued the old machine from the other location and installed it in the new location. So I've been able to continue using that banking machine." Derksen also expressed his frustration with the inaccessibility of parking machines, which became a recurring topic and example for many of the participants and presenters throughout the institute.

Derksen also discussed the benefits of new technologies in terms of access to information in government and community development. He gave the example of a friend, a disability rights lawyer who employs people to read for her or to generate texts in Braille or usable format, who had trouble accessing the law. In response, the Government of Manitoba now provides all laws in HTML format, so that they are now accessible to anyone who uses a computer. He also commented that for interest groups such as the Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD), new technology offers benefits for people with disabilities: "In the area of community development, certainly we are able to communicate more quickly, more effectively on issues, across a broader span."

Derksen also discussed how in general, information and access continues to be a challenge for people with disabilities. "The problem is, we often have to react once it has already been built. We've talked for a long time about being in at the design stage, although I suppose the challenge is even more fundamental. We need to create a new mindset where even before the design stage, there is a value base that says, 'we want to make this usable by as many differently-abled people as we can.' That is one of our fundamental motivations for this kind of innovation project that we're involved in."

Derksen concluded by addressing the following points:

• It is important to consider the wide range of economic capacity of individuals and that not everyone can afford enabling technology.
• Research and statistics are needed on how connected the disability community is to the internet.
• He stressed the need for remaining open and flexible because of the speed of change of new technologies: "The speed of change is incredible. We have to be flexible. We have to change the principles and positions that we once held with a certain rigidity. We have to accept fluidity, to accommodate new possibilities as they arise."
• Challenges of technology include information overload and the increased demand that websites have on organizations such as CCD.

Panelist: Tanis Woodland (Universal Design Consultant, Winnipeg, University of Manitoba)

Tanis Woodland discussed how technology has created new barriers and opportunities in her personal and professional experience. As an office assistant with a visual impairment, technology has allowed her to do paperwork electronically; however, a barrier she encounters in her work is the inaccessibility of many PDF (Portable Document Format) files.

Technology has also affected Tanis's personal life by creating new opportunities and barriers. For example, she explained how she is now able to go shopping online: "Technology has allowed a person like me to actually go shopping, believe it or not. If you are in a store and you have a visual disability, and there is no one with you, you have to find someone and ask them to describe what exactly you are looking for. Whereas with online shopping, you click a button and it gives you details of what you are looking for. Except for the ones that say 'click on this for enlarged photo.'"

Woodland also finds new technology useful for accessing current information, because she no longer has to wait for information to be published in other formats before having access to it. But she also continues to encounter barriers with new technology. For example, the menus of DVDs and mobile phones are often inaccessible to people with a visual disability. Woodland suggested incorporating the principles of universal design in the development of information technologies: "What is true in the building industry is also true in the technology industry: disabled people have to be considered in the process and one of the ways that people can do that is by incorporating the principles of universal design in information technology."

Woodland concluded by listing the principles of universal design:

1. equitable use
2. flexibility in use
3. simple and intuitive
4. perceptible information
5. tolerance for error
6. low physical effort
7. size and space for approach and use

For a link to the principles of universal design, visit "The Center for Universal Design": http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm

Panelist: Ross Eadie (InfoEquity Inc., Winnipeg)

Ross Eadie, a Winnipeg entrepreneur who produces multiple format documents, began his presentation by emphasizing:

• the importance of access to technology for people with disabilities
• the necessity for education about technology at the elementary and preschool level
• the need for technology to be affordable

Eadie identified the need for the "human dynamic" in the discussion of information technologies. He said that it is the "human barrier" that needs to be addressed, because no matter how positive an impact technology can have on the lives of people with disabilities, technology does not necessarily change the attitudes of discrimination towards people with disabilities. He emphasized the need for attitudinal, or "human" barriers to be addressed, especially in the workplace.

He then described a personal example: "I am actually an accountant. Only one person had the vision that a person who is blind can be an accountant, and that was our good friend Alan Simpson [former Managing Director of Winnipeg Independent Living Resource Centre] who passed away. But since then I have never been able to find a job in my field where my strength is. I have the technology and the ability to do things. And I say to people, 'it was easier for me to get elected [as a school board trustee] than it was for me to find employment as an accountant.'"

