2004 Summer Institute : Final Report

Thursday, June 17, 2004

Introductory presentation: Aldred Neufeldt

Aldred Neufeldt began with an introductory PowerPoint presentation that addressed what he called a heuristic framework for situating technology and industry within a social, economic, political, and cultural context.

The remainder of the afternoon was then divided into two parts:

1. "How does industry decision-making shape new information technologies?"
2. "How does government decision-making shape new information technologies?"

• Aldred Neufeldt's presentation

Small group discussions

"How does industry decision-making shape the development of information technologies in general?"

Industry…

• is driven by profit, market share, cost, and perceived market-it identifies and targets markets
• has political influence because government is a customer.
• has visionary or entrepreneurial leaders.
• makes assessments around risk and tolerance of risk.
• is influenced by safety policy around standards and legislation.
• works with university research and development.
• designs with the intent of reducing cost of production for operation, specifically reducing labour costs.
• is driven by corporate values.
• at times emphasizes esthetics at the expense of function.
• restricts markets through monopolies or cartels.
• is influenced by the flavour of the day.
• is influenced by the bandwagon effect.
• makes decisions according to patent limitations or restrictions.
• perpetuates associated/implicated markets.
• participates in planned obsolescence.

"How does industry decision-making shape the development of information technologies as it pertains to people with disabilities?"

Industry…

• does not often consult with people with disabilities at the design stage, does not provide adequate compensation when it does.
• often requires an internal champion or a personal connection in order to develop accessible ITs.
• is able to tap into funding opportunities, research and development related to disabilities.
• considers the issue of accessibility.
• thinks of marketing needs beyond disability.
• responds to advocacy and demand.
• considers the guaranteed target market resulting from government subsidies.
• is capable of bringing out IT that further marginalizes people with disabilities and which is inherently inaccessible.

Panel discussion #1

Topic: "How does industry decision-making shape new information technologies?"

Moderator: Aldred Neufeldt (University of Calgary)

Panelists: Shelley Kinash (University of Calgary), Steve Jacobs (IDEAL Group, Inc.), James Watzke (British Columbia Institute of Technology)

Panelist: Shelley Kinash (University of Calgary)

Shelley Kinash gave a PowerPoint presentation about the need for universal design in the development of information technologies that are accessible to blind online learners. She also showed a video of interviews with Norman Coombs and Richard Banks, the principals of Equal Access to Software and Information (EASI), who have produced 17 tips for online learning.

• Shelley Kinash's presentation
• Shelley Kinash's paper

Panelist: Steve Jacobs (IDEAL Group Inc.)

Steve Jacobs summarized the lists produced during the previous small group discussion about what drives/motivates industry and the factors that corporate decision-makers take into consideration as part of their decision-making process: "From my experience of too many years in industry, what you were describing were factors that corporate decision-makers take into consideration as part of their decision-making process: diversity, corporate value, the market, and things of that sort." He made a distinction between these factors from those that, in his opinion, actually drive specific decisions to design certain products and the ways they are developed: "That is a little bit different, in my opinion, than what actually drives specific decisions to design certain products and ways that they are developed. And one is a means to an end; the other is an end to a means. Means to an end would be corporate conscience, diversity, some of the things we talked about."

Jacobs then listed fifteen drivers that, in his experience as a manager of a group that develops products, impact how industry makes decisions when developing products: "These I would consider to be the end to a means." He listed these factors as:

• return on investment
• what the competition is doing
• major user group request for a new product or an enhancement to an existing product
• the size of an organization's development budget
• Wall Street analyst's opinions regarding the features of a product
• losing a lawsuit
• laws themselves
• avoiding a lawsuit
• technical guidelines
• length of time from development to market
• individual large customer user requests for enhancements to change
• public relations
• power
• politics

Steve suggested that, "When you approach a company to advocate [for developing accessible Its], if you could really dig down to what it is you are really trying to say to them, rather than corporate values, you may want to focus on the company being recognized in the community as a good corporate citizen which says good public relations for them."

Panelist: James Watzke (British Columbia Institute of Technology)

Watzke emphasized the following three points:

1. Industry does not perceive people with disabilities as a promising market, so it is important to focus on the crossover potential of markets with similar needs.
2. Private companies do much research on consumer needs and market opportunities, but do not disclose this information.
3. The general health of the economy influences industry decision-making.

He then discussed what he called political capital (e.g., social responsibility) versus stigma (e.g., social stigma). He stressed that industry has to perceive significant political capital in order to take the risks associated with bringing a product to market that, as he put it, every bit of their homework tells them will not be a big seller. In discussing political capital and stigma, Watzke said companies will avoid stigma at all cost.

Small group discussions

"How does government decision-making shape the development of information technologies in general?

