Category: inclusive design

Deja vou

Sue Watling / / digital divide, digital literacy, equality and diversity, inclusive design

As part of the Digital Britain campaign,  Online Basics has been launched, designed to create confidence with using the Internet. Peter Mandelson  says:

Everyone should be a confident user of the internet if they are to participate fully in today’s digital society. Being online brings a range of personal benefits, including financial savings, educational attainment, improved salary prospects and independent living for older people.

Déjà vou! In the 1990s I worked in adult and community education when much the same things were being said about computers. I set up computer courses for the ‘terrified’ (no longer allowed under pc rules) and for teaching literacy and numeracy.  Our software was MS Works, Adobe Pagemaker and Paint and we had multimedia cd-roms. No Internet. You learned the basics about using a computer. Today, as a volunteer support worker, I’m frequently asked to visit a service user who is ‘really good with computers’ to find someone can send and receive emails through a learned sequence of steps; they have no holistic knowledge with which to troubleshoot and may have to wait days or even weeks for someone to sort out a problem.

How realistic is the expectation that you can learn to use the Internet effectively when you have never used a computer? Or is it merely like learning to use a library without really understanding the Dewey classification system (which I don’t). Maybe times are changing and I need to change with them.

But one thing remains the same; digital exclusion is still about access. It would take too much space to list all my criticisms of the site but I would suggest it was designed by an ME-user (Mouse and Eyes) and not tested with alternative users. Why isn’t this site a leading example of digital inclusion? Changing text size fails to alter the menu text, links are indicated with mouse-over and new windows open without warning. Aside from DDA requirements, the typos show a lack of proofreading and an exercise on searching has you keying in tesco.com with a further screen advertising Virgin Atlantic – mmm…neat piece of advertising.

Digital Britain is about digital inclusion and the reports make explicit the links between social and digital exclusions. But unless digital data is provided in formats that enable flexible delivery and content customisation, exclusion will continue across all social strata. We have the technology to enable access; what is needed now is to flip the coin and ensure that content is accessible too. Déjà vou again.

Digital Inclusion Commentary

Sue Watling / / digital divide, inclusive design

The Digital Inclusion Commentary site uses the Write to Reply format. Part of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (under the Technology Enhanced Learning strand) Digital Inclusion  led by Dr. Jane Seale University of Southampton  is looking at i) Definitions of digital inclusion ii) Why is digital inclusion important? iii) Where does digital inclusion happen?

Definitions of digital inclusion

As the affordances of technology are increasingly accepted as having major social significance, so attention is being paid to those who are excluded from participation but through a lens of inclusive (rather than exclusive) practice. The definitions of digital inclusion here recognise a complex array of factors at play but there is little focus on the role of the content creator. If digital resources are not ‘inclusively’ constructed then their creator, who is often several times removed from the user both through both location and time (in particular if resources are reused) may be uploading barriers to access, albeit inadvertently. All the pieces of the inclusion conundrum can be present but a poorly constructed resource, one that is not ‘personable’ i.e. open to customisation, can result in denied access. An example is when, setting aside the cost and availability of assistive software for visually impaired users, the appropriate screen reading software is in place and working, a poorly constructed web resource remains inaccessible.

Why is digital inclusion important?

This section links social exclusion with digital exclusion. Socially excluded groups identified as benefiting from technology include ‘older people and people with disabilities’. The phrase ‘people with disabilities’ bears no reference to the range of sensory, motor and cognitive impairments it covers. ‘People with disabilities’ can be found in every other social group identified here (the young, parents, adults, offenders and communities). They are also ‘digitally excluded’ in groups not identified as being socially excluded; arguably ‘people with disabilities’ are the most digitally excluded group of all. Not only does the category permeate every social strata, their digital exclusion contains multiple layers such as cost, availability, training and support of the appropriate hardware and software and the widespread inaccessibility of the majority of digital content.  Any online forum concerned with technology and disability will testify this is one of the most excluded groups and, already living with multiple restrictions, one that may well have the most to gain from digital participation.

Where does digital inclusion happen?

Under ‘locating digital inclusion in digital spaces’ there is the first reference to exclusion through inaccessible digital content; in this instance a learning experience in higher education but  should by no means be seen as an isolated incidence. The technical, economic, social and cultural tools of inclusion can be in place, but access to participation be denied through poor quality digital resources constructed with no attention to inclusive design. In these cases the location and source of digital inclusion is almost impossible to pin down and identify. The social model may locate digital exclusion in the built environment as opposed to within the individual but it also needs to be emphasised that the responsibility for ensuring accessible digital data is something that belongs to us all.

