The OneVoice Plenary: Accessibility - why bother?

Nigel Lewis - we have 45 minutes. "Why bother?" - applications, services, processes. How do we get this over to those who haven't been "converted"?

OneVoice coalition for Accessible ICT - pragmatic. Collectively we can have more impact. Start with a new business case. See the report "Accessible Information and Communication Technologies - Benefits to Business and Society", OneVoice. The panel: 

Dr Jean Irvine - Commissioner, Equality and Human Rights Commissions -  statistics, demographics, ethics. (EHRC covers ground that was covered by Disability Rights Commission.)

Catherine Casserley, Barrister specialising in discrimination law.

Robert Wemyss, Royal Mail Group - business perspective.

Dr Jean:  the Internet has revolutionised how we work, learn, shop and keep in touch with family and friends. It would be unthinkable if we excluded part of society. 7 million working age people with disabilities (1 in 7) - this is going to rise as pensions age rise, demographics change. Disabilities increase with age. Report - 1 in 20 children have a disability. 80 billion pounds spending power of households headed by someone with a disability. Social isolation. UK is a signatory to the Convention on (not human rights?). BBC world survey - 4 out of 5 people said they thought access to the Internet was a human right. PAS 78 sponsored by DRC, BSI 778 (or 788). Accessibility/Equality Act. Equality Impact Assessment important in Government spending cuts.

Catherine:  asking a lawyer to talk about the law for 5 minutes is a bit cruel(!) The main instrument is the Disability Discrimination Act - employment provisions came into force 1996. 1999 for "services". I've seen people cast doubt on whether "services" applies to online services. Guidelines/best practice talks about online services. By excluding sites which merely record and don't provide services, there is a strong implication that online services ARE covered. Duties for employers is reactive. Goods and services - anticipatory. 3 cases at the court of appeal have reinforced the anticipatory nature. Building access - document "M" best practice - if you comply, covered for 10 years. "Reasonable adjustments" - an objective test, this has a big impact. No case in relation to Internet yet. Being anticipatory is good for a business - they have more control over solutions, instead of having something forced by the court. Services Directive (EU).

Robert:  simply, I'm responsible for customer facing web sites, and intranet (for employers). 5 reasons, why bother? 1) more customers online in branch by phone. Make every "touch" point accessible big task. 2) more devices; 500% increase in mobile access last year on our web sites. If we build accessible, far more likely to be mobile-friendly. 3) Search engine optimisation. Our business gets very excited by this. Makes it easy to understand. We redesigned .co.uk - we got "travel insurance" to top of Google, increase of 10k pounds per week increase. 4) cost savings. If we build them lighter, faster. If we reduce homepage by 10%, 100k pounds a year saving for 1 page alone. 5) Increase productivity. Our CMS is old, not accessible, slow to learn (1 week). New system, accessibility in the requirements, big win for Rob personally as he employs someone who is blind, who can't use old system, will be able to use new. These 5 reasons are why we're bothered.

Question, Graham Oldfield, Cawfields Consulting - "the battle is convincing the people who aren't here" (para-phrasing, well expressed!), a bit more "heat" about the cases. Jean - organisations are collections of people, and people are motivated by fear and greed(!) Yes, publicity is important.

Question, Martyn Cooper - legislation is sufficient, but a dearth of training. 2 threads - training web developers, training end users in their AT. Rob - event last year - "speed dating" of agency staff/suppliers with disabled users; successful initially, but the agencies/staff move on. Nigel - first "sue more people". Also professionalization of web development/design industry. Catherine "Allen case" - bank (RBS). Legislation not used enough. Strategy - "we're going to get an Internet case this year". "Archibald and Fyfe" - determined not to settle. The money can be too inviting.

Question, Johnathan Hassell - the people who aren't here include the Facebooks, the YouTubes etc. Document "M" - don't say 10 years, 10 minutes on the Web. So, it's hard. Catherine responds - so why the BSI? Johnathan's last step - maintenance.

Question - let's not loose the heart of Catherine's point. What is a "public site"? What cases? Catherine - "public" covers eg. BBC (some aspects of BBC); more and more cases.

Point - John Sewell, Rix Centre - differences between buildings and the Web. Not set in stone, literally. Concentrate on process, not absolute outcomes.

Point - finesse the argument "there are lots of people with disabilities = lots of money"

Point - ombudsman - badges versus real accessible. Different focus for public sector. Usability, not revenue. Rob, Royal Mail - e-form design - new piece of work.

David Thatcher, BSI - Raceonline - numbers online. Purely numbers, address quality too.

Adrian/Andrew (Martha Lane Fox) - 

- And, break for coffee.

