The difference between Inclusive Design and Accessibility
I am thrilled to bits that my Ten Principles of Inclusive Web Design are being adopted. At the last eAccessibility Forum meeting, it was heartening to hear the message I have spent the past year expounding being articulated by folk from Cabinet Office and the Minister alike. I had no idea that they were actually listening. Go figure.
However, there are also a whole lot of people who seem to be using the phrase "Inclusive Design" when they really mean "Web Accessibility"; as the Principles have evolved through a lot of hard work, thinking and care, I feel that I must now stand up in their defence.
Web Accessibility, or if one is to be pedantic about its purpose - Access to Information and Services - is an essential component of Inclusive Web Design. However, they are definitely not the same thing, and yet, ever since the Principles were published, folk have been using the term Inclusive (Web) Design willy nilly. Suddenly, Accessibility is being arbitrarily replaced with Inclusive Design, which is very distressing, as this means that the whole premise of Inclusive Design has been misunderstood. Have people become so desensitised to the term Accessibility that Inclusive Design has been swapped out because it sounds more palatable? I hope not.
So, what is the difference between Inclusive Design and Accessibility?
Web accessibility is about human rights. Inclusive design is about making a product fit for purpose. Big difference. More so, Web Accessibility in its current guise seems determined to make every last bit of technology accessible to every human being on earth. It asserts rights on behalf of disabled people and puts these before regular folk and before technical innovation. So, what's happening is that regular folk and technical innovation have moved on swiftly without Accessibility. To quote Ian Pouncey, "Accessibility is for everyone. It's just that 80% of people get it for free". I agree with Ian wholeheartedly. However, what most people understand Accessibility to be is how it is defined by the W3C, which is that "Web accessibility means that people with disabilities can use the Web". But that's not all. What about Design? Design is about creating products and services that people can use and since websites and web applications are things that people use and interact with, things that change and adapt through this use and interaction, Inclusive Design and not just Access is what is desperately needed. Of course, I dread to think what my life would be without technology, but the web is young, we still have quite a long journey ahead and neither Accessibility nor Inclusive Design can be fully realised under current systems. There is no one-size-fits-all perfect solution, no single means for folk with restrictive impairments to achieve independence, no absolutes. Accessibility is subjective and yet so many advocating on its behalf would let you think otherwise.
Whereas Inclusive Design is about considering all requirements, understanding limitations and using available resources. It's scope is broader than Accessibility, yet it's more realistic, more reasonable. Inclusive Design is in harmony with my human rights values and, as human rights precede law, it is more closely aligned to the legal framework around disability discrimination and, as such, is more achievable. The concept of Reasonable Accommodation, which in the UK is called Reasonable Adjustments, was first articulated around US Civil Rights, in order for people to have the freedom to practice their religion of choice. And it is this concept that I relied upon in writing the Principles and the definition of Equivalence of Service, both of which have been utilised in the eAccessibility Action Plan. Equivalence of Service on the web is defined as:
"The relative value that the user derives through the provision and use of the service, based on achieving specific outcomes in the pursuit of participation and inclusion in society in both work and home life."
The term "relative value" supports an acceptable level of tolerance for limitations. As the aim is to be as inclusive as possible, it is accepted that some folk may not be able to participate due to reasons that fall outside of the auspices of technology. It is accepted that the needs of diverse users must be accommodated, as equal does not mean the same.
Accessibility requires access to be provided, but access alone is not always enough to make a website useful. Inclusive means that as many people as possible and importantly as many as are reasonably practicable are included. Included, considered, respected and with equal rights from the get go.
About Sandi
Businesswoman Sandi Wassmer registered blind in 2008. In her blog, she shares with us the 'shenanigans of visual impairment'.
Read Sandi's full profile |
List all Sandi's posts
Sandi's RSS feed |
Sandi's Twitter account
Comments
-
I've always been a bit fuzzy when considering the difference between Web Accessibility and Inclusive Design.
Not any more though. This article has helped me understand the differences.
It should be read by anyone having a similar problem.
As ever Sandi, thanks for a great article!Posted by Gary Miller, 14 September 2011 (8 months ago)
-
Great post Sandi and I largely agree. Interestingly at the recent AAATE conference some of us had a discussion about proponents of 'universal design' being dogmatic and insisting on 'accessibility' for all as you position it, possibly at the expense of good design. We half decided it may be largely a matter of terminology and personal interpretation of the exact meanings - or perhaps we just got distracted by the great beer and being in the Maastricht square :)
I guess those who fall out side the inclusive design limits might be able to find alternative 'tools'. This probably starts to stray into the wider area of AT, which provides external adjustment / transformation of UI.
Whatever we need to be mindful of as many when we design but not limit great design by dogma.
How do you think situational disability fits in this? Eg bright light makes the screen unreadable, noise make sound useless? These are now becoming much more important design issues to address in design now we are using mobile/portable tech. I'd say they are part of inclusive design as some situations just can't be covered (e.g trying to surf as your spaceship passes close to the sun :).
Thanks a again for a great postPosted by Steve Lee, 14 September 2011 (8 months ago)
-
Sandi, you wrote:
<blockquote>Web Accessibility in its current guise seems determined to make every last bit of technology accessible to every human being on earth. It asserts rights on behalf of disabled people and puts these before regular folk and before technical innovation....Inclusive Design is about considering all requirements, understanding limitations and using available resources. It's scope is broader than Accessibility, yet it's more realistic, more reasonable.</blockquote>
While I agree with much of what you are saying (the need to be reasonable and realistic), the sentiment also re-introduces a slippery slope, and one we already hear today: (Regular Folk) - "...nobody is going to provide alt text to their 250 vacation photos they are uploading to Flickr, so why bother with that? Let's make alt text optional instead..."; (Limitations and available resources) - "...my family owned shop sells stereo systems, why should I caption demo videos on my web site, and who's going to pay for that?..."; (Technical innovation) - "...(Bespin) is still very much an experiment, we've got some ideas around accessibility and we'll add that stuff in at a later build...", and "...[insert excuse here]..."
