Check out all Global Accessibility Awareness Dayevents.
The Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) is promoting a new touch-screen tablet EFTPOS payment device known as Albert. The CBA developed Albert with Wincor Nixdorf and IDEO.
Albert has been available to Australian merchants since March 2015 and the bank is marketing it to retailers, cinemas, restaurants and other businesses and government services that use EFTPOS terminals.
When the Commonwealth Bank initially announced the coming of Albert on 17 July 2012, it proclaimed that it was a world’s first, that Albert was engineered from the ground-up using a human-centered design approach, and that it would revolutionize the point-of-sale experience for consumers and businesses.
But did that “human-centered ” approach encompassed humans of diverse abilities and needs, and integrate accessibility into the design from the ground-up?
Alas, it does not appear so.
It was just an ordinary day for a blind woman from Geelong in Victoria when she pulled out her payment card to pay a consultation fee exceeding $100 at a doctor’s surgery. She fumbled for the familiar EFTPOS pad to locate the raised dot on the #5 of the keypad so she could orient her fingers to enter her PIN. The receptionist explained this was a new touch screen tablet and the keypad was on the screen. There was no haptic marker on the smooth glass surface of the screen and the blind woman asked if the device had audio to guide her through the operation. The receptionist did not know. In the end, trying to be helpful, the receptionist asked the patient to whisper her PIN and she entered the number on her behalf. The blind woman had met Albert.
She reported the incident to the CBA (whose telephone support staff advised there was no accessibility, that it was “an oversight”) and to the new blindness and low vision organisation Blind Alliance Victoria, who referred it to the Digital Gap Initiative.
On 10 September 2015 President of the Digital Gap Initiative, Ted McCoskey, and founder, Gisele Mesnage, met with Mark Wood and David Budzevski from the Commonwealth Bank, at its Sydney offices in Darling Park, to get the facts on the accessibility of Albert. We were told the bank was presently working on an accessibility solution. We had an opportunity to test out the prototype of this solution.
Gisele: “it took over 10 minutes to listen to the instructions on what gestures I had to use to enter a PIN. I am just learning to use an iPhone and this was an Android device and I just could not get the gestures right. I had three failed attempts at entering a pre-set number and in a real-world situation this would mean I would have been blocked from using my card.
Note: Ted, perhaps here you could add your experience, comments, etc.
While we acknowledge that the bank is making an effort to add accessibility to the device, we take the view that this effort is belated and inadequate.
The accessibility issues relating to payment devices are well-known and well-documented. There was no excuse here for lack of awareness.
The first talking ATM was installed by the Royal Bank of Canada on 22 October 1997. The talking ATM was a result of concerns Chris and Marie Stark, two blind customers, raised with the bank beginning in 1984. Their concerns turned into a discrimination complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 1991.
The CBA has had an Accessibility and Inclusion plan since 2004.
Gisele: Well, in part, this plan was developed after I lodged a complaint in the Australian Human Rights commission under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) in 2002, represented by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC). The complaint, which followed approaches to the bank by Blind Citizens Australia (BCA, related to the accessibility of the bank’s ATMs and its website.
The CBA’s plan was also in response to the Australian Bankers Association’s (ABA) Industry Standards on Accessibility of Electronic Banking, which had been introduced in 2002. The voluntary standards cover Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), Electronic Funds Transfer at the Point of Sale (EFTPOS), Automated Telephone Banking, and Internet Banking. The digital Gap Initiative has been approached by the ABA to contribute to the review of these standards.
In March 2006 the Australian Guidelines for Electronic Commerce were issued by the Treasury and the Attorney-General’s Department.
On 8 October 2008, reputable finance industry online newsletter creditcars.com published an article titled “Advocates for the blind take aim at touch-screen terminals”, reporting on the experiences of a blind lawyer in the US named Jonathan Simeone, who told of his encounter with a touch screen payment device at a supermarket:
Jonathan: “I couldn’t do debit because I wouldn’t give them my PIN, so I had to switch from debit to credit. Since they had already rung me up, the cashier had to find a manager who knew how to print out a paper credit card receipt and I had to sign that. Because I couldn’t do those things, it held up the line for a minute.”
Gisele: When I was testing Albert I could picture myself in that same type of situation, with customers getting impatient while I struggled to enter my pin in one of these Albert devices.
Note: Ted, perhaps here you could come in with a comment and refer to the stats from the bank’s media release, which you referred to at the meeting. They are at
Although touch screens only became popular in recent years, concepts for their application go back fifty years to 1965. And ideas of designing touch screen interface for the vision impaired (IVI) have been around for many years. For example Patent US6464135 “Method and system for assisting the visually impaired in performing financial transactions” – was published in the United States in October 2002. This was a decade before the CBA announced their plan to release Albert
On March 15 2012 the US adopted Talking ATM Technical Standards.
Gisele: Reflecting on this timeline of events pertaining to the accessibility of payment devices (1984-2015) is crushing. More than 30 years since the Canadian case over talking ATMs and 13 years since my own case and the publication that same year of that US patent relating to accessible touch screen EFTPOS, Australia’s largest bank has released a touch screen payment device that was not accessible. Here we were, cradling Albert in our hands, being told it was a “first in the world”, “revolutionary”, and loaded with apps that could do these amazing things. I should have felt proud that this was an Australian innovation. But all I could think about was of the many people with disabilities, older people, and others who would no longer be able to perform the simple task of entering their Pin number at a point-of-sale.
Note: Ted, here perhaps you could add comments re the limitations of the options the bank cited?
The case of Albert points to the need for mandatory national standards on digital accessibility. Voluntary standards or guidelines have their place in our society but the case of Albert evidences their limitations. The CBA had a singular opportunity to demonstrate progressive thinking and rise to the challenge of integrating accessibility in the design of its innovative product, and had both the bank’s own policy and the industry-based ABA Standards as reference, and this did not make one iota of difference. The CBA should be accountable for this omission but, ultimately, the responsibility for yet another example of the digital gap, lies squarely with government. It is unconscionable that, even though we are now well and truly in the digital era, there are no mandatory standards or compliance-based regulations around digital accessibility.
Regulation around access to digital technology would benefit all stakeholders. There was a long battle for mandatory standards around access to the physical environment and initially much resistance from developers, building owners and architects to the idea of imposing regulations on the industry. But in May 2011 the Property Council of Australia issued a statement in support of the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards, stating in part, “The Premises Standards provide much-needed certainty for building owners about how to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act”. The Digital Gap Initiative takes the view that national standards on digital accessibility would provide the same certainty to the digital industry. We need now for the ABA and other business peak body, including the Business council of Australia, to support our drive for national compliance-based regulations.
It has to be remembered that people with disabilities, older people and others who are affected by the lack of accessibility and usability of digital technology are not just consumers. They are also employees and employers and business owners. For example, the lack of accessibility of an everyday piece of technology such as an EFTPOS device does not only create a problem for a customer who is unable to use the device at the check-out at the supermarket queue: it may very well make a difference to a person being able to have a job at that supermarket or compete in the business world as a supermarket owner. This example is applicable to any scenario involving the use of digital technology in our society.
Author: Robyn Grae Lee
As a new Director with Digital Gap Initiative (DGI), I find myself on a steep learning curve to become more aware of the increasingly complex world of accessibility to technology, in all its myriad forms. DGI stands for bridging the gap between those who are able to access daily technology easily and those who are not, for many and varied reasons. This is an enormous issue.
To make these changes, we believe that building, production and development standards need to be created to initiate changes and ensure that they are upgraded, to keep up with the continuous developments in technology. This may require legislation and it certainly requires the co-operation of business, industry and technology developers, service organisations and above all, us, the customer/client/purchaser.
There needs to be change in the perspective of many providers in order to appreciate just how vital technology is for everyone, but how inaccessible it is becoming for many. Furthermore, this perspective needs to encompass the fact that often accessibility to technology can be easily achieved.
This brings me to a very pleasing recent story of an example of this change of perspective. An article in ‘The Huffington Post’ reported a recent initiative by Coles supermarkets.
