Re: [EXT] [Equity] Toward a definition

Really appreciate the discourse, Gregg! I’m learning a few things, too. I hadn’t heard of Ability-based Design.
The key to equity-centered approaches is to have those served actively involved in the process. Antoinette Carroll is one of the leaders in this space in the design world — and what I love most is that her Creative Reaction Lab does not neglect disability, age, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion — they are all factors in equity. The courses and resources are thoughtfully crafted. Much of equity-centered practice definition happens outside of the institutions that traditionally defined things. This can make it challenging to communicate. Those who have been historically excluded are the ones that must define their processes and outcomes. How might WCAG3 include those historically excluded? For example, the tools and documentation we use continue to exclude — which makes doing this work so hard. Our intentions stymied by technology, the impact on those excluded difficult to quantify.
The first bullet under each term intended to convey the process and the second bullet the outcome (I edited the bullets below to clarify). Any of these processes have an outcome / goal. Equity-centered practices are about delivering equitable outcomes which often require decolonizing systems and ensuring justice. I recommend we check the materials in the Design Justice Network and Creative Reaction Lab as they already defined much of this. There is a resource from Creative Reaction Lab available to purchase in print or for free in digital download: https://crxlab.org/shop/p/field-guide-equity-centered-community-design


From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us>
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 at 6:19 PM
To: Jennifer Strickland <jstrickland@mitre.org>
Cc: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>, public-silver@w3.org <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [EXT] [Equity] Toward a definition
 PS the definition of universal design below is not the definition of universal design.

Universal Design is a PROCESS not a thing.  There are no universal designs

In fact Universal Design and Inclusive design and design for all are all basically the same thing.   Inclusive design is simply a better name for it because people often equate "Universal Design" with "universal designs"  (like there could be such a thing).   Ditto for  Design for All — being confused with "designs for all"


Also - although Ron Mace - who originated the term Universal Design  - originally thought it should be restricted to use as design for disability  —  this was not the majority view of the UD community who felt that  UD meant just that —  the PROCESS of DESIGNING things that would be useful to the broadest range of users of ALL types.    And I think it was used this way in Microsoft as well.  Universal/Inclusive design meaning just that  — inclusive of all.

Just to throw another one in there — there is also Ability-Based Design<https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2018/6/228034-ability-based-design/fulltext> which looks at designing for individuals.     This is an interesting and publicly available paper - that also talks about Universal / Inclusive /Design for ALL.

We need to be looking at the spectrum of approaches and also applications.   When designing a product we can’t design it for a person.   But we also need to recognize that we can’t design a product for all (people with and without their adaptations) — yet we must strive to.   And we must figure out how to provide equity to the functions and services provided by a product.    We don’t know how to do that yet.   But we are making progress.  And the solution will come through a combination of approaches.

What I like about equity — is that it is a GOAL — that we don’t know how to achieve — but that is generic and large enough that all of our efforts can fit within it.   But I do think of it as a goal - a desired outcome — rather than a method or and approach or a process.

Just my thoughts


Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@vanderheiden.us<mailto:gregg@vanderheiden.us>




On Aug 8, 2022, at 1:14 PM, Jennifer Strickland <jstrickland@mitre.org<mailto:jstrickland@mitre.org>> wrote:

For equity the goal is equitable outcomes — whereas inclusion has focused on access, leaving many unable to obtain satisfying outcomes. For example, the current VA.gov<http://va.gov/> is online, passes about 65% accessibility criteria, with an extensive backlog of accessibility issues to remediate. Anyone can access it at a minimum, but a disabled Veteran on tribal land in Wisconsin is unlikely to be able to use the VA Facilities Locator 0https://www.va.gov/find-locations<http://www.va.gov/find-locations>) since it takes 90 seconds to become minimally interactive on a slow 3G connection. The outcomes are not equal, although access is possible.
There are extensive discussions, documentations, and resources regarding Equitable Design’s difference from Inclusive Design. Inclusive design often uses the “design for” and “design with” (the served communities) approaches, i.e., participatory design. Equitable design aims for “design by” (the served communities) using other methods such as radical participatory design which moves the power to those being served rather than the design and development teams. See Antoinette Carroll (Founder, Creative Reaction Lab) and Victor Udoewa (Chief Experience Officer and Service Design Lead, NASA) for examples of talks and writings. Radical participatory design has been practiced by indigenous communities for more years than are recorded.
The differences between Universal, Inclusive, and Equitable Design:

  *   Universal

     *   Process: Creating one product for the widest range of abilities and in the widest range of situation
     *   Outcome: One solution for everyone

  *   Inclusive

     *   Process: Considers personal identifiers like ability, race, economic status, language, age, and gender
     *   Outcome Equal access for everyone,
regardless of identity factors

  *   Equitable

     *   Process: Includes historically underrepresented, systemic inequity, and addresses diverse identities, considering gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, nationality, class, and abilities
     *   Outcome: Equal outcomes for everyone
We truly need to ensure that a) AGWG is incorporating equity-centered best practices, b) content authors have guidance to incorporate equity-centered practices as they meet WCAG outcomes, and c) WCAG outcomes take equity into consideration not just inclusive access.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us<mailto:gregg@vanderheiden.us>>
Date: Monday, August 8, 2022 at 2:36 PM
To: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net<mailto:janina@rednote.net>>
Cc: public-silver@w3.org<mailto:public-silver@w3.org> <public-silver@w3.org<mailto:public-silver@w3.org>>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [Equity] Toward a definition
Just some random thoughts as you are looking at this.


The definition proposed looks very much like — or identical to — the definition for inclusive design.

Is there a reason to define equity (which has other definitions - and meanings in peoples mind) to mean this when we already have a term that has that definition?

My other thought is that Equity  sounds like a thing or a state or a principle — rather than a process.

Again, Just some random thoughts as you are looking at this.

Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@vanderheiden.us<mailto:gregg@vanderheiden.us>



> On Aug 8, 2022, at 3:00 AM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net<mailto:janina@rednote.net>> wrote:
>
> Draft Definition:
>
> Equity is the continual process of providing and enhancing the web
> technologies people need to succeed
>
> It is not requiring all content providers to implement every known
> accessibility markup, because some of these will be edge cases
> inappropriate to certain user groups. It does require that basic
> functional needs will be met so that any user with average web skills
> can interact successfully with content. Also, it requires that any user
> requiring additional content for those edge cases will have a clear
> mechanism to obtain that additional markup in a timely manner.
>
> <end draft>
>
> Notes:
>
> We've discussed the notion of equity as a just outcome, exemplified by
> the squiggly mathematical symbol for "approximately equal to." This is
> one of two standard concepts captured by the dictionaries and refers to
> legal principles.
>
> A second definition of equity is one we have not yet considered, but I
> comment it to our discussion, especially with respect to our third
> bullet:
>
> * Consider equity not so much as an outcome but as a process that we
> * consistently engage in to ensure that people with marginalized
> * disabilities are not left out.
>
>
> I put "continual" in my draft definition to capture this. But, a common
> example is financial equity in some item of property, most commonly real
> estate, which dictionaries define as the difference between currently
> appraised value and remaining debt obligation, e.g. if your home is now
> appraised at $250K, but your outstanding mortgage principle is $120K,
> your equity is approximately $130K.
>
> Best,
>
> Janina
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka (she/her/hers)
> Accessibility Consultant https://linkedin.com/in/jsajka

>
> The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
> Co-Chair, Accessible Platform Architectures   http://www.w3.org/wai/apa

>
> Linux Foundation Fellow
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/board-of-directors-2/

>
>