He called for the need to

• use universal design
• address social issues and the "human dynamic" alongside developing accessible ITs
• pressure publishers to offer multiple formats

Panelist: Gary Birch (Neil Squire Foundation, Vancouver)

Gary Birch began by asking "Is emerging technology an opportunity for mainstreaming? Or is it an opportunity for further marginalization?"

"I really believe that with emerging technologies, it can go either way. I have a strong feeling that it's going towards further marginalization. Despite the huge potential to equal or level the playing field, there is a huge propensity for further marginalization."

Birch summarized the following main points:

• The Dis-IT Research Alliance should advocate for more accessible design.
• Dis-IT needs greater industry participation.
• It is important to ensure that people get the appropriate technology.
• Poverty as a barrier needs to be addressed.
• Technology should help people to gain confidence.

Birch discussed his personal experiences in conducting research. He has benefited greatly from technology, but he's been finding it difficult to keep up with the most current technology. He describes this difficulty as an example of information overload, which is unrelated to his disability. He finds that his mobility disability also prevents him from being able to type quickly and prefers phone conversations to e-mail or online chat. He also remarked that "Automated parking systems are one of the most barrier-filled parts of my life." As more parking machines become automated, the less likely he is able to use them. Security systems that require swiping cards also pose barriers to him, as well as automated banking machines. He emphasized that if consumers (people with disabilities) are involved at the level of design, then these problems and barriers are by no means insurmountable, and new opportunities can in fact be created.

Discussion

Laurie Beachell (Council of Canadians with Disabilities) offered the perspective of a small non-profit advocacy organization: "CCD's challenge is to identify what is the piece of work that is valuable for us to do." He identified the E-Democracy research of the Dis-IT research alliance as important because it involves discussions about citizenship engagement in the electoral process and in policy debates and forums, which is a particular focus of CCD. He summarized CCD's involvement in many other areas, including

• having a seat on an advisory council at Industry Canada
• being on two committees of the Canadian Standards Association establishing standards regarding access
• copyright issues
• various complaints to the Canadian Transportation Agency
• Human Rights Commission complaints

Beachell commented that CCD's involvement in these areas makes it difficult to know how to address or include the issue of ITs: "The community as a whole has no cohesive coming together around this topic. The disability community involvement in these issues is at this point a very much a hit and miss, and very much a reactive stage." He concluded that the Dis-IT Research Alliance will help CCD understand what kind of a contribution it can make to the issue of information technology and disability.

April D'Aubin (Council of Canadians with Disabilities) asked the panelists their views on how to encourage people to develop information technologies that incorporate universal design principles. Her question started an important discussion to do with the relationship between economics and the social barriers model.

Tanis Woodland (University of Manitoba) suggested bringing people with disabilities and industry together as a way to incorporate and implement universal design principles in the making of IT: "I think we're going to have to start at the industry and the consumer level." She suggested that by doing so, industry would be made more aware of universal design.

Laurie Beachell added that "industry at times have brought us to the table. They invite us to the meeting. They pay for the airfare and the hotel. They pay for none of the knowledge or expertise. They expect somebody else to pay for that. It drives us crazy. We're supposed to be instant experts but there's no support to the organization to develop the knowledge base."

Gary Birch (Neil Squire Foundation) agreed that bringing industry and consumers together is important, but commented that it is much easier said than done. He gave the example of some collaborative work he did with a cell phone company to try to make their cell phones more accessible to people with severe mobility impairments. In this particular experience, Birch observed that by the time the collaborative work was finished, the technology had become outdated and was going off the market. As a result, the accessible product had no chance of being developed. In the end, the cell phone company admitted that it was primarily interested in the 16-22 year-old market. Birch used this example to emphasize that, in his words, "It's a matter of really understanding what makes an industry tick. The only thing they have to worry about is their bottom line. And it's really hard to get them to think beyond that."

Key debate: Can an economic argument for making accessible ITs coexist with a social model of disability?