With the guidance and planning provided by Aspect (Autism Spectrum Australia), two Victorian Coles supermarkets, at Ringwood and Balwyn East, have trialled a “quiet hour”, or low sensory shopping experience for people on the autism spectrum.
Some who live with Autism Spectrum Disorder can become overwhelmed with a variety of sensitivities relating to smells, sounds, loud noises and voices, bright or disturbing light, crowds, busy movement and having to negotiate queues and unfamiliar social interactions.
The two Coles supermarkets, with planning provided by Aspect, committed to a new program designed to make shopping bearable and even pleasurable for those on the Spectrum. They implemented these following strategies – lowered the volume of Coles Radio, dimmed the lights by 50%, turned down register and scanner volumes to lowest level, removed roll cages from shop floor, avoided trolley collections and PA announcements (excluding emergencies), offered free fruit to customers and had trained team members available to assist customers.
A Ringwood mother was brought to tears when she saw the impact that this new program had on her autistic son. “Lachlan was provided with such a positive experience in an environment that is challenging,” Ms Dive said. “Kudos to you Coles for your Quiet Hour today, and acknowledging your environment for people entering your store can be a sensory landmine for many to navigate.”
The first quiet hour was a resounding success thanks to this program. The two Coles stores have committed to quiet hour once a week, from mid-August to the end of October, 2017.
Mr Peter Sheean, of Coles, told DGI that “we have received overwhelming positive feedback from both our team members and customers on this initiative and we are reviewing the learnings with a view to extending to other supermarkets”. Good news indeed.
Similarly, ABC news reported that an Adelaide supermarket has implemented a quiet hour with the advice and support of Cara Disability Support Service.
A customer, Ms Lester, said that to take her daughter, Juno, shopping was usually nearly impossible. “We only attempt it if we are really desperate, and then it’s in and it’s out and it’s meltdowns and a disaster.”
Mr Lester said the sights, sounds and smells that are just daily life for most people can, for his daughter, be overwhelming, because Juno has a sensory processing disorder.
“Juno is also vision impaired and she needs to start mobility and orientation training, which is using a white cane,” Ms Lester said. “We can’t start that until she’s able to go to public places, until she’s able and confident and comfortable in a space like this, and that won’t happen with all the usual noise, so a night like this is a golden ticket for Juno.”
Reports of similar programs around the country and in the UK indicate that accessibility, as a concept, is catching! In many situations, accessibility may be a matter of commitment and planning, rather than a giant obstacle to be hurdled.
Although, strictly speaking, this story is not about access to technology, but it is about access to the services and requirements that are a part of everyday life. And, invariably, technology is part of that access.
However, technology is created and programmed by the human provider, who needs always to be reminded to ensure that no-one is left out. Access to all for all.
You’ll remember from our 2016 Wrap-Up that we were eagerly spruiking Friend of DGI, Lainey Feingold’s then new book, Structured Negotiation, A Winning Alternative to Lawsuits, which at the time had been recently published by the American Bar Association (ABA).
We can finally reveal just why it was that our little organisation was promoting this book by the renowned U.S. disability civil rights lawyer so enthusiastically.
Through the usual rigour of our forensic research in the area of digital inaccessibility – DGI after all being the CSI of digital access crimes – we had initially learned that disability rights advocates in the US had, like us, been similarly pushing to make the digital world accessible to everyone. Their work, however, had led to more immediate outcomes than had occurred to date in Australia, including many more talking ATMs, accessible websites and mobile apps, talking prescription labels, accessible pedestrian signals, audio description and accessible health care and financial information. What we learned again and again through the above advancements is how many had significantly benefited from an approach pioneered and developed by Lainey through her twenty plus years’ experience representing blind people and their organisations across the US. This approach came to be known as Structured Negotiation.
When looking for a high-profile personality to open our inaugural World Usability Day event at Parliament House, Canberra in November, 2015, we reached out to Lainey, firstly advising her of our own efforts to make the digital world accessible “Down Under”, and then our request. She rewarded us with the boundless generosity we would later come to know her by when she agreed, and kindly prepared a special video message to all those who gathered with us to celebrate the occasion.
Our networking with other disability rights advocates in the US continued in 2016, including with Blind Film Critic, Tommy Edison (after being kindly connected to him by local Friend of DGI, Rick Randall) and esteemed accessibility guru, Jim Thatcher, kept forcing us back into Lainey’s orbit, with both regularly referring to her in conversation and how highly regarded she was in our space. Lainey herself then reconnected with us to alert us to her book’s release in September that year. Then when Jim’s website went down and we were unable to raise a response from him, concerned, we reached out to Lainey who advised us that Jim had become unwell and connected us up with his wife, Diana Seidel. Before we knew it, we had offered to step up to the plate and host his invaluable website as a historical archive [here].
Regular contact with Lainey continued into the New Year when she advised us of her intention to take a break from the exhaustion of “Trump’s America” and visit some friends in Sydney. Seeing this as way too good an opportunity to pass up (we’re like that;), we floated the idea of returning the favour she had so kindly done for us at our Parliament House event by offering to coordinate our efforts to host a seminar promoting her book, and where she could also share her learned strategies and open discussion with disability rights lawyers how these might be similarly applied here in Australia. Without very much coaxing at all, we were able to easily convince Lainey to agree, and the rest as they say is history.
Structured Negotiation and the quest for equal access in the digital age: lessons from the US disability rights movement
with US disability rights lawyer Lainey Feingold
Date: Tuesday, 14 November 2017
Time: 5.30pm – 7pm
Venue: Ashurst Australia, Level 11, 5 Martin Place, Sydney
Order of events:
5.30pm Light refreshments
6pm – 7pm Seminar and Q&A
At the seminar, Lainey will discuss her 20+ years of collaboration to advance disability civil rights and how strategies used in the United States might be applied here in Australia. She will also bring the audience up-to-date on what is happening with U.S. digital accessibility court cases, laws, and regulations. Websites are global, tech companies are global and digital advocacy is global too.
*For screen reader users, we recommend using the Firefox browser to RSVP on the Eventbrite website – or please email email@example.com to register your interest.
Lainey’s book, Structured Negotiation, A Winning Alternative to Lawsuits, tells the story of the dispute resolution process she pioneered that avoids lawsuits in favour of win-win solutions to complex legal issues. Lainey and her clients have used Structured Negotiation with some of the largest organisations in the United States to protect and advance the rights of blind people to access digital information and other technologies. The book can be purchased on the night (limited copies available). For readers with print disabilities, Structured Negotiation is available in epub format through the ABA, or with enhanced typesetting enabled in the ebook version from Amazon or on Bookshare.
In our last blog post you’ll recall DGI pondered if Anna Bligh AC would bring her “Absolutely everybody” stamp to her new role as CEO of the Australian Bankers’ Association (ABA).
On 26 April, DGI team members Gisele Mesnage, James Newton and Robyn Lee had the unique opportunity to meet with Anna in person at the ABA’s head office in Sydney. We were impressed by her grasp of the concerns we raised and her commitment to addressing these concerns.
We can say now that Anna Bligh has hit the ground running in terms of bringing a fresh approach to her role.
Among the broad range of current banking accessibility issues we raised were:
- touchscreen POS devices (such as the Albert – yes him again);
- the new touchscreen “smart” ATMs;
- the necessity for the ABA and its member banks to develop a Procurement Policy that ensures payment terminals and payment solutions adhere to the Australian Government’s recently adopted Accessible ICT Standard;
- the need to include Accessibility in the ABA’s Code of Banking Practice and also in the international PCI (Payment Card Industry) Standards; and
- of course our concerns about the proposed replacement of the 2002 Accessible Banking Services Standards with what DGI views as weaker “Guiding Principles”.
We also touched on the questions of:
- accessible authentication;
- new cardless and contactless mobile phone transactions and other new technologies used in banking; and
- the closure or redesign of bank branches.
Anna Bligh hinted that she is planning for the ABA to convene a round table in June to bring together various representatives to discuss the future of the Accessible Banking Services Standards, and how the current issues might be addressed more effectively.
DGI expresses its deep gratitude to Anna for meeting with us so soon after her appointment, and for her warm welcome to us. The meeting gave us confidence that our concerns were heard and will not be dismissed.