Nick Freear
11:15 on 13 July 2010

Nigel Lewis - we have 45 minutes. "Why bother?" - applications, services, processes. How do we get this over to those who haven't been "converted"?

OneVoice coalition for Accessible ICT - pragmatic. Collectively we can have more impact. Start with a new business case. See the report "Accessible Information and Communication Technologies - Benefits to Business and Society", OneVoice. The panel: 

Dr Jean Irvine - Commissioner, Equality and Human Rights Commissions -  statistics, demographics, ethics. (EHRC covers ground that was covered by Disability Rights Commission.)

Catherine Casserley, Barrister specialising in discrimination law.

Robert Wemyss, Royal Mail Group - business perspective.

Dr Jean:  the Internet has revolutionised how we work, learn, shop and keep in touch with family and friends. It would be unthinkable if we excluded part of society. 7 million working age people with disabilities (1 in 7) - this is going to rise as pensions age rise, demographics change. Disabilities increase with age. Report - 1 in 20 children have a disability. 80 billion pounds spending power of households headed by someone with a disability. Social isolation. UK is a signatory to the Convention on (not human rights?). BBC world survey - 4 out of 5 people said they thought access to the Internet was a human right. PAS 78 sponsored by DRC, BSI 778 (or 788). Accessibility/Equality Act. Equality Impact Assessment important in Government spending cuts.

Catherine:  asking a lawyer to talk about the law for 5 minutes is a bit cruel(!) The main instrument is the Disability Discrimination Act - employment provisions came into force 1996. 1999 for "services". I've seen people cast doubt on whether "services" applies to online services. Guidelines/best practice talks about online services. By excluding sites which merely record and don't provide services, there is a strong implication that online services ARE covered. Duties for employers is reactive. Goods and services - anticipatory. 3 cases at the court of appeal have reinforced the anticipatory nature. Building access - document "M" best practice - if you comply, covered for 10 years. "Reasonable adjustments" - an objective test, this has a big impact. No case in relation to Internet yet. Being anticipatory is good for a business - they have more control over solutions, instead of having something forced by the court. Services Directive (EU).

Robert:  simply, I'm responsible for customer facing web sites, and intranet (for employers). 5 reasons, why bother? 1) more customers online in branch by phone. Make every "touch" point accessible big task. 2) more devices; 500% increase in mobile access last year on our web sites. If we build accessible, far more likely to be mobile-friendly. 3) Search engine optimisation. Our business gets very excited by this. Makes it easy to understand. We redesigned .co.uk - we got "travel insurance" to top of Google, increase of 10k pounds per week increase. 4) cost savings. If we build them lighter, faster. If we reduce homepage by 10%, 100k pounds a year saving for 1 page alone. 5) Increase productivity. Our CMS is old, not accessible, slow to learn (1 week). New system, accessibility in the requirements, big win for Rob personally as he employs someone who is blind, who can't use old system, will be able to use new. These 5 reasons are why we're bothered.

Question, Graham Oldfield, Cawfields Consulting - "the battle is convincing the people who aren't here" (para-phrasing, well expressed!), a bit more "heat" about the cases. Jean - organisations are collections of people, and people are motivated by fear and greed(!) Yes, publicity is important.

Question, Martyn Cooper - legislation is sufficient, but a dearth of training. 2 threads - training web developers, training end users in their AT. Rob - event last year - "speed dating" of agency staff/suppliers with disabled users; successful initially, but the agencies/staff move on. Nigel - first "sue more people". Also professionalization of web development/design industry. Catherine "Allen case" - bank (RBS). Legislation not used enough. Strategy - "we're going to get an Internet case this year". "Archibald and Fyfe" - determined not to settle. The money can be too inviting.

Question, Johnathan Hassell - the people who aren't here include the Facebooks, the YouTubes etc. Document "M" - don't say 10 years, 10 minutes on the Web. So, it's hard. Catherine responds - so why the BSI? Johnathan's last step - maintenance.

Question - let's not loose the heart of Catherine's point. What is a "public site"? What cases? Catherine - "public" covers eg. BBC (some aspects of BBC); more and more cases.

Point - John Sewell, Rix Centre - differences between buildings and the Web. Not set in stone, literally. Concentrate on process, not absolute outcomes.

Point - finesse the argument "there are lots of people with disabilities = lots of money"

Point - ombudsman - badges versus real accessible. Different focus for public sector. Usability, not revenue. Rob, Royal Mail - e-form design - new piece of work.

David Thatcher, BSI - Raceonline - numbers online. Purely numbers, address quality too.

Adrian/Andrew (Martha Lane Fox) - 

- And, break for coffee.

Nick Freear
11:15 on 13 July 2010