Ladies and Gentlemen, good morning. I am really pleased that I am given the opportunity to speak here today and I am going to try to set out the wider strategic context for the accessibility and inclusion challenges that we face in the modern world. This is a complex matter and one that spans across a great many technologies and platforms and the workshops later today will allow some more detailed and practical discussion around some of these technologies.
However, I'd like to first spend a few moments talking about the organisation that I work for. RNID, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People is the largest charity representing the 9 million deaf and hard of hearing people in the UK. We are a membership charity with well over 35.000 members, employing around 1.200 staff and we spent more than 44 million pounds during our last financial year trying to dramatically improve the lives of deaf, hard of hearing and speech-impaired people.
Our mission is to achieve a radically better quality of life for deaf and hard of hearing people. We do this of course by campaigning and lobbying, by providing information and raising awareness and by delivering training courses and consultancy on deafness in particular and disability in general. In addition, we are the largest single communication support provider in the UK and our services include sign language interpreters, lip speakers, as well as speech-to-text operators and note takers. Furthermore, RNID runs educational programmes seeking lasting change in education as well as comprehensive employment programmes to help deaf people into work. We also operate care services for deaf and hard of hearing people with additional needs in care homes throughout the UK.
RNID of course also manages RNID Typetalk, the national telephone relay service that was founded in the late eighties, allowing textphone users to communicate with voice telephone users by translating text into voice and vice versa. Similarly, we established RNID SignTalk, a sign language relay service, a few years ago.
RNID Products is the main supplier in the UK of equipment and products for deaf and hard of hearing people and we have extensive and unique programmes for social, biomedical and technical research.
My New Technologies department is a research and development group consisting of engineers, scientists, computer programmers and researchers. We pursue every opportunity to harness information and communication technology to tear down the barriers to opportunity and fulfilment that sadly enough still exist in our modern world.
And this brings me to the topic of my talk today. I think it is reasonable to suggest that all of you who are here to listen to me and the other far more eloquent speakers that feature on the programme, have at least thought about how the development of what we call the Information Society has spectacularly changed the way we live, educate, work, and also entertain ourselves.
In fact, the reason we even have to consider accessibility and usability aspects of information and communication technology is because a lack of these qualities has such a profound impact on many citizens and, indeed, on society as a whole.
But how much do people really appreciate the significance of the technological revolution? And revolution is the right word: the changes that we have seen over the last few decades are really happening at neck-breaking speeds and the pace of change continues to increase. This infusion of information and communication technology within more and more of our daily activities has a massive impact on society as a whole, which is why it is so important for all of us, across government, business and third sector, to think carefully about the inclusion agenda. Indeed, it is spectacularly wrong to think that accessibility is relevant only to minorities of user groups with certain specific profiles in terms of abilities and preferences. I will come back to this in some more detail later on in my talk.
But first, let me put the technology revolution in its historic context. Not just because I happen to be a keen historian, but also because it should demonstrate the significance of these transformations to the whole of society, in other words to each and every one of us - including those who are usually described as voluntarily excluded.
Human beings and their ways of cohabiting, of forming communities, of creating what we call societies, have lived through literally millions of years of evolution as a species. These time scales are rather beyond the scope of our human brains. A time span of a million years becomes a fairly abstract notion, hard to grasp for us who are after all accustomed to cope with much shorter time frames, say in the order of magnitude of a human life, or of months, days and hours.
To make it a bit easier to understand, I decided to represent the several million years of human history as a 24 hour day. The start of the clock, at midnight, zero hours, zero minutes, zero seconds represents the appearance of hominoids, our biological ancestors on this planet. Hominoids, of course, is just another name of a particular branch of African apes that evolved into what we now call the human species. So, for those of us who like to think we're related to apes, you might want to consider that we, in fact, ARE apes. In any event, fascinating as evolutionary theory might be, I am digressing, so let's look again at our clock of human evolution. Homo sapiens doesn't materialise until 12 minutes past 7 in the evening. And all known history, every civilisation we have ever heard of, every historical figure whose name we know, every single documented event in human history only occupies the final 97 seconds of that day. Whether it is the Assyrians or the Sumerians, the Babylonians or the Persians, the thousands of years of Egyptian Pharaonic dynasties, the Greek or Roman empires, the absolutism of the Kings of France and other monarchs, Napoleon, Stalin and Hitler, every author of every book you have ever read, it all fits into those last 97 seconds.