When she was Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh championed the state’s “Absolutely everybody” disability policy, saying that “a Queensland that is inclusive and accessible to all community members will be better for everyone.”
The “Absolutely Everybody” theme was based on the popular song by Vanessa Amorosi, featured in her 1999 album, “The Power”.
In February 2017, Anna Bligh was appointed CEO of the Australian Bankers’ Association (ABA).
After publishing our first editorial on CommBank’s Albert EFTPOS tablet way back in September 2015, we were invited to an interview with the ABA and informed that their Industry Standards on Accessibility of Electronic Banking, introduced in 2002, were currently under review. The ABA further informed us that they would be consulting with stakeholders on updating these standards to ensure the ongoing accessibility of banking in a digitally changing environment (with hopes that the review would be completed by mid-2016). Some twelve months later we had heard nothing further, so reached out to the ABA and were advised in December 2016 that the review was still underway and that we would receive an invite early in the New Year with a copy of the draft principles for comment. Upon receiving in late January we were disappointed that this redrafting had replaced the standards with “Guiding Principles for Accessibility”, so in effect what would appear to be a watering down, upsetting at a time when more and more inaccessible EFTPOS terminals and other devices used in retail are being released onto the market totally unregulated.
We have since submitted our response to the ABA’s draft of their “Accessibility Guiding Principles for banking services” highlighting our concerns that they fall well short of providing an effective pathway to Accessible Banking Products and Services.
We are sadly unable to share our set out concerns, and our recommendations, until the Principles have been finalised which will not be until at least mid-year. Rest assured though, in our usual way we have provided open, constructive feedback, with the objective of assisting the ABA and its member banks to better serve the community, especially people with disability, older persons and others who experience barriers to inclusion in the digital transformation era.
What we can explain to our faithful readers here, however, is the difference between Standards and Guiding Principles.
Principles are quite different from both rules and standards – at least from a legal standpoint. Both rules and standards provide a framework that is, in theory, sufficient for resolving a particular issue in a legal dispute, whereas the term, “principle” only provides guidance for the interpretation or application of a rule or standard. Principles by themselves do not resolve legal issues.
We can also cite the following information on the benefits of standards from the Standards Australia website:
“Australian Standards ensure goods and services consistently perform the way they are intended. They support the economy, improve safety and health, use our national resources more efficiently and improve our quality of life.
- Standards give businesses and consumers’ confidence that the goods and services they are developing or using are safe, reliable and will do the job they were intended for.
- Standards provide a platform on which to build new and exciting ideas. As our world changes, new Standards are introduced to reflect the latest technologies, innovations and community needs – redundant Standards are discarded.
- Products that comply with Australian Standards have a competitive edge over products that don’t – consumers know the difference. Australian exporters using international Standards have a head start when they move into overseas markets.
- Standards ensure products manufactured in one country can be sold and used in another. Standards reduce technical barriers to international trade, increase the size of potential markets and position Australian firms to compete in the world economy.
Standards help make laws and regulations consistent across Australia. Standards offer an alternative to regulation, with less red tape and business costs, while still providing security for families and small business consumers.”
On 15 April 2002, when Dr Sev Ozdowski OAM, Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner, launched the inaugural ABA’s Standards for making electronic based services more accessible to people with disabilities and older Australians, there was a resounding note of optimism in his address, and a sense of commitment from the ABA and its member banks to meet the challenge of implementing the standards. It was evident that a lot of hard work and collaboration between the ABA, the banks and community stakeholders had gone into developing the standards. And generally speaking, the standards led to marked improvements for accessible banking services in the intervening years.
The challenge for Anna Bligh now is to ensure that the ABA invests in accessibility of banking services for Absolutely Everybody. You can perhaps start helping her in her new role by signing our Change.org petition.
Standards, Laws and Accessibility
According to Standards Australia, globally there are well over half a million published Standards. These are the products of over 1,000 recognised Standards Development Organisations (SDO) worldwide.
The International Standards Organisation (ISO) has a portfolio of accessibility-related standards, but curiously Accessibility has yet to be identified as one of the benefits of standards by ISO and other SDOs.
The UN International Year of Disabled Persons (IYDP) (1981) and the subsequent UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (2006) have been instrumental in driving many positive reforms in this social policy area, as have the three standards under Australia’s very own Disability Discrimination Act (1992):
- Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002
- Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010
- Disability Standards for Education 2005.
But in this digital age, in Australia and internationally, there is a startling want of laws and standards governing digital technology, particularly requirements for incorporating Accessibility and Usability features in digital products and services.
Yet the need is evident and urgent: people with disability, older persons, those who are socially disadvantaged and those with limited tech-savvy skills are among those who experience the biggest barriers when using online services, mobile apps, touchscreen home and office appliances, automated services and the myriad of other technologies now so embedded in our everyday lives.
It is against this backdrop that the Digital Gap Initiative (DGI), a not-for-profit, grassroots Australian organisation, was founded on 7 December 2014, to advocate for legal, policy and other systemic reforms, including national and international standards, with the objective of closing the gap between those able to participate in the rapid transformation of our society and those who are being left behind.
Where to begin?
The challenges of tackling the accessibility barriers of our digital age are great, but not insurmountable. Our motivation to overcome these barriers is deeply rooted in necessity, and above all driven by the conviction that digitalisation offers unprecedented prospects for universal access and real social inclusion.
DGI has therefore identified priority areas for action, among these the surge of touchscreen technologies.
Currently no national or international standards incorporating accessibility requirements for touchscreen technologies exist, a question DGI has been raising since its inception.
But standards can take many years to create and work their way through the adoption process, so it is important to set short-term, achievable goals alongside more long term goals for closing the digital gap.
While DGI is working on its position statement on Australia’s adoption of the EN 301 549 Accessibility requirements suitable for public procurement of ICT products and services, based on its submission to the recent public consultation conducted by Standards Australia, the current barriers presented by touchscreen payment devices, particularly the PIN entry issue, have highlighted a more immediate human rights issue, the basic daily activity of purchasing goods and services independently, so it is this area that our first position statement will focus on.
At the time of writing, a number of new touchscreen payment devices are being released on the Australian market. The first of these, however, and the one on which DGI has the most information is CommBank’s Albert. Another similar device called Blade is being released by the ANZ Bank, but DGI is yet to acquire sufficient information to comment on this device. Therefore, Albert is named by way of an example, but all comments apply generically to all similar devices. For the purpose of this position paper, we have not directly addressed the particular issues connected with touchscreen ATMs.
Albert has been available to Australian merchants since March 2015 and the bank is marketing it to retailers, including cinemas and restaurants, festivals and events, and medical, transport and government services that use EFTPOS terminals. CommBank attempted to retrofit an Accessibility Mode for PIN entry by people who are blind or vision impaired and cannot see the virtual keypad on the touchscreen. But 3 key issues have emerged:
- Many people find the current gesture-based PIN entry solution inaccessible, resulting in people divulging their PIN, violating the privacy and security of their payment information and subsequently breaching Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS);
- Accessibility Mode to use this solution can only be activated by the merchant, and people report that many merchants do not know how to do this; and
- Accessibility Mode does not extend to the customer-facing and business-related apps on the device.
History of Touchscreen Payment Systems and Accessibility
Although touchscreens only became popular recently, concepts for their application go back 50 years to 1965. The world’s first colorgraphic touchscreen point of sale computer was created in 1986.
Ideas of designing touchscreen interface for the vision impaired (IVI) have been around for many years. For example Patent US6464135 “Method and system for assisting the visually impaired in performing financial transactions”, was published in the United States on 15 October 2002.
The possibility of using mobile apps to assist the blind, and others, to interact with touchscreen point-of-sale devices have been touted. But almost five (5) years on since this solution was suggested, there’s no standard secure procedure for mobile payments.
It is worth noting also that as far back as 2000, the Australian Human Right’s Commission’s report on Access to Electronic Commerce For Older Australians and People With A Disability referred to the then newly emerging touch-sensitive EFTPOS devices and touchscreen kiosks, noting that people who had difficulty using these were being forced to reveal their PIN. It is disquieting to read through the 19 recommendations made by the Commission at the time, and to then realise that some 16 years on we are revisiting many of the same issues.
