IGF 2018 WS #217 I Can't Use This App: Closing The Web Accessibility Gap

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop

- Title: I Can’t Use This App: Closing the Web Accessibility Gap  (WS 217)

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 09:00 - 10:00

- Organizer(s):
Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India
Gunela Astbrink, Women with Disabilities, Australia

- Chair/Moderator:
Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India (female)

- Remote Moderator:
Valentina Pellizzer, Association for Progressive Communications, Bosnia and Herzegovina (female)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Baldeep Grewal, Universität Würzburg, India (female)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Nidhi Goyal, Point of View, India (female, Civil Society)
Shadi Abou-Zahra, W3C, Egypt (male, Technical Community)
Vashkar Bhattacharjee, Young Power in Social Action, Bangladesh (male, Government/Civil Society)
Ellis Jerry, Feel The BenefIT, Ireland (male, Private Sector)
Gunela Astbrink, Women with Disabilities, Australia (female, Civil Society)

- Theme (as listed here): Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here): Persons with Disability

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• How accessible is the web for persons with motor, vision, and hearing impairments based on their personal experiences of using digital devices
• What are the barriers to accessibility as per the W3C classification on content, web browsers, media players, assistive features and technology etc. according to empirical data and evidence-based research on the same
• Some key recommendations which, if implemented, will improve web accessibility at all levels, including but not limited to web development, design, and usability features.

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

The session spanned from personal experience to policy and standards to solutions. The topic of accessibility was addressed by each panelists from their respective standpoint as stakeholders: civil society, policy making, technical know-how etc. It was noted that we need to facilitate access to online resources and offline infrastructure that pertain to libraries, banking services, dating apps and even something as commonplace as ordering food in a restaurant. One thing was unanimously agreed upon: technology creates a tremendously enabling environment for people with disabilities but at the same time the rapid growth of the web and digital infrastructure has not shown much concern for universal accessibility. An important point that was raised was that accessibility infrastructure also helps temporarily able-bodied people since everyone benefits from a larger font size, better roads and walking routes, text-to-speech and speech-to-text facilities etc. Often the burden to facilitate access and advocate for it falls on disabled persons, and the default solution is often to make special apps for only persons with disabilities instead of making mainstream platforms accessible.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

The influence of the workshop was immediate: participants requested panelists for resources and more information on designing training modules on accessibility and disability. The suggested solutions involved individual actors in addition to policy improvements and infrastructure optimization. We must think about access as individuals in our own spaces. Organizations and stakeholders should go beyond procurement and user policy – understanding we are all temporarily abled – with a strict policy to engage with only those platforms that are accessible which will push developers to take these guidelines in mind when building tech. Accessibility is often an accident and the service is lost with the next version. It has to be a concerted, conscious effort.

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

As mentioned before, the workshop helped many participants gain knowledge and resource for their respective work on disability rights. A socio-legal concern was making online technology more affordable in countries where governments do not provide social security and the costs for accessible tools (online and offline) fall on the disabled person and their family. Development of online free resources with AV media and tactile materials would help young people with disabilities with a view to affordability and access.

Please estimate the total number of participants: 30.

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 18 (excluding the on-site and remote panel)

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

An important point that was raised was that something as simple as a pregnancy kit may not be accessible for a blind woman. This means that they lose a certain level of autonomy with regard to their bodies. Especially in countries with strict abortion laws, inaccessible pregnancy kits jeopardize the privacy and dignity of blind women.

Long Report

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Workshop

- Title: I Can’t Use This App: Closing the Web Accessibility Gap (WS 217)

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November 2018 - 09:00 - 10:00

- Organizer(s):

Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

Gunela Astbrink, Women with Disabilities, Australia

- Chair/Moderator: Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Baldeep Grewal, Universität Würzburg, India (female)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Nidhi Goyal, Point of View, India (female, Civil Society)
• Shadi Abou-Zahra, W3C, Egypt (male, Technical Community)
• Vashkar Bhattacharjee, Young Power in Social Action, Bangladesh (male, Government/Civil Society)
• Ellis Jerry, Feel The BenefIT, Ireland (male, Private Sector)
• Gunela Astbrink, Women with Disabilities, Australia (female, Civil Society)