But the point I was really making was about society and what it takes to be a fully enabled citizen in whatever society you live in. For the best part of the approximately 4 hours and 48 minutes on our clock that homo sapiens has roamed the earth, we have done so as hunter-gatherers, a nomadic existence in which small groups of humans foraged the continents in search of food and with very little change in the way they lived over hundreds of thousands of years. In this type of society, the key skill, the key ability if you like, needed to be a fully enabled member of society, is obviously the capability to hunt or gather food from the environment that your tribe roams. Today, most of us just buy their food, so it is in no way disenfranchising not to have any of these hunter-gatherer skills.
About 12,000 years ago, a revolutionary change occurred. This change is known as the Neolithic Revolution, when the nomadic lifestyle was gradually replaced with a sedentary existence. The reason was the development of agriculture as the new way of life to use a slightly modernist expression. When mankind began farming, domesticating plants and animals, its society changed also. The way of life was dramatically altered from one where the tribal structure of small roaming groups of hunters and gatherers made place for an agricultural society and economy. This change allowed people to spend less time on roaming for food, allowed them to start building houses, communities, even nations, allowed individuals within those communities to specialise in other things than food hunting or gathering. We can hardly underestimate the consequences of this change, economically, culturally, socially. Indeed, one can say that this transition laid the foundation for what we often identify as "civilisation" itself. But it does also mean that the skills and abilities needed to be a member of that agricultural society changed as well. Being able to raise plants or animals successfully, understanding the cycle of the seasons and planning your farming activities accordingly, differentiating good soil from barren land, all those competences suddenly start to come high on the list of essential talents. For almost 12,000 years, this agriculture-based society remained the basis on which the social order was built. Only very, very recently in human history did another revolution announce the end of that societal model. I am of course referring to the Industrial Revolution, which, just as much as the Neolithic Revolution, is completely overhauling the way people live, work, educate and even entertain themselves.
The Industrial Revolution has directly led to the development of the information society that we now live in. Information and Communication technology is not just a peripheral phenomenon - technology has become the core driver behind the way we organise our economies and our lives, in the same way as agriculture was the central feature of the agricultural society. There is agriculture in the technological world, and there was technology in the agricultural society. But in terms of prominence, in terms of what it takes to be a fully empowered citizen, this new world of the information society is overwhelmingly dominated by information and communication technology and the products and services that deliver this to us.
Never before in the history of mankind have we had access to such a wealth of information and communication as in these final fractions of a second of my 24-hour clock representing human history. Never before have we had such an arsenal of ICT tools, products and services to our disposal. And never before in the history of mankind have we been so reliant, so dependent on all these information and communication facilities in order to fully participate as a citizen in society.
Technology is now part of our education, of our work, or our health provision, of our social life and our entertainment. And we are still in the early days of this revolution. Technology is still very recognisable, fairly distinct from the wider environment, of what we call our natural surroundings. But of course, over time, as technology permeates those surroundings more and more, it will merge increasingly with that environment, and, ultimately, with ourselves.
Alright, enough of the historical perspective, let's start talking in some more practical terms. The progress of science and technology that we have seen over the last few decades has certainly brought great benefits to society at large. Technology has great potential to overcome some of the physical barriers to opportunity and fulfilment that people have experienced since the first humans started to wander this planet and that before were considered to be fairly unbreakable barriers as well.
At the same time, technological progress has a darker side to it. It can actually raise new problems and new barriers that didn't exist before. This happens when services and products do not take into account the diversity of humanity, the fact that we are all individuals with our own set of abilities and preferences.