It is therefore evident that while it is desirable, possible and necessary to develop a universal accessibility mode for use with payment devices, and codifying this in an international standard, this aspiration is not currently on the near horizon.
On the other hand, since 2004 in California USA, the law has required that any newly purchased touchscreen-based credit card terminals, or any upgraded units, must be equipped with tactile number keypads.
The Law Office of Lainey Feingold, and Co-Counsel Linda Dardarian, has negotiated close to a dozen agreements with national retailers requiring telephone-style keypads at point-of-sale devices so that people who are blind do not have to disclose their PIN when using a PIN-based card.
The Fundamental Principles of Accessibility and Usability
Underpinning the rationale for this Position Statement, and others DGI will develop, are the following fundamental principles.
Principle: Accessibility makes good business sense.
Application to this issue
- People being held up in a queue while someone has difficulty using the payment device is not good for business;
- As the US cases above demonstrate, businesses risk being sued if a customer is unable to use the payment device on the grounds of their disability;
- Businesses also lose significant revenue if a customer does not have the cash to pay to cover purchase of over $100 in the event they are unable to enter their PIN.
Principle: Accessibility and usability should be incorporated in the design phase, not retrofitted.
Application to this issue
- The accessibility and usability barriers to those touchscreen payment devices currently on the market is a direct result of not considering, and incorporating, accessibility and usability into the design phase;
- All attempts to retrofit these needs now are likely to be costly and to fall short of providing an effective, standardisable, solution.
Principle: Human Factors (HF) should be at the core of all technological design.
Application to this issue
- Evidence-based research went into the design of the telephone-style tactile keypad (dial pad) that was used as the basis for numeric keypads used in point-of-sale devices. It evolved out of the pioneering work of Jon E. Karlin in Human Factors Engineering (HFE);
- The European SDO ETSI has incorporated this principle in its Human Factors (HF); Telecommunications keypads and keyboards; Tactile identifiers Standard;
- ETSI is working to develop a common standard for tactile identifiers through harmonisation with other European and international SDOs, including ITU-T and ISO for a worldwide standard;
- Comparatively, despite the long history of touchscreen devices, there is little evidence-based research incorporating HF studies. A notable exception is the research done around Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), but this is still an evolving field.
Principle: Digitalisation has no inherent accessibility barriers.
Application to this issue
- There is no technical reason why all software and apps components of a complex payment system cannot be made fully accessible;
- Hence, there is no technical reason why a touchscreen cannot be made fully accessible using gesture-based input for those who prefer this method;
- However, other factors such as Human Factors Engineering (HFE) and diverse access requirements such as are being researched in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) studies, need to be considered;
- There is no technical reason why a touchscreen device cannot be harmonised with other input and output mechanisms (to support the diversity of needs and abilities in human society).
Principle: Don’t reinvent the wheel.
Application to this issue
- The wheel for transportation was invented 5,520 years ago and the inclined ramp 4,620 years ago, the period known as the Bronze Age.
- While both of these inventions are what some would term “dated”, they have been successfully incorporated, or co-exist, with more modern inventions that actually enhance access;
- Braille as a literacy medium for the blind was invented over 200 years ago, and the concept as a military code for reading combat messages in the dark pre-dates this, yet today not only is Braille still used in its original form, but it has been successfully electronically adapted for use with computers, mobile phones, etc.
It is generally accepted that the Braille system has succeeded because it is based on a rational sequence of signs devised for the fingertips, rather than imitating signs devised for the eyes.
An example of this is the recent addition of tactile dots on Australian bank notes [see full story];
- The hardware tactile keypad should be retained until at least such time as a viable alternative mechanism has been developed, tested and standardised (something that has yet to occur);
- As in the above example of the marriage of Braille with new technology, tactile keypads could be adapted to access auditory (or Braille) account information not currently accessible when using tactile keypads on standard POS devices.
Principle: An existing and proven accessibility mechanism should not be removed or omitted from a product or service, without first executing an equivalent or superior alternative accessibility mechanism to replace it.
Application to this issue
- The tactile keypad is a mechanism that has provided near universal accessibility for secure and private PIN entry into point-of-sale systems globally for decades;
- No alternative mechanism by way of gesture-based screen access, mobile access, or other pathway has been successfully implemented to serve the purpose, or standardised;
- The tactile keypad is already standardised.
Principle: The onus for accessibility and usability of a product and service should be with the designer, manufacturer or seller, not the user.
Application to this issue
- Consumers and merchants should not need to compensate for the lack of accessibility of a product or service, including being expected to bear additional costs for adjustments or training, etc. (i.e. just as wheelchair users are not expected to carry a ramp with them to board a bus, consumers should not have to carry extra gadgets to use a POS terminal);
- The Australian Government’s recent adoption of accessible ICT procurement standards support this principle by placing the onus on the supplier to ensure accessibility;
- Although consumers and merchants need to familiarise themselves with new technology, technologies should conform to usability principles by design, and should not require an unreasonable amount of training;
- All customer-facing features should be able to be activated by the customer, including Accessibility Mode and other support features.
Principle: People with disability and others with accessibility needs are not just consumers.
Application to this issue
- Albert has Pre-installed Apps, and at the time of writing we were unable to obtain verifiable information if these apps are accessible;
- Accessibility Mode does not currently appear to provide access support to the other apps on board the Albert;
- On the Pi App bank support pages, which feature basic descriptions about each app available for use on Albert, there is no mention of Accessibility;
- App developers and merchants have been encouraged to design new apps for the device, and there is a Software Developer Kit (SDK) but it is only available to registered developers and there is no reference to Accessibility whatsoever in its Pi Developer Terms and Conditions Agreement;
- This means that Albert could not be used by employees or business owners who require accessibility features to use the apps;
- As the use of these touchscreen payment devices rapidly expands and older systems are withdrawn, it may adversely impact these employees and business owners.
Outcomes we are seeking
- All touchscreen payment devices should be equipped with an integrated or auxiliary standard tactile keypad as an interim, secondary method for ease of secure, private and independent PIN entry by customers, until an equivalent or superior mechanism or superior method to perform this task is developed, tested and standardised. The keypad should be coupled and cabled to the device to ensure constant availability;
- Accessibility mode, help and training features and all customer-facing apps should be able to be activated by the customer;
- All on-board apps on touchscreen and other payment devices should be accessible, based on the WCAG 2.0 ICT informative notes;
- Merchants, app developers and other third parties should be required to make their app accessible, as per above, as part of their contractual agreement with the supplier of the payment device;
- All manufacturers of touchscreen and other payment devices should be required to abide by the principles of HFE, HCI and inclusive design, including incorporating accessibility features at the design stage.
Actions and Approaches to these Outcomes
- DGI supports the current Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) complaints lodged by Blind Citizens Australia (BCA) and some individuals around the accessibility of Albert, issues we first brought to the public’s attention as far back as September, 2015;
- DGI will continue to circulate the Change.org petition it co-initiated with blind double-amputee advocate and cricket enthusiast Martin Stewart, calling for the retention of the accessible tactile keypad on touchscreen POS devices;
- DGI will approach the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC) to recommend developing accessibility criteria as part of the compliance requirements in the PCI Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), including for PIN Transaction Security (PTS) devices and methods for all PCI-certified touchscreen payment terminals
- DGI has been approached to contribute to the current review of The Australian Bankers Association’s (ABA) Industry Standards on Accessibility of Electronic Banking which were first introduced in 2002. The voluntary ABA standards cover ATMs, EFTPOS, Automated Telephone Banking and Internet Banking. DGI will comment on all of these, advocate for the ABA to adopt guidelines that would prevent recurrences of the release of inaccessible POS devices, and take this opportunity to recommend a review of the ABA’s Guiding Principles for Accessible Authentication (2007);
- DGI plans to also confer with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) to raise the privacy issue of people being placed in the untenable position of divulging their PIN, and confer with other such authorities as appropriate;
- DGI will continue to confer with federal, state and local government agencies, bodies and business groups to encourage them to apply the EN 301 549 Standard in their ICT Procurement Policy when considering the purchase of touchscreen payment devices and similar products;
- DGI proposes that the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) should develop Advisory Notes to the DDA on touchscreen technologies, including payment devices, ATMs, self-service kiosks, etc.;
- DGI will continue to confer with Standards Australia around the development of relevant international standards on touch screen technologies;
- DGI will continue to work collaboratively and constructively with other organisations and individuals, including experts, to explore alternative approaches to achieve solutions to the issues.
