There is a world of a difference between accessibility and inclusivity
I realise that I may be setting myself up for a bit of a tumble here, after my regular assertions about my distaste for labels and uber-political correctness, but when it comes to terminology that is running the risk of misuse or misunderstanding in a way that could be detrimental to the ideals that I am working towards, then that is a different story.
And so it goes with these two words - accessible and inclusive. These are words that have very different meanings and their respective applications in so many instances have significantly different outcomes, but in certain areas, particularly within technology, I am seeing and hearing these words being used interchangeably and that scares the bejesus out of me.
Access and accessibility are great things. They have enabled people to participate in a whole host of things in work and in life, which without; they would otherwise not be able to do. But being a woman, I want more! I don’t just want access to something and then have to make adaptations to it or me or both, in order to experience it. And I certainly don’t want those adaptations to result in a lesser experience. I want to be able to fully participate, if I can. Of course, there are things that I am just not going to be able to do and that’s cool with me, but when there is an opportunity for me to fully participate, then I want it and I want to grab it tight with both hands while I’m at it, and that is where inclusive comes in. If things - products, services, technology, buildings, and so on - are designed with all possible users in mind, then the chances of creating equally valuable, albeit different, experiences for everyone is increased exponentially.
As I gradually lose more sight, I am starting to appreciate the way that my experience of things in the world changes and how these changes are not necessarily at all bad, if I am able to embrace them. I have been thinking a lot about architecture recently and particularly about my guru, Frank Lloyd Wright. He referred to what he did as organic architecture and wanted his buildings to be at one with nature, and the people who use them, to reside comfortably within their surroundings and to be part of the ebb and flow of life. Since people are all different, this would ultimately mean different things to different people.
And it is this innate understanding of the world, of nature and of human beings that leads to great inclusive design, by considering people of all abilities in the everyday products and services that we use. I simply feel that an inclusive world rather than an accessible one sounds a whole lot happier.
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 think that you're right, they are two very different words and lead to two very different ways of thinking. 'How do we make this accessible to as many people as possible?' is a very different question from 'How do we include as many people as possible?' The first feels like an afterthought. The second needs to be thought about from the very beginning.
Posted by Jeff Van Campen, 6 August 2010 (1 year ago)
-
From a human rights view (mine) I agree wholeheartedly, both with Sandi's blog and with Jeff's comments.
Posted by Dr Evelyn Kallen, 10 August 2010 (1 year ago)
-
Hi Sandy, I'm a 45year old jewish mother of a 7 year old daughter, Emily, my husband is Howard. i've been made aware of your blogs and have read quite a few of them tonight, oh how I agree with many of them! I've been blind for seven and a half years There's not many blind mums around with young children and I'm wondering if you would be interested in writing back, I'd love to share my experiances with you and I'm hoping you'd be able to offer me advise on motherhood smile. kind regards.
Posted by Caroline Tobias, 11 August 2010 (1 year ago)