Disabled people experience both sides of this technological coin, the good one and the bad one. Actually, all of us experience those two sides of technology. Perhaps sometimes people with disabilities experience them stronger because of how their set of abilities and preferences amplifies one of these technology facets. But we are all affected by bad interface design, by services that are not very usable or indeed by other aspects like the cost of using technology, suitability of content, and so on.
If we acknowledge this, than perhaps we should stop referring to people's disability as the cause for accessibility and usability problems with certain technologies. I put it before you that in essence, it is not a person's "disability" that makes it impossible for them to use certain technologies. It is the fact that whoever created the products and services did not take into account the fact that people are individuals, with differing abilities and preferences. At some point or another, almost every one of us finds themselves in a situation where they are being disenfranchised by the lack of accessibility and usability in every day products and services.
Walking over a busy street, I am, as a hearing person, often not any more able to make a voice phone call than a deaf person is. I don't need to be blind to be unable to read the far too small text on some badly designed website. I walked past the Earl's Court exhibition centre a few weeks ago and it had a billboard with dark blue text on a black background in front of it. I have quite good vision, but I certainly could not read it. Am I the cause for this problem or is effectively the designer of that poster at fault for choosing such a silly colour scheme - possibly because the marketing trolls insisted on using the brand's colour palette.
It's not just for reasons of political correctness that I point to this notion that accessibility and usability barriers are caused by how we use technology, rather than by technology itself. Technology and its evolution are not intrinsically good or bad. Technology itself is neutral. What we do with it determines its character.
The consequence of this observation is that a prime challenge for all stakeholders that deal with inclusion matters is to raise awareness about the difficulties that people face when using ICT and to make sure that designers and engineers fully understand the range of user requirements and user abilities so that they can cater for this variety in profiles when they build their products and services.
Nevertheless, even this is a too simplistic view. Because in reality, things are more complex. It is not just a matter of awareness and understanding. The reasons for why certain groups of people are disenfranchised in their ability to be a fully empowered citizen in the information society are more diverse. Remember that the basic cause for exclusion in this context is lack of access to important information and communication technology services and products, simply because they are the key to full citizenship in the modern world. Let me give an example: being able to use telephones is not just a fancy luxury. It is an absolutely essential part of many jobs in today's world. If you happen to be deaf, this could mean that you are excluded from those jobs and thus forced to remain unemployed. In this case, the problem is one of technical accessibility. At least in part, this problem can be addressed by relay services and text telephony or video relay in the case of sign language users. But looking at it from this perspective means that we can roughly divide society in two groups: those who can use telephony and those who cannot. Hence, the notion of a digital divide in the modern world.
There are multiple reasons for why a specific individual can be found at either side of that digital divide. Accessibility is not just a technical question. There can be economic reasons for being excluded. At the beginning of 2006, about 40% of British households did not have internet access at home. If you then look at why this is the case, you'll find that cost is a quite common reason. This means that in addition to the technical digital divide, we also have an economic divide in the modern world between those who can afford to use these key technological products and services and those who cannot.