Why the PIN Entry issue is DGI’s priority concern
As further noted by Vision Australia in their recent Touchscreen Technology Position Statement “more development is required before touchscreen-based payment terminals can be considered sufficiently accessible to be used in… financial transactions”, something DGI has been publicly asserting since September, 2015. It’s still within the realm of possibility that CommBank, the ANZ and other suppliers of these devices could put a hold on the marketing of these devices, at least in Australia, in response to DGI’s advocacy and community feedback exemplified by the signatures and comments to our petition and Vision Australia’s removal of its initial commentary about Albert on CommBank’s website. All approaches must be explored, but, in the meantime:
- No evidence-based practicable solution has been developed that can currently equate or better the use of a tactile keypad for secure, independent and easy PIN entry on touchscreen payment devices anywhere in the world, despite at least 15 years of concerted efforts to this end;
- A harmonised standard for gesture-based PIN entry that may facilitate a universal solution is not currently in force and may not be on the near horizon;
- PIN Entry is an everyday task and a solution to the accessibility barriers to the performance of this task cannot wait for a national or international standard to be created and adopted;
- The alternative for bills exceeding $100 is to pay cash or cancel the purchase (i.e. if the goods have not yet been consumed, as in a restaurant or hotel). This is an imposition on customers and merchants;
- Currently many people who are blind or vision impaired, older people, people who experience manual dexterity limitations, poor eye-hand coordination and others are being forced to provide their PINs to merchants, which is a violation of their privacy and a breach of the abovementioned PCI Standards;
- Even people who are savvy users of touchscreen smart phones have reported failure in their attempts to enter their PIN using the gesture-based method in accessibility mode, because of the fact that the operation has to be performed in noisy, busy locations, often with impatient customers waiting in the queue;
- DGI supports those who call for Accessibility Mode to be turned on by the user. However, we note that even if a merchant is aware of how to turn on this mode, or the manufacturer or bank devises a method for the customer to turn the feature on, this will not, in the immediate, provide accessibility to the on-board apps. It will only be useful for those who are familiar with, and confident in the use of, the gesture-based solution (evidence indicates a mean of two years of mobile, touch-screen experience is required to be able to confidently evaluate touch-based apps), and will therefore leave without relief those unable to use this solution. Otherwise, insanely, we may need to become familiarised with different PIN Entry gestures for each device, because the Albert method is patented, whereas a keypad is standard and universal;
- Kate Begley, Policy Advisor at Vision Australia, in their Submission to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee Inquiry into the regulation of ride sourcing services (dated 5 August 2016) (page 7), further states:
“Another area of technological development is in the use of touch-screen tablet devices, with gesture based input, for the purpose of processing financial transactions. The Commonwealth Bank’s Albert Payment terminals are one such example. There is a growing trend towards the use of touchscreen-based payment terminals that are completely inaccessible for the majority of people who are blind or have low vision.
Regardless of attempts to familiarise people who are blind or have low vision with tablet gesture based devices, it must be emphasised that this is neither the preferred, nor the most suitable payment option for the majority of our community.“
The steps CommBank has taken in the direction of retrofitting accessibility in Albert have still not sufficiently addressed the needs of the many people who are simply not able to enter their PIN number on the touchscreen at outlets where the payment device is currently in use, and now similar devices are arriving on the scene, unchecked. This is exposing people to the unacceptable risk of needing to reveal their PIN number in order to process payment. Being put on the spot to enter a PIN without the familiar raised buttons of the tactile keypad (with the dot on the 5 to orientate one’s fingers with surety), is causing people to make errors, and to have their payment card blocked if they fail 3 times. The experience of having to use the device at locations which are often busy and noisy, and when impatient customers in the queue make loud sighs or tch sounds, is causing anxiety, distress and embarrassment to many and risks reviving the outmoded stereotype that people with disability are unable to perform basic daily tasks without assistance when they have previously been able to be self-reliant when paying for their own goods.
This is an extremely sorry state of affairs, is occurring here and now in the 21st Century, and so demands an immediate solution. DGI urges the retention or addition of the tactile keypad to all touchscreen payment devices as an interim measure that can, and must be, applied now. There are no PCI, technical, financial, logistical or other objections that can be made for the implementation of this solution. This solution does not constrain the use of touchscreen payment devices, that are currently on the market, as intended, or the implementation and pursuit of other workaround solutions. The flaw here is not in the solution DGI has advanced, nor are we solely concerned about the single purpose of PIN entry. The flaw is that in the rush to design multi-purpose, state-of-the art payment devices, the diversity of needs of the different users are not considered, not even for the most basic purpose of entering a PIN to process a payment, let alone for the other purposes bundled onto these so-called innovative devices. The natural course of progress means that at times even the best practices have to give way to new ideas. But a new idea that makes it difficult for people to perform an everyday task that was previously simple is not progress or innovation.
DGI has a focus on systemic change. We hold that as a country founded on the values of egalitarianism, we cannot continue to permit that products are manufactured, imported and sold that completely disregard users with disability. How is it, we ask, that, despite the fact that this year we mark 25 years of the Disability Discrimination Act, so many inaccessible products continue to circulate? It is time that Accessibility be included under the mandate of the ACCC, be regulated under Australian Consumer Law, included in trade agreements, be subject to standardisation at all stages from design to retail, and be included as one of the social values and productivity drivers that govern public and private sector policy.
Digital Gap Initiative
4 January 2017
Following our very successful event at Parliament House, Canberra in November 2015, we were struck by the unfortunate loss of a number of our team members in quick succession due to health, family and work commitments. So from a team of 7 in 2015 we dwindled to just 2 by mid-2016. But what we lacked in numbers, we made up for with our passion, and you’ll note from this report that DGI has been particularly busy in the second-half of 2016, and is ready to continue our mission of daleking across the digital universe in 2017.
Peanut Butter and Eggs recipe for Accessibility
Yes, you read that right. DGI was once again invited to present at the A11y Camp in Melbourne on 21 July. Here we had an opportunity to focus on the fact that Australia now has a National Standard on Egg Labelling, but not on Accessibility which led to us proposing an equivalent approach with this being applied to digital products and services under Australian Consumer Law.
So the idea has now been hatched that accessibility needs to come out of its shell, and we will get cracking on this in 2017. As for the peanut butter? Well we started spreading that idea in Canberra and you can read more about it at Media Access Australia.
DGI present on Accessible ICT Procurement to both the Tasmanian State Service’s ICT Managers Group and Agency ICT Reference Group. The discussion initially highlighted how government has previously been criticised for its poor record in employing people experiencing disability (Dunlevy 2011; ADDE 2012), and that the Australian Public Service (APSC) Commissioner’s Statistical Bulletin shows employment of people experiencing disability in the Australian Public Service dropping from a high of 5.5 per cent in 1996, to 3.1 per cent in 2010 (APSC 2010). It was noted that focus group research carried out as part of this research was designed to capture information about the experiences of people with disability when seeking employment and when in employment, and that while the focus was not exclusively on those who had worked for the Australian Public Service, the accounts of focus group participants were illuminating for the frustration that many had experienced. Participant experiences were quoted, including: “good people leave the public service because they are demoralised – not getting support for equipment, there is inaccessible software and promises to change work practices which do not occur.” Other narratives shared noted consistency with this theme, such as one person being dismayed to discover that there was a departmental policy disallowing access to Skype that she used on a regular basis, and another focus group participant complaining that IT support staff were not conversant with the technicalities of their assistive technology software (an issue commonly reported to DGI). Specific mention was made of delays in the installation of screen reading software because there were issues that were related to the software’s need to traverse the department’s firewall, these latter examples suggesting that there has been some breakdown in ICT systems management. Under the Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL), which is the information technology management regime in place within agencies, all software (including assistive technology) is required to be tested with other departmental systems for compatibility as a matter of course, but it was noted that the isolated and one-off nature of Reasonable Adjustments has not led to the kind of expertise development required to adequately manage assistive technologies for staff with disability.