Government…

• is influenced by political agenda (e.g., regional disparity) in the form of subsidies.
• Depends if there is an election coming up (i.e., political gain). For example, is IT the agenda of the moment?
• sets minimum requirements: regulations and standards.
• is a major consumer of IT in terms of procurement.
• federal Office for Disability Issues (ODI) can be internal champion to advocate for accessible ITs.
• administers research grants (e.g., Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).
• wants or needs to be seen as a leader and an international presence in terms of IT research and development.
• administers design awards.
• raises public awareness about disability issues and the need for IT.
• is influenced by provincial and economic priorities/initiatives.
• can mimic the trade and decision-making of other governments (e.g., USA).
• uses tax measures/tariffs as incentive.
• is influenced by the risk of being seen as politically incorrect/risk of embarrassment.
• considers the health of the economy.
• can provide statistical analysis on computer and electronic products exports.
• is shaped by tensions between jurisdictions (e.g., Provincial/Municipal/First Nations), which affects capacity of government to respond to IT initiatives as well as to IT needs. Complexity of living in multi-jurisdictional environment and loss of sovereignty through trade agreements will shape domestic IT development.
• is influenced by forward-looking immigration policy which relates to skilled workers who can contribute to the making of IT.
• influences commercialization through research and development.

"How does government decision-making shape the development of information technologies as ITs pertain to people with disabilities?"

Government…

• acts as a model employer by providing accessible IT.
• provides scholarships and education in IT.
• supports and funds disability service providers
• can provide legislation around web accessibility/universal design.
• has a budget line for IT.
• can intervene when industry fails to develop accessible ITs.

Panel discussion #2

Topic: "How does government decision-making shape new information technologies?"

Moderator: Aldred Neufeldt (University of Calgary)

Panelists: Mary Frances Laughton (Industry Canada), Lawrence Euteneier (Industry Canada)

Panelist: Mary Frances Laughton (Assistive Devices Industry Office, Industry Canada)

Mary Frances Laughton discussed how the Information and Communications Technologies branch of Industry Canada provides the supports that an industry sector needs to grow and prosper: "What the Government of Canada wants is a healthy economy and healthy citizenry, and if ICT can make that happen, then that is a good thing."

Her branch is concerned with marketplace issues that make an industry sector grow, including trade, investment, highly qualified personnel, appropriate taxation, and appropriate research. The Government of Canada now provides strategic information to support industry and has designated granting agencies including the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the National Science and Engineering Research Council, and Canada Research Chairs to support the research and development of the ICT industry. Her branch is currently working on how to make Canada the "place to be" for IT developers.

Laughton asserted that the government should intervene when the market fails to make accessible technology: "We should actually be intervening in a greater way to ensure that our companies understand the needs of people with disabilities…They need to understand about independent technologies. The role of my office is to help industry understand that." She offered a list of what the Government of Canada has done and should do with respect to influencing the development of accessible ITs:

• The Canadian federal government was the first in the world to adopt the World Wide Web Consortium's W3C's Web Content Accessibility Guidelines for its website.
• Government of Canada should intervene to ensure that industry makes accessible ITs.
• Government of Canada should have a greater role in technology development.
• ICT is a healthy industry, is an enabling industry for all other industries.
• Government of Canada is influenced by lobbying: the voice of public makes a difference.

Laughton closed with the following positive and encouraging remarks:

"The ICT industry is a healthy industry, and it is the enabling industry for all of the other industry sectors. And what I said yesterday about a solid voice telling the government what you want with respect to accessible ICT is going to make it happen. My office continues to exist because a group of consumers said to the federal government, 'you need to have an office looking at accessible technology.' Had that not happened, when program review came, my office would have disappeared. So, the voice of the public does make a difference. The government, I do think, is listening. …But I think that consorted together we can continue to move the agenda forward. Canada has not yet lost its role as leader and I think together we can make it so that it keeps it. And a program such as this is just indicative of how that is going to happen."

Panelist: Lawrence Euteneier (Web Accessibility Office, Industry Canada)

Lawrence Euteneier discussed the challenge of making Canada the most connected nation in the world, which would involve everyone throughout rural, urban, and remote Canada having internet access. He commented on the increasing digital divide, which is the gap that exists between those who have and those who do not have access to technology. In response, his department has shifted focus in terms of resources: "We're going to be putting a lot more focus on the digital divide, and more resources towards that in the next couple of years."

Euteneier went on to describe the way in which the Government of Canada has shaped access to IT. He began with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various provincial human rights codes that mandate equality. In his opinion, "these were very powerful tools, but they weren't necessarily backed up with funding, and as a result, in Canada, we had a transference of responsibility to the private sector to accommodate individuals with disabilities in the workplace. Not to exclude them, but to include them, and accommodate them."