Guide Cats for the Blind

Sue Watling / / digital divide, inclusive design, visual impairment

Good publicity for Google  who are rolling out machine-generated captions on 13 of their channels including YouTube. Key phrases such as ‘The software engineer behind the technology, Ken Harrenstien, is deaf’ and ‘Vint Cerf, vice president at Google, is ….hard of hearing’ emphasise how there’s no one better to create an accessible internet than those who encounter the most barriers. Example Victor Tsaran, Yahoo accessibility engineer, seen on this video explaining how he screen reads his computer  Still no captions though.

On the subject of accessibility I’ve been reminded this week of two code checkers which offer comprehensive overhauls of your html. The FAE web accessibility checker and HERA . Also this week I’ve been helped out again by the British Computer Association for the Blind.  Incidently, if you haven’t come across the BCAB Guide Cats for the Blind cd series based on the musings of Les Barker, and if traditional humour is your thing, then give them a try.

I posted earlier this week about the ‘blindingly good’ WordPress site created by a VI blogger; an example of the opportunities the Internet provides for communication and access to information especially when your life gets limited by lack of sight. Digital data can, in the words of the BBC charter, inform, educate and entertain and has the potential do so much more. Equity of access should be a prime motivator to ensure no one gets left behind.  If the big-name-players with online presence like Google can start making alternative versions appear as second nature that’s a giant step forward. Amazon, Tesco, M&S and the rest take note.

do they really mean getting ‘everyone’ online?

Sue Watling / / digital divide, equality and diversity, inclusive design, visual impairment

I love the idea that Martha Lane Fox is advocating using digital story lines in soap operas to encourage the ‘missing 10 million’ non-engagers to get online.  What a fabulous idea!

At last we can look forward to seeing characters with physical, cognitive and sensory impairment have equal access to the Internet for their shopping and banking and all the other advantages that MLF claims they are missing out on. Soap operas will do what they do best; raise awareness of pertinent, neglected issues and increase pressure on the government to do something about them.

MLF says   It’s often the people facing the toughest times who have the most to gain from what the technology has to offer…and as the internet is rapidly becoming a tool for everyday life we should work together to makes sure everyone can benefit.” I couldn’t agree more. But I fear she is missing the point.

Can I suggest that the more the focus is on providing services online (government, health, education, employment, retail etc) and reinforcing the argument that if you are not part of this digital revolution you are losing out – then the more you are disenfranchising the one group who are already struggling with barriers to participation in most of the aspects of daily life we take for granted.

The Government have even set up a Race Online 2012  website. But lauding the technology as having the potential to help those ‘living in some of the hardest social and economic conditions’  is one thing. Reducing the prohibitive cost of anything other than eyes and mouse mainstream access and legislating effectively to ensure workable accessible digital environments is something else altogether. If the government is serious about getting everyone online for 2012 then they have some radical thinking to do.

Natives Residents Immigrants Visitors – what about the Excluded?

Sue Watling / / digital divide, equality and diversity, inclusive design

The problem with the move from Prensky (digital immigrants/natives) to White (residents/visitors)  is the continuation of the notion of choice; that all users have access and are capable of making choices about how they exercise it. Trinder’s comment on White’s blog suggests ‘avoiders’ and ‘outsiders’ and the concept of outsiders is my starting point. Any debate on technology must begin with acknowledgement of the first criteria; those who can access and those for whom access is denied. Excluded might be a better word than Outsider as Ousider still implies an element of choice. Exclusion is complex; it involves hardware, software, cost, training and each and every one of us who uploads digital data in a format that poses a barrier. WAI’s don’t seem to be the answer, neither do accessibility strategies. So long as access remains a bolt-on reaction rather than a foundational issue we will never realise the democratic potential that virtual environments have to offer.

VLE v web 2.0

Sue Watling / / CERD, digital divide, inclusive design

The debate over digital learning platforms in HE often focuses on the choice of technology. It misses issues around supporting engagement with digital learning and the production of quality assured, inclusive content. Those involved in the VLE v Web 2.0 discussions should look backwards as well as forwards. A decade ago, in the wake of the Dearing report into the future of higher education, and the government’s Harnessing Technology,  funds were made available to embed VLEs across the sector, but with little attention to the resource implications for staff. Failure to see the resourcing of virtual learning as important as the provision is with us still. In 2009 we are in strikingly similar position to that of ten years ago. The Edgeless University and the government’s Digital Britain report advocate increased reliance on internet based communication and opportunities for virtual higher education experiences. JISC supports a greater use of Web 2.0 type technologies as appropriate tools for meeting the diverse needs of an ever increasing diversity of students. As budgets are cut it’s perhaps inevitable that the question of value for money is raised.