DGI further referred in its presentation to how the primary gateway to employment in the public service is online advertising of vacant positions or recruitment drives; application forms for jobs; documentation relevant to job description, etc., and noted that any digital accessibility challenges in this area will deter a person with a disability from applying for a job, or unfairly disadvantage them in the selection process. Presented as an example was the Mercury Group, a company whose online e-recruitment system, used by a range of federal, state and local government departments including the Australian Government’s Transport Safety Bureau, the Tasmanian Government’s Department of Education and Health & Human Services, ACT Government Health, NSW Health, City of Melbourne, City of Sydney and even Vision Australia, was noted as not conforming to WCAG 2.0, in addition to their main e-Recruit website (e.g. with six links called “more” on its home page that don’t describe the separate pages they link to, the “Contact us” form with a CAPTCHA prompt, etc.).
We highlighted that the consequence of this was that any screen reader user is prevented from applying for any position advertised through the above departments, a sorry state of affairs that not because the Disability Discrimination Act (1992) makes it unlawful to discriminate against people with disabilities in employment, including “through the recruitment process, such as advertising, interviewing, and other selection”, but that not developing Accessible ICT Procurement Policies that require Accessibility to be included as a core criteria in all ICT Call for Tenders would continue to prevent government reaching its targets for employing people with disability and that levels of staff with disability in the state service would continue to fall until this was prioritised.
Unfortunately, the following notification did not occur until later on in the afternoon of the day’s presentation. But the fact that the announcement was made meant that Accessibility finally becoming a criteria for public procurement of ICT products and services would mean that it would help to make this important issue a bigger priority for government.
22 August-9 September
We received numerous notifications that the Australian Government was charging Standards Australia to create an Australian Standard on ICT accessibility through the direct text adoption of the European Standard EN 301 549 in an effort to provide better access to ICT for people with disability and provide domestic ICT procurers with accessibility guidelines and certainty.
It was noted that before the standard could be adopted, a public consultation would occur shortly beforehand.
Recalling the Australian Public Service acknowledged in its APS Disability Employment Strategy that there has been a significant decline in the number of people with disability employed in the government sector on an ongoing basis (a drop of 4.9% since 2009-2010 with similar reports from state governments), despite general improvements in physical access in the community (which should have seen a marked increase), our ears pricked up at the opportunity to contribute a submission to this public consultation since we are personally and anecdotally aware of the impact of procurement of inaccessible ICT, particularly with regard to employment.
3 September-7 December
Since August 2015, King & Wood Mallesons (KWM) have been providing us with pro bono assistance in the drafting our Constitution, and will also be preparing our application for registration as a company limited by guarantee, not-for-profit with charitable purposes so we are able to be registered with the ACNC in 2017. KWM has been exceptionally helpful and has answered our many pesky questions patiently and with clarity. We are very grateful to the KWM team for this support and to Justice Connect for linking us up with them in the first place.
We connected up with the awesome Rick Randall, ex-Artistic Director of the Other Film Festival (OFF) and current Events Manager at the ACTU, to discuss our campaign approach moving forward. Rick’s usual common-sense approach reminded us that we had the perfect issue already what with all the leg work we had been doing for our community since September 2015 with regard to highlighting the inherent accessibility issues of CBA’s Albert, so we must thank him for helping conceive the idea that led us to our first Change.org petition.
Rick went on to ‘shell’ shock us by offering to introduce us to Blind Film Critic, Tommy Edison, and within 4 days had us Skyping with Tommy about touchscreen POS devices like the Albert. Tommy had an eventful remainder of the year so we deferred our connecting up again to 2017 when we could discuss plans at more length for how he might help our campaign get more traction.
18 September-24 October
In September we received exciting news from Lainey Feingold that her book, Structured Negotiation: A Winning Alternative to Lawsuits, had just been released in the U.S. Our friend Lainey is like the finest chocolate egg ever when it comes to good eggs in the accessibility world, so we were breaking out the eggnogs as soon as we were notified, scrambling to be the first Australians to get a copy of her book.
Now Lainey’s book was advertised as being available on Bookshare, but neither of us were members, plus there is that issue with the US not signing the Marrakesh Treaty which continues to limit access to digital publications from the U.S. So Lainey kindly applied her renowned negotiation skills to organise her publishers, the American Bar Association (ABA) to email us a copy in EPUB and MOBI format, both of which are regarded as accessible. But DGI, being as well-informed on these issues as we can be, know that while such formats might be marked up accessibly it is quite another story when it comes to accessible digital readers for these formats. So emails were bouncing back and forth between DGI, Lainey, the ABA and the National Federation for the Blind (NFB), such that we considered for a moment asking Lainey to arrange one of her Structured Negotiations to sort out the mess. But Amy Mason, Access Technology Specialist with the National Federation of the Blind prevented a major international incident by pointing us to a very accessible EPUB reader called QRead. Winds became calm again. Unfortunately, we then had too much on our plate with the preparation of our submission to Standards Australia and the upcoming ITU Academy course, revived Albert campaign and so on. But a review of Lainey’s book is definitely on our 2017 agenda… and a call for an international standard on digital documents and e-readers (and for more countries to adopt the Marrakesh Treaty).
26 September-14 November
Double Standards on ICT Procurement
In our efforts to determine the process for contributing our planned submission to the public consultation on the Australian Government’s direct text adoption of the European Standard EN 301 549, we were referred to SAI Global’s Info Store to access the relevant standards documents as background preparation. To our astonishment we not only found WCAG 2.0 Level AA failures, but that the relevant international standards documents were noted as only being available in PDF, despite the Australian Government’s own study into the Accessibility of the Portable Document Format for people with a disability, in which the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) notes “that organisations who distribute content only in PDF format, and who do not also make this content available in another format such as RTF, HTML, or plain text, are liable for complaints under the DDA”. The Australian Government’s policy position supports the AHRC’s, acknowledging the inaccessibility of this format for a range of users and requires that all government agencies and funded organisations are NOT TO RELY upon PDF as a format without also providing an Alternative Format. So this obviously presented a major challenge for us in preparing a well-informed response for the public consultation. Personally we feel that we didn’t do too bad a job, but you can judge our efforts yourself by downloading and reviewing AS EN 301549 Public Comment by Digital Gap Initiative_14Nov2016.
We had a conference call with Wayne Hawkins and Teresa Corbin (CEO) from ACCAN, during which we talked heartily about issues of common interest, primarily Accessible ICT Procurement, but also those infernal CAPTCHAs.
Of course ACCAN had led a campaign to kill CAPTCHAs, but to paraphrase President George W. Bush, “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to befuddle our people, and neither do we.” While we’re on the subject of American Presidents, we must reinforce that we promise to campaign for our own Prime Minister Elect, Malcolm Turnbull, to build a Great Wall to prevent the influx of inaccessible digital products to our shores, and we’ll make the inaccessible product designers pay for that wall. Mark our words, we will ‘Trump’ them. After all, you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs;)
13 October-19 November
Positive Dialog and DGI’s Award for Egg-cellence goes to…
We liaised with DGI’s old friend at AccessHQ, Greg Barnett, to help highlight and address CAPTCHA and general website accessibility issues for parent company, Dialog Pty Ltd. Greg was his usual receptive self, and we just wish we could remedy all accessibility issues out there as quickly and positively.