One need only compare 2 popular on-line email solutions, Gmail versus Yahoo mail, to see why some advocates become frustrated. Expecting and demanding a certain level of "Accessibility" off-the-mark is sadly something that advocates must insist on, else we will continue to hear vague excuse using those weasal words "technical innovation", "understanding limitations" and "(lack of) available resources". Inclusive Design may be the velvet glove, but we need Web Accessibility to be the iron fist. I don't think it's so much that "...every last bit of technology (must be) accessible to every human being on earth..." but rather that companies and organizations must take responsability and support the human right to participate, and that advocates insist on minimum standards of expectations and behaviours - accepting that some will demand so more militantly than others.
Finally, an "acceptable level of tolerance for limitations" is very much a personal value judgement, and what might be acceptable to some may not be acceptable to others - we are, after all, individuals first. This is hard stuff, and even harder to quantifiably measure, but I think that pretty much every person who has a disability that impacts how they interact with the web understands a basic tennent: some sites/applications try (and give a damn), and others skate by with excuses, justifications and minimal-to-no effort. Moving individuals, organizations and companies from the later column to the former is a tricky thing to figure out, and I think everyone who is trying to do so is trying their hardest in the best way they know how. I appluade the velvet glove approach, but respect the iron fist one as well; and personally I try to blend a bit of both.
No matter how you approach the topic however, I think this site's tag line sums it up: Action speaks louder than words.Posted by John Foliot, 14 September 2011 (8 months ago)
-
The human right to access information is essential for participation in civil society. This is not being questioned. I am however more concerned than ever about the growing gap between accessibility and mainstream technology. There has to be a middle way and this is by no means a compromise - I'm just not that sort of girl! Reasonable is right just as long as it's reasonable!
Posted by Sandi Wassmer, 14 September 2011 (8 months ago)
-
What are the top three blunders that web designers make when designing and implementing a website?
Posted by Parool, 22 September 2011 (8 months ago)
-
Waste of time, arguing about unimportant diferences. What counts is being nice. Withhold not good from them to whom it is due. It doesn't matter what you call it, just be helpful and let everybody in. Share.
Keep it simple; just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Don't spoil it by showing off and by you formatting disable our accessibility settings.Posted by G F Mueden, 28 September 2011 (8 months ago)
-
John Foliot makes a very good point about the problem with the concept of 'reasonable accomodation' being used by some web service providers to excuse them from addressing accessibility seriously, early or even at all. This is because accessibility is not considered a fundamental property but an add-on.
We need to change that.
An interesting comparison is with safety. No company producing consumer goods complains that having to make their products safe is too much work or will stifle innovation. Safety is considered a basic intrinsic property of any product. It is simply not negotiable. So designers learn about safety in their design courses. Manufacturers address it in their development and testing processes. There are strict laws and standards defining it which are universally adhered to.
I expect, and hope, that one day in the future, accessibility will be thought of in the same way as safety. As a basic non-negotiable property of any product or service. Designers will learn about accessibility in their design courses. Manufacturers will address accessibility in their development and testing processes. There will be strict laws and standards defining accessibility which will be universally adhered to.
As advocates for accessibility, I think this is a stance that we should take. Not that this must happen right now. But that this is the right way to treat accessibility in our societies and is what we should be aiming at. It follows from the idea that inclusion should be a fundamental principle of human society, along with other fundamentals like freedom and self determination.
I expect that one day this will be the case.Posted by Mark Magennis, 29 September 2011 (8 months ago)
-
Great article Sandi. Thanks for writing it.
And a great discussion you've prompted here too.
As you know, I totally agree that Inclusive Design, rather than Universal Design is the way to go.
To me Universal Design gives the idea that it is possible to create products which will work for absolutely everybody. But my experience and research says that's just not possible without going into the 'alternative tools' ideas that Steve Lee touches on. I've created quite a few of these tools and products for learners with Special Educational Needs in my time and tend to call them 'beyond inclusion' (if interested in this, flick through my deck on this at http://www.slideshare.net/jonathanhassell/2007-accessibility-and-special-educational-needs-new-approaches-for-bringing-elearning-to-sen-learners). It's great fun, and requires a huge amount of innovation, to create these products, but it's unlikely that your average website is going to do that.
Inclusive Design however is a lot more balanced - designing products to be usable by as many people as reasonably practicable. That word 'reasonable' is so important in balancing between the ideal and implementable, which is probably why it's at the heart of what the Equality Act requires.
Anyone interested in making Inclusive Design their usual way of working should look at the BS8878 standards for web accessibility which have Inclusive Design right at their heart.
BS8878 gives a framework for embedding Inclusive Design in an organisation's business practice, policies and digital production processes.
You can find my thoughts on treading the fine line between Inclusive and Universal Design in my blog on step 2 of implementing BS8878 (the new standards for web accessibility) at http://www.hassellinclusion.com/2011/09/implementing-bs8878-step-2-accessible-to-whom-audiences-trade-offs-and-inclusive-design/
I'd love to know what you think...Posted by Jonathan Hassell, 30 September 2011 (8 months ago)