The death of the VLE headline is not new but criticism can be skewed and fail to reflect the wider picture. The source is often from the 3Cs corner; Computer Confident and Competent where a RTFM philosophy (or in these days WTFV) only serves to widen the digital divide. Narrowing the gap between those comfortable with a keyboard and those still at the pen end of the digital continuum should be a priority.

The old fashioned and clunky VLE may be uninspiring to some but for the majority it is a prerequisite to engagement and offers a ‘way in’. Web 2.0 tools require digital literacy and that takes time to learn. We are far from a situation where these skills are universal. Whether a VLE is replaced by PLEs made up of learners own preferences, or an institutionally provided set of customisable tools, there will still be a requirement for an entry level environment that enables rather than disables both staff and students. The support implications, and their cost, of any virtual learning platform should be a key issue. Without this there is little chance of encouraging the levels of digital engagement required for the virtual provision of high quality and inclusive higher education experiences.

BBC gets it wrong again

Sue Watling / / digital divide, inclusive design

The BBC are making a documentary on the way the web is changing the world and inviting the public to contribute ideas. The opportunity to have your say is not obvious from either the BBC Home Page or the BBC Technology Page or BBC dot.life or BBC Click; if it wasn’t in my browser history I might have thought I’d imagined it so if you’ve missed this opportunity to join in the debate then the urls are here.  BBC Digital Revolution (working title) Website and
BBC Digital Revolution Blog

Good luck. Let me know how you get on.  I’ve been trying for five days to complete my registration. I want to raise issues of access as there is no mention anywhere of how technology can disable as well as enable; about awareness of barriers to digital data or how those with the most to gain from virtual communication are being excluded; not only by the cost and availability of assistive technology but by the lack of inclusive and accessible design of web content.

Registration on this blog is clearly not an automated process; I’ve clicked the link and sent emails and still am not able to contribute. There are two issues here; firstly this public forum is not that public and secondly it looks as though contributors are being vetted – surely not!   The BBC are asking the public for ideas but don’t seem too interested in making that to happen.

Digital Britain – failure

Sue Watling / / digital divide, inclusive design

The Digital Britain Report was published on 16 June; the 245 pages necessitating some form of summary version.   The BBC ran an At a Glance page and Comments from Experts, none of which addressed this missed opportunity to ensure those to whom affordable, efficient Broadband connection could have the greatest impact in terms of quality of life were given priority.

 

The RNIB response was a lone, but essential, voice.

“We are concerned however that neither people with sight problems nor disabled people in general are specifically mentioned at any point in the interim “Delivering Digital Britain” report.”

I’ve extracted some quotes that have particular resonance for the work I do supporting people with visual impairment to use computers and access the Internet.

In response to Action 17: Unless a service is affordable, it cannot be deemed accessible. Affordability is a particular concern for  blind and partially sighted people, many of whom are among the poorest of the UK’s citizens.

 

In response to Action 19: This means that the issue of equipment accessibility has to be tackled. Too often inaccessible equipment, that assumes that the user can read on-screen information without providing a voiced alternative is the main barrier to uptake of services by blind and partially sighted people.

 

In response to Action 21: Many disabled people rely even more on public services than their non-disabled peers, for a variety of reasons. A blind person might well have greater difficulty in visiting their council, for instance, and would therefore benefit greatly from being able to access the council’s website. However, a recent EU wide survey found that only some 5% of public websites are accessible. RNIB therefore urges the government to take urgent action to improve the accessibility of public websites.

 

The need to address the accessibility of cost, equipment and content is a triple whammy that yet again fails to support the needs of some of the most vulnerable members of society. I struggle to understand how those with sight can so totally ignore the reality of those without this most fundamental of human rights.

simulations: a personal perspective

Sue Watling / / digital divide, inclusive design

Treatment for a recurrent sight condition renders me temporarily visually impaired; a situation that can last for weeks, even months. Details get blurred and out of focus, there are no sharp lines or clear distinctions. Because it affects one eye more than the other I can manage but the lived experience of being denied access to text and images and video – albeit instructional, informative or for fun – is both challenging and informative. I realise at first hand how short term simulations may give a temporary insight but can’t replicate the unified whole – it’s the gestalt principle in action. Computer simulations show the part but they can’t show the sum of the parts. They can’t represent the levels of tiredness and the exhaustion of trying, the frustration of not achieving and the isolation of missing out on what everyone else is sharing. You think you know what something is like but to adapt the adage – it’s no good wearing someone else’s shoes – you have to walk in them too.