So DGI’s Award for Egg-cellence! for 2016 goes to Greg Barnett, who’s really a ‘Good Egg’. We are just sorry we didn’t think of the ‘Bad Egg’ category for this year’s award, as we certainly had our share of contenders in that area;) Perhaps we’ll have to open a call-out for nominations in 2017. What do Friends of DGI think? But no suggestions re: prizes, we’ve already worked it out; a rotten egg delivery on All Hallow’s Eve;)
7 November-16 December
First Aussies to undertake specialised training with the United Nations’ agency for ICT
Thanks to support from University of Wollongong e-governance lecturer, William Tibben, and ICT policy advisory and researcher, Gunela Astbrink, Digital Gap members, Gisele and James, had the esteemed privilege of being the first Australians invited by the ITU (International Telecommunication Union) Academy, the United Nations’ specialised agency for ICT, to participate in their “Public procurement of accessible ICT products and services” online course from the 7th of November to the 16th of December.
The course, promoted as providing learners with the knowledge, understanding and skills required to: a) specify accessibility for persons with disabilities in the public procurement of information and communication technology (ICT) products and services, b) address accessibility during all stages of the public procurement process, and c) provide a solid understanding of the EN 301 549 seemed far too good an offering for us to pass up, what with the adoption of this standard into the Australian environment and the capacity it would provide us with to interpret the standards so we could “talk the talk” when liaising with ICT Procurement Officers in government as part of our efforts to reduce digital accessibility barriers in the public service arena. So we gladly accepted, not knowing entirely what we were letting ourselves in for, as the course thoroughly consumed us. However, it has been extremely valuable as our tutor & course coordinator, Donal Rice, provided comprehensive training resources informed no doubt by his experience lecturing in law and policy related to universal design at the National University of Ireland in Galway and through his Ph.D research and frequent contribution to reports and events by the UN, UNESCO and the ITU.
As part of our assessment we were required to take the role of a procurement officer by writing a Call for Tender for ICT, applying a range of accessibility criteria from the above standard, and after both achieving Grade Point Averages above 95%, now feel much more confident to liaise with government procurement officers to ensure they are applying these criteria sufficiently to their own ICT tenders. The course has further provided us with a general grounding in the development and application of standards to more effectively support our own goal of campaigning for national standards on digital accessibility.
Leeping to digital inclusion
Leep is a non-government organisation dedicated to achieving equality of access to, and use of, digital technologies for the most vulnerable members of our community – those at greatest risk of social exclusion for whom digital technology can offer truly life-changing benefits.
This was a very impressive meeting and provided us with a great networking opportunity.
World Usability Day and eggs-actly what are the chances of a double-yoker?
Attended World Usability Day event hosted by the Sydney Web Accessibility and Inclusive Design Meetup at Sydney University. The theme for 2016 was “Sustainable User Experience (UX)”.
Stuart Freer, General Manager, Digital IT, Big Data and User Experience at Coles Online gave a crackling speech about why Accessibility is the bacon of good business, winning him and his team of Good Eggs at Coles shared our Award for Egg-cellence! for 2016 with Greg Barnett. But this double-yoker is a once only. From now on we won’t be so soft, and plan to get more hard-boiled about labelling our awards, in conformance with the new National Standard on Egg-cessibility.
ICT Procurement & Contracting
We made a connection with Procurement and Supply Australia (PASA) about presenting at their ICT Procurement & Contracting conference in 2017, which is extremely timely given our being the first Australian’s to undertake the ITU Academy’s course on the European Standard EN 301 549 and the Australia Government’s subsequent direct text adoption of it this year.
Albert Strikes Again
We ramped up our continued campaign against inaccessible EFTPOS touchscreen devices by publishing our third feature article reviewing Albert’s Accessibility Mode in the retail environment, the state of play of touchscreen point-of-sale devices in the U.S., the next wave of lawsuits under the DDA in Australia, and the risk of other Apps available on the device given the omission of Accessibility from its Pi Developer Terms and Conditions Agreement.
It is worth noting here that DGI has been attempting to network with other community groups around the Albert issue since September 2015, but this has been glacial. However, after DGI co-initiated a petition with Martin Stewart on change.org which was launched on 4 December, the tide turned and we started to receive responses and have now held talks with Blind Citizens Australia and Vision 2020, and this month will also meet with Ron Hooton, CEO of Vision Australia, to discuss common objectives. It certainly won’t stop there though, as we all know that the touchscreen PIN Entry issue impacts not just our own blind and vision impaired community also those with acquired brain injury (700,000+ Australians) and other cognitive disabilities (668,100 Australians), manual dexterity difficulties (685,000 Australians), in addition to posing challenges for a significant number of the 53% of those older Australians who report having a disability. We have a long list of individuals and organisations to approach. It is the nature of things that campaigns such as this can take significant time to take hold and achieve intended outcomes, as it took 3 years for young Connor McLeod to win his campaign for the dot on the $5 and other bank notes.
Web Accessibility Request to Friends of DGI
We began searching for an alternative web hosting service for www.digitalgap.org due to ongoing accessibility issues with our current one. Yes, even in the basic area of getting your website hosted, if a user of assistive technology such as a screen reader, you will more than likely remain unable to take full advantage of your hoster’s service, encountering accessibility barriers when attempting to request quotes, register with your new hosting service, and once your website is newly hosted, being able to open basic support tickets if hosting issues arise that result in your website dropping out, etc.
The primary barriers here are not only the usual issue of their public websites not being compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, a requirement if businesses with websites are wanting to avoid complaints of disability discrimination under the Australian Human Rights Commission (meaning if you are a screen reader user and wanting to run your own website you cannot access basic levels of information about which service offers the most suitable, affordable, deal for hosting your website), but the even bigger barrier of CAPTCHA which prevents you making general online enquiries, quote requests and once signed up, being able to open basic support requests so you can effectively maintain your website. Then there is the issue of most backend platforms provided by web hosting services which are meant to provide website owners with control over web-based interfaces for accessing their email, and enabling configuration of their account options, but are also generally not compliant with WCAG 2.0.
Hence, because of the above outlined issues, we have yet been able to identify an accessible web hosting service, so if anyone out there knows of one whose full suite of customer features are accessible for a screen reader user, please contact us urgently as our current hosting arrangement expires toward the end of January 2017.
Invasion of the Daleks
We are now the owners of a 20 year license of the famed Dalek cartoon and obtained a significant discount from Punch Magazine in the UK.
We extend our warm thanks to Andre Gailani, Manager at Punch Ltd. not only for assisting us with the renewal, but extending his generosity by allowing us to continue to use the cartoon image for any non-commercial activities – except our official business logo/branding – as part of the 20 year license (originally this was for web use only).
With the Daleks as our allies for the next 20 years, we feel nothing will stop us in our efforts to exterminate accessibility barriers to the digital universe, given we don’t have that pesky Doctor and his sonic screwdriver (no doubt designed without accessibility in mind) to deal with.
28 November-18 December
DGI is now hosting JimThatcher.com
When DGI became aware that screen reader and esteemed accessibility guru, Jim Thatcher‘s website and email account had been suspended, we contacted mutual friend Lainey Feingold, who connected us with Jim’s partner, Diana Seidel, who advised us of Jim’s retirement due to ongoing health concerns.
Already well known to DGI members and immensely respected for his knowledge of, and contribution to, accessibility principles, we were immediately deeply concerned that Jim’s work should not be lost to the world, so we bravely offered to act as caretakers of the site and its archives. We were both blown away and humbled when Diana responded that Jim had accepted our offer. We feel extremely honoured and privileged to be entrusted to take on this duty, and are also delighted that Jim has put his consultancy work in the hands of Knowbility who the site redirects to for those wishing for further guidance and support in making their websites accessible. Much to our great relief, due to our abovementioned accessibility issues with web hosting services, Knowbility has magnanimously agreed to administer any issues that require addressing via the backend platform.
DGI supported blind advocate, Lauren Henley, by attending her hearing in the Federal Circuit Court against the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) for their dismissal of her complaint against the Commonwealth Government for its failure to take all reasonable steps towards providing audio description in Australia which she claimed was a breach of her human rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) appeared for Lauren in the Federal Circuit Court to argue that this was the wrong decision under the law, and that the Commission should have inquired into her complaint on its merits. Lauren requested for the Court to order the Commission to make its decision again, in other words, to conciliate the matter and make a decision in accordance with its legal powers. Lauren’s hope is that the case will encourage the Commission to give more careful attention to its inquiries when people complain about a breach of their human rights under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Aside from DGI, members of Blind Citizens Australia (BCA) also attended in support of Lauren. The court’s decision is expected to be handed down in early 2017.
