<< previous article | table of contents | next article >>
Accessing Accessibility
Five years after the amendment of the Workforce Rehabilitation Act and well into the life of the digital divide as a broadly acknowledged phenomenon, an individual seeking knowledge on the Web may become quickly overwhelmed by the wealth of accessibility information that has been uploaded, posted, replied to, and recycled. The proliferation of information leading to basic knowledge and comprehension is a natural component of any learning process--and surely if accessibility is to become a universally shared value, a great deal of learning must take place.
But, for those seeking to home in on knowledge and comprehension and--with a nod to learning theorist Benjamin Bloom--move onward towards application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, it is critical to sift through all the information and arrive at key definitions and frameworks for approaching accessibility as an issue.
Making Sense of the Definitions
There is no shortage of opinions out there regarding what access means--even if they don't always agree on the definition. A standard dictionary entry even supports a range of opinions, from those that focus on access as a condition--permission, liberty, or ability to enter, approach, communicate with, or pass to and from--to those that focus on the action--a way or means of access, the act or an instance of accessing, to get at.
With a multitude of perspectives on what access means, the trend is towards an ever more expansive definition. While a broader definition is in keeping with the spirit of accessibility initiatives, the down side is that, as the definition of what constitutes accessibility balloons, it becomes increasingly difficult to see the common threads and grasp the essence of the issue.
Generalization may be dangerous, but used thoughtfully, it provides a framework for understanding and approaching a topic. In that spirit, we want to look at two central threads that we see running through the current discourse on access to information and communication technologies: the social perspective and the individual perspective.1
The Social Perspective
Part of the accessibility equation involves the various social forces--race, culture, ethnicity, gender, geography, economics--that can impact access.
Bridges.org, an international NGO, with a mission to help people in developing countries use information and communications technology to improve their lives, defines "real" access according to 12 criteria that run the gamut of social factors, from availability to affordability to relevant content to socio-economic factors to legal and regulatory concerns.2
The Digital Divide Network--a product of the Benton Foundation (http://www.benton.org/), a leader in addressing the digital divide--also looks at the digital divide from the social perspective: access to hardware, software, or the Internet; access at home, at school, and in the community at large; and access in rural and urban areas.3 The site (http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/) offers tools and resources to those actively engaged in digital divide issues and provides a forum where practitioners can share their experiences and stories.
Another remarkable Benton-supported effort in this arena is OneWorld (http://www.oneworld.net/). While it isn’t defined as an accessibility site--it is a "civil society network online, supporting people's media to help co-create society"--OneWorld is nothing less than accessibility in action. Publishing content from community partners around the world, OneWorld works to ensure that local communities have a voice in and control over their own affairs and that the Internet is promotes human rights and sustainable development.
Bridges.org, the Digital Divide Network, and OneWorld are just three examples from among many, but they serve to represent the social perspective--the view that sees accessibility as a cross-cutting trend that requires collaboration among a wide range of participants and that sets it sight on achieving social change.
The social perspective takes the long view and is fundamentally about change, overthrowing the status quo.
The Individual Perspective
At the other end of the spectrum is the individual--the user sitting at her computer.
For practical knowledge and good tools, the ongoing work of the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium (http://www.w3.org/WAI) is the de facto leader. For action learning, the prize goes to the work of Knowbility4 for its Accessibility Internet Rallies (http://www.knowbility.org/airevents.jsp). Sponsored in cities across the United States, the AIR events take a practical, hands-on approach to accessibility. Designers are trained on how and why to make sites accessible, and then they put their new knowledge to work by volunteering their time to build a Web site for a nonprofit.
Again, the WAI and AIR events are examples from a pool of many, but they illustrate the individual perspective--an extremely practical and focused view. What are the physical or cognitive barriers the individual at her computer faces, and how can she overcome them?
The individual perspective is about short-term solutions and fixes and figuring out how the status quo can accommodate accessibility within its framework.
From Analysis to Synthesis and Onward
The distinction between these two frames is as artificial as any distinction between society and individual--individuals make up society, and society is nothing without individuals. Organizations associated with the social perspective are also concerned with practical approaches to dealing with the realities of the current system, and organizations associated with the individual perspective are committed to broad social change.
But, as in all such exercises, focusing on the extremes, the ends of the spectrum, can highlight the importance of a balanced approach, a take on accessibility that looks both at what we can do here and now for the individual and imagines where we can take society as a whole in the future.
1 While attempting to take broad view of access, this article, it should be noted, does limit itself to the realm of information and communication technologies (ICT). Building design and public transportation are critical aspects of accessibility and, in some situations, prerequisites for access to ICT. This article, however, does not explicitly explore accessibility other than those concerned with ICT.
2 For an overview of Bridge.org’s 12 criteria for real access, visit http://www.bridges.org/digitaldivide/realaccess.html.
3 You can find the Digital Divide Network’s take on access, including illustrative stories and articles, at http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/content/sections/index.cfm?key=3.
4 For more about Knowbility and its thinking on accessibility, be sure to read "Three Perspectives on Accessibility and the Nonprofit Sector" in this issue of The Sopist.
<< previous article | table of contents | next article >>
© 2003 Isoph | sophist@isoph.com