I suspect that with visual information; in particular digital data, we design following a ME Model (MEM). If we can access it then we assume others can too. We also resist change in practice. Habits get engrained. I’ve listened to a screen reader repeat file names for a pictures that tell the user nothing about their content yet if I know that if I’m in a hurry then I’m equally guilty of not adding meaningful alternative text to digital images.

There is a paradox in educational technology where the potential to widen access is undermined by a dependency on inclusive design. As the use of virtual environments increases, so the gap between public policy and private practice grows wider. Digital data reflects social and cultural norms and lived experience. Those who create and upload content are often influenced by their own needs and requirements rather than anticipating those of their audience. Access to this information is then limited by the forms in which it is made available. This approach disadvantages users who are unable to access electronic data available only in single or fixed formats. Legislation alone is not enough to outlaw discriminatory attitudes. Promoting inclusive design involves challenging perceptions in order to make explicit the rationale behind the need to alter existing practice. As Jane Seale says in eLearning and Disability in Higher Education (2006) if the responsibility to be proactive is not more widely adopted then the same educational technology that is used to widen participation will in itself become a restriction.

Disability Research Conference 2009, Leeds Met

Sue Watling / / digital divide, inclusive design

Blogging after the event is difficult on the one hand because other ‘things’ take over but on the other hand ‘things’ that stay are those with the deepest impact so maybe waiting before blogging is one way of identifying the most ‘bloggable’ bits rather than posting stream of consciousness ramblings. The Disability Research Conference at Leeds Met on 22 April raised my awareness of a debate around the use of simulations to demonstrate disability. I’m developing a workshop on promoting best practice in the design of electronic documents and was intending using simulations to produce disorientation for raising awareness of potential barriers to access. Hearing several people speak against this, I turned to the JISC Dis-forum list for advice and from the received responses I’ve compiled this summary and list of resources.

Summary: The prime reason for not using simulations is concern that they may cause misconceptions thereby creating additional barriers rather than reducing them. Simulations detract attention from the individuality of the user; everyone has different mechanisms for dealing with impairment and a generic simulation – while demonstrating the barrier – doesn’t (can’t) address lived experience.

The balance to this is that while simulations can be considered offensive (How can you possibly ‘know’ what it’s like) they do offer experiential insight which raises awareness of potential barriers thus encouraging change in practice. The most acceptable alternative appear to be the use of existing literature and video as demonstration rather than a temporary replication of impairment which can only ever fall short of the reality.

Apologies for the print size – it will increase using browser text size settings under View on the menu bar.

Online simulations

 

·          SimDis by Techdis http://www.techdis.ac.uk/index.php?p=3_14 

·          Vischeck colour blindness simulation http://www.vischeck.com/   

·          WebAim Screen Reader Simulation http://www.webaim.org/simulations/screenreader.php

·          WebAim Low Vision Simulation http://www.webaim.org/simulations/lowvision.php 

·          WebAim Dyslexia Simulation http://www.webaim.org/simulations/dyslexia.php

·          WebAim Distractability Simulation http://www.webaim.org/simulations/distractability.php

·          Active Learning in Computing (ALiC) Computing Science CETL, Leets Met http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/inn/alic/CAATest/

 

·          Loughborough DsylexSim (not free) http://www.lboro.ac.uk/service/publicity/news-releases/2005/68_dyslexia.

 

Articles

 

·          Burgstahler, S., and Doe, T. (2004). Disability-related simulations: If, when, and how to use them. Review of Disability Studies, 1(2), 4-17. http://staff.washington.edu/sherylb/RDSissue022004.html

·          Flower, A., Burns, M. K. and Bottsford-Miller, N.A. (2007) Meta-Analysis of Disability Simulation Research. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 2: 72-79.

·          French, S. (1992) Simulation Exercises in Disability Awareness Training: A Critique. Disability and Society, 7,  3: 257 – 266.

·          Papadopoulos, G and Pearson, E (2007) Accessibility awareness raising and continuing professional development: The use of simulations as a motivational tool. ALT online newsletter 2007: 7 http://newsletter.alt.ac.uk/e_article000735502.cfm

 

Internet

 

·          The Wrong Message by Valerie Brew-Parrish (1997) http://www.ragged-edge-mag.com/archive/aware.htm and The Wrong Message update (2004) http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/focus/wrongmessage04.html

·          Smith, J.W. (1997) Disability Simulation That Works. The Braille Monitor 40, 4 http://www.nfb.org/Images/nfb/Publications/bm/bm97/Bm970411.htm