Steve Jacobs (IDEAL Group Inc.) spoke passionately throughout the institute about how to advocate to industry to develop accessible technology. During the discussion, he said that what ultimately compels industry to make accessible information technologies is "the bottom line." He suggested that it is possible to marry more money with more accessible products by looking at emerging markets and crossover benefits of accessible technology. He provided many examples of these crossover benefits, including one in which products that are accessible to people who are blind are also accessible to people who cannot read:

"If you look at, at least international companies, and you look at emerging markets…if you design a product to be accessible to a person who is blind, if you think about it, that same product could very well be made accessible to people who cannot read. And if you look in big emerging markets, there are over one billion consumers who can't read. Now any company in their right mind, trying to satisfy their stockholders, not focusing on how to design a product that is accessible to a potential of hundred of millions of consumers, they're not a good business. So they will focus on that. It's just that you really have to work with industry to understand those crossover benefits."

In response to Jacobs's comments, Gary Birch voiced a concern that became a recurring topic of debate throughout the institute. He identified an important tension between economic arguments and the social model of disability. He called for the need to bring a social model lens into the discussion of how to develop accessible ITs: "Where does a social model come into this? How can we start to bring a community and social model that will be a different kind of driver than a how-can-we-make-more-money driver?" He said that the social model addresses accessibility issues with more scope because it is not driven by profit and "the bottom line." For example, the economic argument does not address social inequality, discrimination, and human rights issues.

In response to the preceding discussion, Jim Derksen spoke powerfully to the group: "I take as an article of faith, that any disability accommodation or support will have crossover benefits for humanity in general. That this is not understood, realized, or acted upon, is the problem." He suggested two ways of changing this:

1. collectively, through legislation (compelling industry through regulations)
2. individually, through spontaneous networking (relying on goodwill of the marketplace)

Derksen closed by stating, "There should be a value embedded in every part of every machine we make and use being that it must serve the broadest cross-section of humanity." He suggested that what is needed is a think tank to brainstorm the crossover benefits between enabling technology for disability needs and other groups of people.

Havi Echenberg (Policy Consultant) was struck by the discussion of the usefulness of crossover benefits to convince industry to develop accessible ITs. She said, "I am a big believer in the echo-effect in public policy-making: that rather than bigger and louder voices, you want the same messages from unlikely places." She suggested industry could be encouraged to develop accessible ITs if they got an echo from the corporate social responsibility work, funded by foundations, that is underway.

Key debate: Is technology neutral?

In response to Jim Derksen's discussion of humanity and the development of ITs, Aldred Neufeldt (University of Calgary) suggested that it is important to focus on the values that we bestow on technology: "Technology is simply an embodiment of knowledge. It's like all knowledge; it might help, it might not help, so we shouldn't be deluding ourselves that it's either good or bad; it depends on how it is used. It's about values."

Deborah Stienstra (University of Manitoba) challenged the notion that technology is neutral:

"I don't think that technology in any way, shape, or form is neutral. I think technology is made for someone and for some purpose. That means it's non-neutral. It has an end-user in sight. I think part of our challenge here is to look realistically at the policy and advocacy agendas and see how we can move those things forward. And also as researchers to uncover the 'for whom and for what' purposes and call to account people, industry, and governments for supporting industry. I completely reject the notion that technology is neutral. I think unequivocally it is not neutral. I don't think there is a deliberate and vindictive attempt to exclude people with disabilities, but I think there is an active attempt to address a particular market of people and the government stands firmly hand-in-hand supporting that. I think that as researchers, we have a responsibility to uncover those things and share that knowledge with the broader community in order to move forward an advocacy perspective."

Closing remarks

Jim Derksen concluded Monday's session with the following closing remarks:

"Change is increasingly more rapid and we are sometimes overwhelmed by the built environment that we are creating for ourselves. We see problems that are emerging-we see people who are being left out; we see people who are enabled. It will be interesting to see how the younger generation is dealing with this new emerging environment. We're sorry in some cases that the spirit of inclusion and generosity for all humanity is not present in the machine world that we build. We're still dialoguing about how to achieve this. We talked about social movements. We talked about values. We talked about analyzing the purpose of profit and so on. I can only hope that we will develop some vision of fuller inclusion as a raison d'être for moving technology ahead rather than to have this irrational, in my mind, faith in the genius of the marketplace to achieve our complex evolution simply because it has the power to change our environment. We know it has the power-but for what end? The purpose and outcomes don't seem to concern or trouble us enough."