Re: Follow-up on conflicts between disabilities

I appreciate and enjoy all conversation and shared resources and experiences on the topic.



This is not a contrarian view, but simply my perspective:



The scope of Silver is first and fundamentally to create a new format and presentation of accessibility guidelines that are: clear; achievable & measurable; and frequently editable. This group has not really discussed net new success criteria – only the pathway to accept them and the format they should take. We have discussed the need for some sort of mechanism that identifies when a success criteria has: a dependency on another; a relation to another; or a potential conflict with another. So, this particular concern could be solved by designing that mechanism.



Personally, I am very aware of and sensitive to the fact that much of the current guidance is in support of disabilities and impairments that are observable, while 70% of disabilities are invisible. We have a long way to go. It is wonderful to be among a tribe of advocates.



In my opinion, what each of these conflict examples indicate is bad design. I firmly believe that accessibility is not about accommodation. Its purpose is to design in a way that accommodation is not necessary because the need has been met.



As I see it, our task is then to create guidance in a way that empowers good design and can adapt when the outcome is not good enough.



Cheers,



Charles Hall // UX Architect, Technology

charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com<mailto:charles.hall@mrm-mccann.com?subject=Note%20From%20Signature>
w 248.203.8723
m 248.225.8179
360 W Maple Ave, Birmingham MI 48009
mrm-mccann.com<https://www.mrm-mccann.com/>

[MRM//McCann]
Relationship Is Our Middle Name

Ad Age B-to-B Agency of the Year, 2018
Ad Age Agency A-List 2016, 2017
Ad Age Creativity Innovators 2016, 2017
North American Agency of the Year, Cannes 2016
Leader in Gartner Magic Quadrant, 2017, 2018


On 7/16/18, 6:44 PM, "Dirks, Kim (Legal)" <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com> wrote:



    This is fascinating. Thank you for sharing. I'm extremely interested in this also, as I often hear of competing interests, for example, someone who needs high contrast (because of low vision) and someone for whom high contrast is jarring and may even produce a migraine, or for whom high contrast makes the content much more difficult to parse or figure out what they need to focus on (dyslexia or ADHD).



    Thanks.



    Kim



    -----Original Message-----

    From: Jeanne Spellman [mailto:jspellman@spellmanconsulting.com]

    Sent: Monday, July 16, 2018 5:29 PM

    To: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>

    Subject: Follow-up on conflicts between disabilities



    I received the following email which I am posting to the list with permission.



    Hi Jeanne:



    In our last conference call, I suggested WCAG Silver consider addressing conflicts or clashes between the needs of people with various disabilities.  You asked for more explanation.  I hope this helps.



    Universal design often starts with the premise that what one person needs is beneficial for others, even if they don't specifically need it (e.g. elevator for someone in wheelchair also helps someone with stroller, mobility impairment, older person, or someone who is tired or carrying something).



    Sometimes groups of people with two different types of disabilities may also need the same thing for different reasons (e.g. verbal navigation can be helpful for those with visual impairment and those with some cognitive disabilities).



    But it is not always the case that there is shared need or benefit. Sometimes the needs of one infringes on the accommodations of another.



    The ones I've heard the most about in the brick-and-mortar world are:

    -seeing eyed dogs vs dog allergies

    -people with need for sound and those with need for silence (could be sight impairment vs some forms of autism, for example)

    -people with mental health accommodations that conflict (compassion for people with unintentionally aggressive approaches vs those who are sensitive to that approach)

    -need for renovations to accommodate one disability and the renovation process or result infringes on another person's disability (e.g. dust

    allergies)



    One of the first times this came to my attention in the digital world was in a discussion about creating fixed forms to make them easier for screen readers to interpret (in "accessible" PDFs).  In contrast, some with cognitive disabilities find forms difficult to process, and prefer to see simplified versions, and use sorting and other tools to personalize them where relevant and possible.



    The sound example above from the brick-and-mortar world could of course also be relevant in a digital environment.  In that case, the optional sound and the Stop and hide criteria would help.



    The key approaches that I've heard to deal with these conflicts includes:

    -Recognizing that these conflicts exist and being attentive to them

    -Providing accommodations for each separately where the needs diverge (separating experiences in time and/or space)

    -Providing multiple options or customized approaches

    -Understanding the conflict can happen on the side of the user as well as the creator or employee

    -Ensuring that there is a mechanism in place so that when one is unable to accommodate a particular need due to necessary accommodations for another, that best effort is made, there is open-ended consultation, and a referral is made to ensure the needs get met well by another source

    -Also understanding that someone may have both types of needs and this may overlap (e.g. someone might need a service animal but be allergic to dogs specifically, or have visual impairment and auditory sensitivity, or they might have dual diagnosis of cognitive disabilities and mental health condition), so these conflicts can be complex and layered.



    Here's a link to illustrate the division of accommodation in time and space:



    "Allergies and fear of dogs are not valid reasons for denying access or refusing service to people using service animals. When a person who is allergic to dog dander and a person who uses a service animal must spend time in the same room or facility, for example, in a school classroom or at a homeless shelter, they both should be accommodated by assigning them, if possible, to different locations within the room or different rooms in the facility." From: https://secure-web.cisco.com/13CRWQoyp23OVSxb7B9wC-MXIJ_ajERzqBnwBsaeE9ap6gwdc8vxGMpPm6Ngawi1woh0y1OHnrUMqJNEGmd_CmseSihewIgLebg05iGbByz6EnOUB6oouE3aLfJjv1Ufw65uI1ceAA7p-l8FATqOZY0ovfHk3YZwFlQFt8zZyNgGfkpi3ZuuWDRw5pIBGf6LAmCodyeVbLG2tDHus2x_neJNwxM6lEckMzjKzRCe5GfW2YiGT4FD7VTog8lgRSZTV/https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.ada.gov_service-5Fanimals-5F2010.htm%26d%3DDwIDaQ%26c%3D4ZIZThykDLcoWk-GVjSLmy8-1Cr1I4FWIvbLFebwKgY%26r%3DTNPSf5_s1C7GQN2fKXOGh6t05xN18F4fA5Kt3Nyy0IU%26m%3DQZHLPNDNlNv8uu7J9ONj1wsuyutRlT4OYKEon6vpz0s%26s%3DaD8MJKmMliDQePLcOhtz3yYHVw5-XOO9giv7u03Z5A4%26e%3D




    The best sources of this type of information are probably in the legal world.  It would be worth contacting a disability rights lawyer to ask them how their advice for dealing with conflicts could translate into the digital world.



    Best, Cy.






This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to receive this message for the intended recipient), you may not use, copy, disseminate or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message.  If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message.  Thank you very much.