Author Archives: Robyn

by | April 26, 2011 · 3:56 pm

Engaging with disabled people 2

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) says in:

Article 11 – Situations of risk and humanitarian emergencies

States Parties shall take, in accordance with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law, all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters.

The CRPD, which New Zealand has ratified, is concerned with disabled people in times of civil emergency and conflict and the responsibility of the state towards them in these situations. Nowhere was this responsibility more apparent than in the Christchurch earthquakes and their aftermath. In such situations disabled people are in the same situation as everyone else but face particular problems of access in every sense, with disruption to their environment and the services they need.

They had difficulties navigating a changed and damaged environment, access to water and food and access to information, and for some access to personal care. Some had damage to their essential equipment.

But disabled people were not merely passive victims during the Christchurch earthquakes as the mainstream media would have us believe. They helped themselves and each other and the emergency services. For example Radio New Zealand’s One in Five told of a non-verbal wheelchair user giving up their shoes to a distressed tourist with cut feet. A disabled woman opened her accessible home to other disabled people.

Emergency services did their best of course in difficult circumstances. Mostly things worked fairly well, but there is always room for improvement, and for learning from experience. Many disability services were out of action in the first few days so the emergency and rescue services had to cope. In retrospect what could have been helpful?

I have been reflecting on the events and talking to people involved and have some suggestions. Here are the first of ten points for inclusive engagement

  • People within emergency and rescue services must know the community of disabled people. Building good relationships before the disaster will really help. It can’t be left to service providers who will have their own difficulties in the first instance
  • That means good planning in advance – planning for real inclusion in emergency preparedness and response
  • Listen to disabled people and their organisations before the disaster.
  • Know the difference between organisations “of” and “for” disabled people and how and why they differ
  • Don’t make assumptions about how disabled people might behave or react in particular circumstances.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Accessible Engagement, Disability Issues, Disability Rights, Information Accessibility, Media, Web Accessibility

by | April 20, 2011 · 8:55 am

Engaging with disabled people

As recent events in Christchurch have shown it is not sensible to ignore sections of the community, assuming that they are someone else’s responsibility. Engaging with disabled people is critical because failure to do so creates significant risk. In the case of a disaster like the Christchurch earthquakes lack of engagement and appropriate communication by emergency services and planners can result in unnecessary suffering and even death.

Many people have choices about the way they engage with their local communities, central and local government, emergency and other organisations. Other people do not. They face significant barriers, and these barriers are frequently not taken into account when governments and other organisations engage with communities.

The numbers of people who face barriers may surprise you.

  • Older people are increasing in numbers. They are 13% of the population now and increasing in number with higher rate of disability as the population ages
  • 20% of the population have one or more disabilities
  • 40% of the working age population have poor literacy and 20% have English as a second language.

Together they are a sizable proportion of any community.

They are all citizens too with a rightful place in the community, the right to a voice, and the right to be heard, and the right to be included in rescue and recovery.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Accessible Engagement, Disability Issues, Disability Rights, Information Accessibility, Media

by | March 25, 2011 · 10:48 am

Simulating real world testing

There are excellent automated tools on the web which are regularly used for web accessibility testing, for example, accessibility validators like Wave or web developer Firefox extensions or Luminosity Contrast Ratio Analyser or FireEyes.

As accessibility expert Glenda Sim explained at Webstock recently 27% of testing for accessibility can be done automatically. Such testing can establish whether the basics of accessibility have been achieved.

But she also said that what she called ‘hands on’ testing and we call real world testing, is the final arbiter of accessibility. Automated tools will not take the place of live human testers.

Downloading a screen reader and testing using a sighted person, even with the screen turned off, although that may be a salutary experience in itself. Is no substitution for the real thing. A person who can see well won’t have the same way of thinking or perceiving information as a blind person.

Of course real world testing is not about blindness alone. Other disabled people experience their own particular barriers to using web sites. They may have low vision, which is a very different experience from blindness, or they may have physical impairments that prevent them from using the mouse or the keyboard, For Deaf the written language is not their first language. Others may take medication that impairs their concentration. Yet others may have dyslexia or cognitive difficulties. Their experience or way of seeing, perceiving and processing information cannot be simulated either.

Disabled people using computers will be reasonably accustomed to impairment, and have a level of competence in using their technology a non-impaired person would not be expected to have. It is impossible, and rather insulting, to simulate the experience of another person in this context. In the real world no one is ever suddenly confronted with impairment and expected to function immediately and efficiently with or without different technology. Simulation is not therefore an option.

There is no escaping the imperative of listening to the voices and experience of disabled people. We are the best experts on our own experience.

The most important thing about real world testing is that it identifies accessibility problems not found in the rest of the accessibility testing process. When fixed all visitors to your site will have a better experience.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Disability Issues, Disability Rights, Information Accessibility, Web Accessibility

by | March 21, 2011 · 7:56 pm

Real world testing with people inside your organisation

Usability testing is generally done with outside users. That is, people who are not part of the organisation which owns the site. They should also not be familiar with the content of the site being tested. The same should be true for accessibility. Yet I know some organisations will check with a handy blind employee and consider that as adequate accessibility user testing.

It is not practical or best practice to use disabled people from within your organisation to test a website. While they may be able to contribute useful feedback, their familiarity with the organisation and the content of the site will mean the experience will not be that of a ‘real’ external user.

They may also feel constrained by their position within the organisation from freely responding in a test.

Accessibility testing requires a range of potential disabled users with a variety of impairments and using different assistive technologies in their everyday situations. It is unlikely that most organisations include a full range of disabled people on staff anyway, so results from testing with a limited range of people with a limited range of impairments and technologies will not give the best outcomes.

Achieving accessibility on the Web requires organisational commitment, which means sound policy, training and accountability, an understanding of standards and best practice, good technical backup and an acceptance of universal design principles and the reasons for making a web site accessible in the first place. Real world testing is an essential part of the mix in achieving accessibility.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Disability Issues, Disability Rights, Information Accessibility, Web Accessibility