I think we all recognize that, in many cases, there simply is not a strong bottom-line business reason for companies (either assistive technology or mainstream) to work hard on making sure their technologies function in ways that are in the best interests of all users, including those of us whom happen to be blind. There are, thus, only two major levers available to us in our advocacy efforts. The first involves the fact that, in our society, accessibility is simply the right thing to do. This approach involves the “heart” of accessibility evangelism. The second approach involves making a business case for accessibility based on the application or presumed applicability of one or more disability rights laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act. In this rather rough approach, accessibility is ultimately forced as an alternative that is less expensive than continuing to ignore our needs.
In the case of screen readers, the economic incentive is simply to ensure the product works with Internet Explorer, Microsoft Office and the Windows operating system. Any additional capabilities, especially with respect to custom job related applications like Salesforce.com and Siebel, is viewed as icing on the cake. Precious little effort is expended on the part of assistive technology companies to ensure the usability of many customer relationship management (CRM) and other similarly critical application infrastructures required in today’s workplaces. How many jobs do you know about where use of e-mail, spreadsheets, web browsing and word processing are all that’s required in order for a qualified employee to conduct the duties of the position?
Most mainstream technology companies claim there’s little or no real business incentive to make their products and services accessible to us. After all, blind people represent less than a percent of the world’s population and there’s just not enough money in it for companies to justify the expense. Only the possibility of legal action or the presumed applicability of some Federal laws make the expense of accessibility less than the potential loss of business from government agencies.
As we all can see, the current state of affairs remains bleak. It has been this way for a long time now, yet the problem may accelerate due to the ever-widening gap between the capabilities of increasingly sophisticated and visually oriented mainstream technologies with respect to the rather limited nature of current screen reading technology for the blind. My apologies if this offends, but it is, ultimately, the truth against which I would invite any credible challenge.
As we continue to advocate for mainstream technology companies to reasonably accomodate our needs for equal access to the technologies in our daily lives, on the job and in the classroom, we must also simultaneously advocate for our assistive technology companies to focus on innovation, rolling out screen readers that can meet the challenge of the current and future world of technology, much of which continues to be developed by people who have absolutely no inclination toward accomodating us. It is wonderful when assistive technology and the mainstream computer industry can work together, meeting one another halfway in order to provide access, but the days of screen reader developers relying on this approach have been numbered for quite sometime in all but a precious few cases.
As we insist on innovation which will permit us to continue learning and making a living, we are going to have to devise new methods of accessibility advocacy. Our approaches must convince the decision-makers in the technology industry that at least one of the following statements is true:
- Conscience dictates that delivering accessibility is simply the “right thing” to do.
- The presence or absence of accessible technology often makes the difference between whether or not a blind person is able to fill a particular position in a company or take advantage of an educational opportunity.
- It is better to help blind people than it is to hurt, ignore or otherwise leave us out in the cold.
- Accessibility is a good thing to do from a media or public relations perspective.
- Accessibility can represent an “interesting” project to undertake from a development point of view.
- A small increase in the customer base will result when products and services are made accessible to blind computer users.
- Blind customers of companies who take the effort and time to address our needs tend to be among the most loyal portion of the company’s overall customer base.
- Sighted people who care about what happens to their blind colleagues, friends and relatives may prefer doing business with companies who do the “right thing” with respect to accessibility.
- Religion may indirectly dictate that blind people should be afforded equal access to information.
- The laws in several nations of the world directly or indirectly mandate a certain level of accessibility for people with disabilities.
It is important to note that only four of the items (customer loyalty, increased customer numbers, laws and public relations) on this “accessibility evangelism top ten” list can be said to relate directly to business considerations. The rest relate to the heart. What does a person believe to be the “right thing” to do with respect to their emotional make up as well as their logical mind? Should we devise ways to shame those who would ignore us into doing the right thing? Would a person ignore the needs of their spouse, relative, close friend or colleague should they become blind? How would such a person want to see their blind spouse treated? Wouldn’t they insist on reasonable accomodations? Should we place a bit more emphasis on the “heart” of accessibility evangelism? Your thoughts are welcome as always in the form of a comment to this article.
We are divided and conquered in so many ways. Between outsourcing software development, resistance to a monopoly mandated standard, and the lack of a unified voice on our own behalf, it is very difficult for us to get anywhere with accessibility. There has always been a backward creep after every gain we have made. In some aspects, I am actually far ahead of my sighted colleagues on a pc, but all of those gains can be quickly blown away with some graphics based brainstorm of an unknowing developer.
I like your ten reasons for accomodation. Many of them cross over with each other. Each point has some opposition somewhere although it is silent, it is omnipresent. I agree that pointing it out, embarrassing them, pressing the powers that be to initiate accessibility, highlighting the benefits to them, all together might work. But expect a push back. Expect to get lost in a cacophony of diverse opinions, and a weak voice from those of us who will sit quietly while gains are slowly lost. A small tight group will always defeat a large latent group. In Washington they call them special intrrest groups. But they are tight, highly organized, know exactly what they want and go and get it. They will always gain at the expense of the large latent group. So, … in which category does the blind community fit?
I would add reason 11: Screenreader-friendly software is often also automation-friendly software, which is much easier to test. This has been a key point at some big software companies.
Hi Darrell. This is a very good article you wrote. I think reason number 11 should be that more and more people will lose their vision as they grow older, thus the increased need for accessible technology.