table of contents | next article >>
Accessibility as the Issue
Thanks in large part to the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, most of us think we know what’s meant by accessibility, and we tend to define it as related to people with disabilities and information technology.
But that definition unnecessarily limits the term. Accessibility, at the linguistic, practical, and philosophical levels, is about inclusion and making information and activities available to the broadest possible audience.
To be true to the term and its ideal, we should take the broad perspective--a comprehensive approach to accessibility that takes into account a wide range of interrelated factors from the physical and cognitive abilities of the individual to the broader socio-economic circumstances in which she lives.
Still, there’s a reason that the definition of accessibility that focuses on people with disabilities and information technology is the dominant one. Information technology and how it works (or doesn’t) for people with disabilities is an area in which accessibility is mandated, defined by guidelines, and, at least on the surface, regulated and enforced. The fact that there is a body of legislation and regulation around one definition of accessibility draws attention to that definition as a potential model, and the practical steps and guidelines breed a certain level of comfort--it’s okay; the issue is being addressed.
But, in spite of legislation, a good deal of attention, and some clear successes, there are still miles to go in making the Web accessible to people with disabilities. Take, for example, the argument made by Stephanie Roberts in “Instructional Design and Accessibility: Cognitive Curb Cuts” (http://www.aect.org/Divisions/roberts.htm). Extending the metaphor (popularized by Cynthia Waddell, executive director of the International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet) that compares accessible Web design techniques to curb cuts that enable people using wheelchairs to navigate streets, Roberts highlights the work that remains and shows that accessibility can’t be dealt with quite as neatly as some of the rhetoric might suggest:
The metaphor of the “curb cut” by now is heavily overused, even borderline abused…. [A] common misapplication of the curb cut is one that leads diagonally to the opposite curb. A blind person using a cane to navigate her walk would exit one curb cut and logically follow a straight path--right into traffic. Accessibility for Web sites and electronic media faces the same sorts of qualitative challenges: the mere presence of a curb cut does not mean we have made the content fully accessible. As accessibility gains more attention, most of the how-tos provide tips on making a site technically accessible, but they give no attention to considering content and message, leading users or learners with disabilities right into the middle of a cognitive traffic jam.
That there is still considerable work to be done demonstrates that accessibility, whether defined broadly or narrowly, is a challenging issue, and, we would argue, is in fact the issue of the day, particularly for the nonprofit sector.
Forget about capacity building or sustainability; the defining issue for the third sector--and the ideal it’s fighting for--is accessibility. The focus on capacity and sustainability is tactical; the big question they must address is accessibility.
The mission of almost any nonprofit can be formulated in terms of accessibility. The Red Cross is dedicated to making sure victims of disaster have access to emergency medical care and relief services. The World Wildlife Fund and the National Wildlife Federation exist to save endangered and threatened species and ensure future generations have access to wild places and inherit a healthy environment. The Girl Scouts of the USA creates a structure in which girls have access to activities and situations that build character, leadership, and skills.
Given the centrality of accessibility as a common issue across the third sector, we decided to devote this issue to a look at accessibility. “Accessing Accessibility” examines two separate but interrelated perspectives on accessibility, the individual and the social. The social perspective takes the long view and is fundamentally about change, overthrowing the status quo; the individual perspective is about short-term solutions and fixes and figuring out how the status quo can accommodate accessibility within its framework.
“Three Perspectives on Accessibility and the Nonprofit Sector” looks more specifically at Web accessibility issues. We interviewed Sharron Rush, executive director of Knowbility; Susan Tenby, online communications manager at CompuMentor; and Nelson Layag, technology director at CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and got their take on what accessibility means to them and their organizations.
We hope you enjoy this Sophist and that it encourages you to consider how accessibility characterizes the work you do.
The Editors
table of contents | next article >>
© 2003 Isoph | sophist@isoph.com