- Theme (as listed here): Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here): Persons with Disability

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

• Instead of treating accessibility as a niche facility or a special component provided in any form of technology, we have to move beyond this ghetto mentality of making exclusive apps for disabled people. Accessibility is often present in most apps accidently and the service is lost with the next update. Accessibility should be a mainstream issue in the development of any technology. This should also urge people to think about access as temporarily abled individuals in their own spaces - at home, in public, and at work. Organisations and stakeholders should make a concerted, conscious effort to facilitate accessibility, hire disabled professionals, and should follow a strict policy to only engage with platforms that are accessible. This will push developers to keep accessibility guidelines in mind when building their products including the fact that every disability has different accessibility needs.

• There is a need to educate IT developers and consultants on issues of disability and access. A large majority of IT professionals that graduate every year have seldom heard of disability or the need for inclusive apps and devices. These are people in charge of creating products that make life easier but there is an entire consumer base that they never build for. Additionally, from screen readers to larger font sizes, accessibility services are not just helpful for people with disablities but make life easier for temporarily disabled people too. Accessibility must be addressed from end to end - accross production, functionality and till the user end.

• Discussions around disability and access often boil down to making out discussions around internet governance more inclusive of these issues too. Since the IGF allows massive global reach and cooperation among stakeholders, we must do more to bring more voices from the disabled community to our IGF sessions. This includes supporting them in attending the IGFs either in person or remotely. Creating opportunities for disabled activists and professionals to participate in the IGF space is vital for sound internet governance.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [300 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

The session spanned from personal experience to policy and standards to solutions. The topic of accessibility was addressed by each panelists from their respective standpoint as stakeholders: civil society, policy making, technical know-how etc.

Nidhi Goyal and Vashkar Bhattacharjee noted that we need to facilitate access to online resources and offline infrastructure that pertain to libraries, banking services, dating apps and even something as commonplace as ordering food in a restaurant. One thing was unanimously agreed upon: technology creates a tremendously enabling environment for people with disabilities but at the same time the rapid growth of the web and digital infrastructure has not shown much concern for universal accessibility.

An important point that was raised by Shadi Abou-Zahra was that accessibility infrastructure also helps temporarily able-bodied people since everyone benefits from a larger font size, better roads and walking routes, text-to-speech and speech-to-text facilities etc.

Reflecting on how and where responsibility to facilitate access is located, Nidhi observed that often the burden to facilitate access and advocate for it falls on disabled persons, and the default solution is often to make special apps for only persons with disabilities instead of making mainstream platforms accessible.

Gunela Astbrink talked briefly about overcoming sociocultural barriers in different countries in the global south. She described a pilot project in Vanuatu which conducted interviews to collect data on how disabled people use ICTs. This further led them to develop modules for training ICTs developers to develop products that can be accessed by disabled people. A highlight was including disabled people in the conceptualization and running of these training programs.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

The influence of the workshop was immediate: participants requested panelists for resources and more information on designing training modules on accessibility and disability. The suggested solutions involved individual actors in addition to policy improvements and infrastructure optimization. We must think about access as individuals in our own spaces. Organizations and stakeholders should go beyond procurement and user policy – understanding we are all temporarily abled – with a strict policy to engage with only those platforms that are accessible which will push developers to take these guidelines in mind when building tech. Accessibility is often an accident and the service is lost with the next version. It has to be a concerted, conscious effort.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

As mentioned before, the workshop helped many participants gain knowledge and resource for their respective work on disability rights. A socio-legal concern was making online technology more affordable in countries where governments do not provide social security and the costs for accessible tools (online and offline) fall on the disabled person and their family. Development of online free resources with AV media and tactile materials would help young people with disabilities with a view to affordability and access.

The IGF should make efforts to bring more disabled people to the floor and take cognizance of the access/assistance issues this entails.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

30

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

18 (excluding onsite and remote panel)

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

An important point that was raised was that something as simple as a pregnancy kit may not be accessible for a blind woman. This means that they lose a certain level of autonomy with regard to their bodies. Especially in countries with strict abortion laws, inaccessible pregnancy kits jeopardize the privacy and dignity of blind women.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs)