Living with a Disability in Digital Britain
Presentation at 1st Meeting of the eAccessibility Forum
Date: 27/04/2010
Venue: BIS Conference Centre, 1 Victoria Street, London
Article
Shortly after Digital Britain was published, I was asked to join the Digital Inclusion Task Force. Its initial proposals were to:
- Increase the budget for ukonline Centres;
- Establish a young to old ICT mentoring scheme;
- Improve marketing to the excluded.
My observation was that although these measures were good in themselves, they did little for people with disabilities.
The essential problems facing disabled people were, and still are:
- Failure of Government procurement;
- Market failure;
- Lack of generic provision.
Let me only very briefly explain these three points:
Procurement
Since 2005 there have been EU proposals for Member States to take accessibility into account in procurement. There is now some movement on this but clearly a great deal more needs to be done.
Market failure
It may be that One Voice can demonstrate that there is a market case for accessibility in mature markets but, by and large, ICT accessibility has been a market failure. The reason for this is that most ICT operations are concerned with upgrading the top 2/3 of the market over a production cycle of less than two years and where there is competition for capital the 'bottom' 1/3' proposals lose out. So, for example, there is a strong case for TTS for Canvas for approximately 1/3 of the BBC Licence Fee payers but that case is being overlooked. Which leads to the third point:
Generic Provision. Charities and other campaigners have to launch a new initiative every time there is a new medium, so, for example:
- The 2003 Communications Act regulates signing, sub-titling and audio description;
- Does not regulate EPG accessibility;
- Does not cover Canvas and similar developments;
- Does not cover hardware accessibility, e.g. for digital radio for VIPs.
I therefore responded by writing:
Overcoming legal and technical barriers to the accessibility and usability of information technology by older and disabled people:
A Summary Report in response to Digital Britain
This points out that in all major areas of ICT, except the global DVD industry, there is a supply side accessibility problem:
- Software, particularly Web 2. and creative tools;
- Hardware, including consumer electronics;
- Telehealth and telecare systems.
The Report made four major recommendations:
- Generic right;
- Information architecture and processes simplification;
- New economic models;
- Agreed technology agenda.
Generic right
The most important proposal fits in with forward-looking EU strategy and it is for:
- A generic right to;
- Information in the public domain;
- On a non discriminatory basis;
- At a fair price.
This will provide a level playing field for businesses because such a right would be transparently operated in a similar way to that for television accessibility based on:
- Corporate mission;
- Corporate size;
- Proportionate social gain.
In other words, tiny businesses would hardly ever be affected and the last criterion would require some analysis of cost/benefit.
Architecture and Processes
This is as important in the short term as the generic right is in the long-term:
- Simplification increases accessibility and reduces cost;
- Default adjustment costs nothing.
Simplification. At this point where the public sector needs to save money, simplification is vital. Justice will be a little rougher but we need to work through implications. This is not really a policy issue; it means locking tax/benefits experts and technicians in a room until they come up with much simpler architecture and claims processes; this is not only vital in cost terms but it will allow better reach through mobile phones and PDAs and other small screen devices. The 'bottom' 1/3 should not need a PC to access Government services.
This will be vital if the Government, as it should, makes some services on-line only.
Default. I've just seen an Apple iPad; you have to know how to switch the speech on to switch the speech on; it's a catch 22. All devices should be defaulted in two ways:
- All accessibility features on;
- Allowing incremental enrichment rather than simplification.
New Economic Models
The third proposal simply recognises that no company should abridge shareholder value without legislation or reputational advantage. If we want a better capital market for accessibility we will have to create it through partnerships where the Government and third sector 'top up' commercial capital to produce what we need.
However, this will not happen until there is some regulatory tightening on the accessibility of consumer electronics. The prospect, for example, of blind people not being able to access radio is a scandal. Nevertheless, there is an absolute aesthetic and economic case for devices without moving parts which no amount of lobbying will overcome.
- In constructing accessibility solutions we must recognise that they are end-to-end.
There is no point making television programmes accessible if there are no television sets that can de-code them. Likewise, there is no point making programmes accessible if EPG’s are inaccessible. Compatibility with Assistive Technology (AT) devices is not good enough.
Technology agenda
There needs to be an immediate agreement on a technology development agenda so that we do not all shoot off in different directions. The Report suggests one major solution in the light of what I have just said and this is for:
- A programmable remote control device;
- Compatible with all major
- Internet
- Broadcasting, navigation
- Telephone
- Telehealth and telecare
- In domestic and roaming versions.
In summary,
- Generic right should be implemented through licensing at zero public sector cost;
- Public procurement agreements should include accessibility at zero cost;
- Simplification reduces cost;
- Changed defaults cost nothing;
- New economic model for capital based on cost-sharing;
- Agreed technical strategy would cost-share.
I recognise that taken together these measures will impact on business but they are the least that we need and they do offer a three-way partnership between business, Government and the third sector. It is, I think, too late to blame each other for market failure; we just have to get on with it.