And it does not remain there: apart from a technical and an economic divide, there are yet more aspects of the digital divide that we can identify: there is the educational and cognitive facet: you need a certain level of cognitive skills and knowledge to be able to use some products and services. I was reminded of this when we were discussing the challenges of switchover from analogue to digital television. There is a whole group of people out there who can cope reasonably well with analogue television as a service and as a product. They can turn a television on, understand the notion of a channel and can record their favourite show. But with the migration to digital television, a whole set of new features come into play. They now have to deal with EPGs, with yet another piece of technology in the form of an extra set top box and an additional remote control, with the new concept of interactive channels and the red button, with PVRs rather than video recorders, etc. It might sound trivial for those of us who have successfully adopted digital television, in reality there is a whole group of people out there who struggle with what might seem to us like small incremental steps in complexity. And let's be clear, this is not necessarily a matter of intelligence. It has as much to do with habit, with having been raised with certain technologies. The PC is a relatively new technology for most of us, even if I remember writing my first computer program all the way back in 1979. Many people struggle with devices like a computer mouse, or with the basic concept of web sites and email services. But at the same time children of not even 5 year old send email messages round and play with computers as if it is the most natural thing to do. These 5 year olds are not yet the intellectual superiors of the older generations that they out perform, it's just that they often have grown up with computers and are therefore very familiar with them. There is an education aspect to this, of course, but there is equally so a cultural aspect to this form of the digital divide. This is why I made earlier on a reference to what is usually called voluntary exclusion. When debating accessibility issues, we almost never consider this, what I would call, cultural accessibility. There are certain people who do not connect well with modern technology, for whom computers and ever more complicated gadgets are daunting things, who are afraid of them or who don't know how to use them as part of their wider activities. And by the way, this is not necessarily only related to age. I know quite a few elderly people who are as proficient in using the web and their PCs as today's youngsters. I have friends of over 70 years old who use SMS on their mobiles as skilled and as plentiful as the spotty teenager that I always see walking over High Street Kensington texting away as if his life depended on it. This cultural, attitudinal barrier to technology can be found in all societal groups, although I accept that this problem is more widespread in certain specific demographies.
In any event, this cultural aspect of the digital divide is as real and as detrimental as other aspects of the divide. Of course, where certain people appear to voluntarily exclude themselves, we consider this less of a priority because in the end it is perceived to be their own choice. That stands in stark contrast with technical accessibility barriers or with bad design of services and products since in these cases the exclusion is forced upon the user. I need to move on, so I am not going to explore this particular topic any further other than to say that the cost to society of voluntary exclusion should not be ignored. Perhaps we could organise another conference on that topic.
Let's return to the point I was making earlier, namely that the digital divide has many facets, of which technical accessibility is only one aspect. However, these various components of the digital divide often interact with one another, mutually influence each other.
For example, certain users might need a Braille keyboard and refreshable Braille display to use their computers. We could see this as a purely technical accessibility challenge. However, in reality this type of specialised access technology is very expensive. So, if our Braille user is unemployed, then they might not be able to afford the kit. And of course, without the kit, they might find it very hard to build their PC skills. Lack of those PC skills could in turn mean that it is very hard for them to find a suitable job in a society where even the handy man these days need to use email and be able to do basic word processing or deal with spreadsheets.
This is a simple example, in reality the interactions and complexities of the digital divide are more complex, more diverse. So, any strategy, any policy for dealing with the challenges of inclusion in the modern information society must at the very least understand these interactions and offer a tactic to deal with them.
This brings me neatly back to the first point I made today: accessibility is really a problem for all of us. It is a challenge for the whole of society. Europe has understood this, by the way. Because this understanding that accessibility and inclusion really have a massive impact on society as a whole, on our well-being, on our economies, on every aspect of citizens' lives, this understanding lies at the heart of why the European Commission is putting inclusion so high on its agenda and why it has become a horizontal theme across all other policy and budget areas.
Today, undoubtedly, people will talk about the ethical case for accessibility. I personally think that the ethical and moral case for creating a more equal society is by itself more than compelling enough. But there are plenty of other good arguments. Let me just highlight two other major reasons.
Firstly, there is the economic case for inclusion. Part of the accessibility barrier has to do with sensory or physical obstacles to using technology. By the middle of this century, more than half of the European population will be over 50. With this will come reduced eye sight, hearing loss, loss of dexterity and all these other little things that the ageing process induces. Do I need to spell out the economics? It's not even just the fact that more and more consumers in this group will be unable to use certain services and products. It is at least as much about the working population and the economic cost to your companies, to your business, to your organisation when you exclude a significant amount of people from working for you because your premises are not disability-friendly, your IT equipment is not suitably accessible and so on. I made this point earlier on already: how much knowledge and skills are you missing out on, how much creative thought will you never be able to tap into because you ignore the accessibility challenge?