He explained that as a result, the government never looked at the cost of accommodation, or at what they could do to reduce the cost of accommodation. Employees would have to go to the human rights commission to ensure accommodation: "And it's been effective, in some ways, in terms of making sure people have accommodations. But what it's done is put an emphasis on accommodating, on fixing the employee."

This emphasis on fixing the individual, over the years, has affected the manner in which people with disabilities have been accommodated and, in fact, employed: "People had careers, people lost careers, people had got them back, people lost them again. In the computer field and emerging technology field, a lot of people with disabilities were brought in to work in these fields, and a lot of people lost their jobs because of shifts in technology. And again, the government was saying, you must accommodate. So accommodation was all about fixing the person."

Euteneier then described the federal government's 2002 Policy on the Duty to Accommodate Persons with Disabilities in the Federal Public Service, which states that information systems must be made accessible at the time of design. This policy works to eliminate systemic barriers, rather than to "fix" the problem of disability at the level of individual accommodation. According to Euteneier, "There's been some precedent-setting cases that employees have launched and that the Human Rights Committee has ruled on that, saying it's not acceptable to accommodate a person in the office, at the individual level."

Euteneier then discussed a survey of federal government employees which showed that employees with disabilities felt marginalized, were unhappy, and that their overall satisfaction was lowest of all employee groups. In response, he and Mary Frances Laughton, as members of the Advisory Committee on Employees with Disabilities at Industry Canada, put forward a proposal for a study on accommodation, which subsequently revealed that employees were dissatisfied with accommodation: "We're not happy to go and beg for accommodations all the time: 'you've got to fix my workplace; you've got to fix me up so I can be productive.' That's not a good way to make yourself popular."

They also did a study on the accessibility of ITs, and discovered that, for the most part, they are inaccessible. As a result, Industry Canada has supplied money for a Technology Accessibility Consultant Testing Service to help Industry Canada technologists understand what it is they need to do at the level of design, to develop accessible Its.

In order to address these problems, Euteneier suggested training more broadly by bringing the Duty to Accommodate policy to technologists and to the high tech sector: "The types of tools they're building for the federal government are the same tools that are found in every workplace across Canada that's embraced knowledge technology. If we can fix the chosen leadership within the federal government, definitely, it's going to spill out. And if we can help the high tech sector identify how they can build more accessible technology, that's going to reach out to bigger markets not only within government offices in Ottawa, but across Canada, into the United States, into Europe, and around the world. Then we're going to help position these Canadian companies to grow."

Euteneier identified the challenge of demonstrating to Canadian companies that there is in fact a market for developing accessible ITs. He addressed the challenge of defining what accessible technology is: "We do not have a clear set of measurement criteria determining exactly what accessible technology means. It's easy to say your technology shall be accessible, but what exactly does that mean in every specific case? Not how do you get there, which is what the World Wide Web Consortium [W3C] talks about, how to get to accessible websites, but what is accessible technology in every instance?"

He concluded by calling for the need to converge assistive technology with information technology, how to make it a competitive process so that the private sector can compete with other sectors that face similar challenges. The private sector needs to feel it has a level playing field for developing accessible ITs.

Discussion

Steve Jacobs (IDEAL Group, Inc.) referred to a study done by KPMG that showed that Canada's overall cost of doing business in 2004 is the lowest internationally, which is a competitive advantage. He recommended the website www.competitivealternatives.com for additional detail about the KPMG study.

Judy Redmond (City of Winnipeg) commented that there are often opportunities within government to train frontline people about accessibility, which leads to creativity. She emphasized that having an "internal champion" (i.e., a disability advocate within government) is key within bureaucracy.

Delphine Kinvig (Programmer-Analyst Administrative Systems, Information Services and Technology, University of Manitoba) recommended a website for free training for the world wide web (e.g., tutorials on HTML and web design): www.w3schools.com.

Lindsey Troschuk (Dis-IT Research Assistant) commented on the difficulty of developing a definition of accessibility: "It's really difficult because there are a lot of really different types of definitions out there. There's web accessibility definitions, there's the actual technology accessibility definitions, there's universal design principles. We've been trying to come up with a definition that brings in values and principles while still addressing technology and the web." Troschuk asked the panelists for recommendations for a definition of accessibility.

Shelley Kinash (University of Calgary) recommended a recent definition from Microsoft by Moulton, Huyler, Hertz, and Levenson who "combined the concepts of usability and accessibility." She thought their definition of accessibility was valuable, because of its straightforward language and incorporation of assistive technologies. (See http://www.microsoft.com/enable/business/at.aspx.)

Lawrence Euteneier (Industry Canada) suggested "barrier-free technology" as a definition of accessibility.

Key Questions:

• What is a definition of accessibility that addresses technology and the built environment as well as values and principles?
• What are effective ways to advocate to industry to develop accessible ITs?
• What are effective ways to advocate to government to develop accessible ITs?