Secondly, there is an ever stronger legal case for improved accessibility. Already, general principles of equality are enshrined in EU and UK legislation. But in addition, there is a clear roadmap for strengthening this legal environment by the introduction of more specific requirements in the law in terms of minimal standards of accessibility and usability. Furthermore, there is a very strong push towards the use of procurement policies as a mechanism to bring about change. The example of Section 508 in the US has demonstrated the potential of this approach.
We could easily spend a whole day on each aspect of the digital divide, or on each argument for increased accessibility in services and products, be it the ethical, the socio-economic or the legal case. You will be pleased to know, however, that the organisers were wise enough to limit the duration of my speaking slot and so this particular chalice will pass you.
In any event, let me press the crucial point one more time: accessible and usable technology benefits all of us. When the DRC investigated the accessibility of web sites across economic sectors in the UK, they found that more accessible websites also resulted in a better and more successful experience for all users of the site, not just for people with disabilities. Wouldn't we all benefit from easier remote controls? From being able to use text rather than voice to communicate in certain situations? From being able to see web pages in a font type and size that actually works for us as individuals?
If we all agree on this, then how do we bring this about? Well, clearly, accessibility and usability requirements must be put at the centre of any strategy for inclusion. In particular, the way we design and implement products and services must be changed so that accessibility and usability become an integral part of the whole process.
In other words, we need to be far more effective in adopting the inclusive design approach to manufacturing products and developing services. I don't want to get into a debate about terminology. Some people call it design-for-all, others refer to it as universal design, it really is unimportant what we call it. What is important, however, is what it stands for. And to me, there are two overarching principles incorporated in the inclusive design strategy. Firstly, there is the notion of human-centred, user-focused design. Putting the real user at the core of how you design your product or service. You might all think I'm kicking in an open door here, but let's face it: there is an awful amount of really badly designed stuff out there. Many of these problems would have easily be identified if the designers and implementers would have actually tested their system with actual users. I went to the BT Wholesale website the other day and they have a web form that you can fill out with a query. It has a number of mandatory fields, you know, they want your name and phone number and email address, and the name of your dog and age of your grandmother, because all of these are obviously critical for dealing with your query. And then they also have a box where you actually type your inquiry. When you submit the form, there is some clever, well actually not so clever, scripting checking if you filled in the mandatory fields. However, when I used it, it complaint to me that there was nothing in the inquiry field, even though there clearly was plenty of content. Probably a very basic error in the script, but how on earth could whoever designed the page not have spotted it? Because even the most simple, single test would have surfaced this error. So, the conclusion has to be that they didn't even test their code themselves after writing it and putting it on a live webserver. I did rant to their support people about it, so I would hope it is fixed by now, but I can't believe that in this day and age even the simplest form of user testing wasn't done by, let's face it, a rather major company.
When we redesigned the RNID website, we did extensive user testing and this included many disabled people. The feedback you get from such an exercise is exceptionally useful.
Put your users at the centre of your design and you will immediately benefit from this. You will have better products, better services that are more competitive and robust when compared to those of the competition.
The second key principle is that inclusive design is a horizontal theme across your design and implementation cycle. It cannot be bolted on afterwards. It cannot be an afterthought. It has to become deeply engrained in your culture. That way, you will be able to manage the process well and you will be able to control costs better too.
The main argument for inclusive design is of course that it is by far the best way to achieve the objectives around accessibility and usability that I set out earlier and which are based on the ethical, socio-economic and legal arguments that I briefly touched upon. All stakeholders will ultimately benefit from it and it really delivers excellent value for money.
In conclusion, I would like to repeat what I have hopefully made clear throughout my presentation: that we need to develop accessibility and usability strategies as a means of transforming this Information Society into something even better, into an inclusive society where each and everyone has full and equal opportunities to fulfil their potential and aspirations as equal citizens. That, ladies and gentlemen, will be a better society for all of us.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Speech by Guido Gybels, given at the eAccess 2006 Conference, New Connaught Rooms, London, UK, on 14 September 2006.