Attended City of Sydney’s Disability Action Plan workshop and particularly raised issues relevant to DGI’s advocacy work, including the need for:
- beacons in the city to assist with orientation using GPS-type apps;
- accessible information, such as text-based map information, accessible documents, etc.;
- Council to adopt the EN 301 549 Accessible ICT procurement standard to reduce barriers to access for employment within local government, and more accessible customer services, etc., making particular mention of not purchasing Albert and similar touchscreen payment devices for customer service counters.
DGI had an opportunity to conduct very constructive talks with Standards Australia to discuss such issues as:
- the abovementioned accessibility of standards documents and websites, particularly as relates to Standards Australia’s publishing partner, SAI Global;
- the related issue of accessible public consultation processes;
- DGI’s ideas around the creation or adoption of new international standards;
- including accessibility in the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Commonwealth of Australia and Standards Australia, to more directly acknowledge accessibility as one of the listed community benefits which flow from standardisation, and which should be included in the decisions to create, revise or adopt standards, including those developed internationally; and
- Standards Australia’s role in proposing new accessibility standards to ISO and other Standards Development Organisations internationally.
DGI sees the connection with Standards Australia as vital to achieving our goals, so the meeting was one of the high points of our year.
In 2002 Martin Stewart, a then 39-year old blind advocate was on his way to work one ordinary day when he stepped into what he thought was an open carriage doorway of a train that had just pulled in to Richmond Station, in Melbourne, Victoria, and fell into the void between carriages and on to the tracks. Despite the desperate attempts of an onlooker to flag down the driver, the train took off and dragged him 200 metres along the tracks. The train tore off his lower right leg, his right arm and the top of his left ear, fractured his cheekbone and ribs, and left him with painful friction burns down the front of his body.
That same year, 2002, the Australian Bankers’ Association (ABA) introduced Industry Standards on Accessibility of Electronic Banking, after blind and other disability advocates around Australia lobbied them to act to remove barriers to their Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), Electronic Funds Transfer at Point of Sale (EFTPOS) devices, Automated Telephone Banking, and Internet Banking (15 years on, the ABA is in the process of reviewing and updating these standards to ensure the ongoing accessibility of banking in a changing world).
Martin continued his advocacy work after his traumatic accident, and he now has a message for the ABA and the four big banks it represents:
“The new standards must include specs for tactile keypads for PIN (Personal Identification Number) entry to be fitted to all touch screen EFTPOS and ATMs and Self-Service kiosks.”
Although Martin lost his dominant right hand in the accident (causing him to no longer be able to read Braille), he makes the most of his remaining limbs and is an avid blind cricket player and a whiz at using his iPhone. But new touchscreen EFTPOS devices such as the Commonwealth Bank’s Albert are preventing him from the basic ability of entering his PIN at checkout, something he was able to manage on tactile keypads.
Albert has been available to Australian merchants since March 2015 and the Commonwealth Bank is marketing it to retailers, cinemas, restaurants, event and festival organisers, in addition to other businesses and government services that use EFTPOS terminals.
The Commonwealth Bank retro-fitted an Accessibility Mode option onto its Albert touchscreen EFTPOS tablet, but it is gesture-based and impractical for many people to use, including those who have low or no vision; limited hand dexterity; cognitive challenges; older people and those not au fait with touchscreen devices.
“Regardless of attempts to familiarise people who are blind or have low vision with tablet gesture-based devices, it must be emphasised that this is neither the preferred, nor the most suitable payment option for the majority of our community.”
“Even though I am able to use my iPhone in a private setting, it is nerve-wracking to be confronted by a touchscreen payment device in the usually busy and noisy environments in which these machines are found, often with impatient customers queuing behind and making exasperated comments and noises. A physical button keypad which is permanently attached to the device is not a backward, out-of-touch request at all. This physical keypad will enable accessible, efficient and inclusive access. In California it’s been law since 2005 that tactile number keypads be attached to all touchscreen POS (Point-of-Sale) devices, so it’s not as if by requesting these in Australia we are asking for anything new. So why should we put up with what blind citizens in other countries have not! We have the absolute right to financially transact with our independence, privacy and security intact. If Albert is left to spread without very major changes to its design, it will be the precursor to other such devices in many other environments, such as taxis and teller machines, creating further marginalisation for us.“
The Digital Gap Initiative, a group advocating for legislation and standards on digital technology, questions how Albert could have been released by the Commonwealth Bank despite the ABA’s Industry Standards on Accessibility of Electronic Banking, and fully backs Martin’s call for the fitting of tactile keypads to payment systems.
Albert highlights the need for national, compliance-based standards on digital accessibility, but updating the voluntary ABA standards is a step in the right direction.
Martin is part of a group of several consumers who are blind or have other impairments and have lodged complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
Please sign Martin’s change.org petition
This is the third article in our series on the Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s “Albert” point-of-sale touchscreen payment device.
Albert has been available to Australian merchants since March 2015 and the bank is marketing it to retailers, cinemas, restaurants, festivals and other businesses and government services that use EFTPOS terminals.
The PIN entry function of this device is not functionally accessible for many people who experience blindness or significant vision impairment (357,000 Australians); combined vision and hearing difficulty (3,800,000 Australians), acquired brain injury (700,000+ Australians) and other cognitive disabilities (668,100 Australians), or manual dexterity difficulties (685,000 Australians). So, approximately 25% of the population. It also poses a challenge for a significant number of the 53% of those older Australians who report having a disability.
DGI has received reports of outlets that have affixed Albert to a pole, no doubt due to concerns the tablet may be stolen or dropped, as replacement of the device incurs a fee to the merchant by the bank of $1,500. This creates an extra difficulty for people with residual vision, or restricted movement, who often need to manipulate an object to get the best angle to see the screen or use gestures.
Our first feature article titled Commbank’s new EFTPOS “Albert”: Accessibility short-changed was followed by our second feature article on how Councils across Australia are choosing to adopt CommBank’s ‘Albert’ new payment system in spite of their knowledge that the device is not accessible to people experiencing vision, cognitive and manual dexterity disabilities.
So what has happened since the Digital Gap Initiative first broke the news on this inaccessible payment device?
Well, a lot and little.
“Accessibility Mode” Out of Touch with Retail Environment
It appears that the bank has finally acknowledged that it could have done more to incorporate accessibility in its design processes. On its Accessibility Mode for Albert page, Sarah Abbott, Senior Manager Diversity and Inclusion, Commonwealth Bank, states:
“Commonwealth Bank recognises and endorses the importance of payment accessibility, and we are continually enhancing the features of our payment devices, including improvements to the accessibility function of Albert for blind and vision impaired customers.
“We continue to build a strong culture of awareness, understanding and participation for people with a disability. This includes looking at improving our future design processes so we can better include accessibility standards for platforms used by our customers and employees.”
While it is positive that the Bank has made this declaration, they need not wait for the future to remedy the accessibility deficit of Albert.
Kate Begley, Policy Advisor at Vision Australia, in their Submission to the Economy and Infrastructure Committee Inquiry into the regulation of ride sourcing services (dated 5 August 2016) (page 7), further states:
“Another area of technological development is in the use of touch-screen tablet devices, with gesture based input, for the purpose of processing financial transactions. The Commonwealth Bank’s Albert Payment terminals are one such example. There is a growing trend towards the use of touchscreen-based payment terminals that are completely inaccessible for the majority of people who are blind or have low vision.
Regardless of attempts to familiarise people who are blind or have low vision with tablet gesture based devices, it must be emphasised that this is neither the preferred, nor the most suitable payment option for the majority of our community.”
This demonstrates that the steps the bank has taken in the direction of retrofitting accessibility in Albert have not measured up to the needs of the many people who are simply not able to enter their PIN number independently at outlets where the payment device is currently in use.
Basically, the bank expects we will all have to use gestures, instead of using the familiar tactile keypad with a dot on the number 5 that has provided a practical means for almost everyone to use a point-of-sale device everywhere in the world for decades, thanks to the genius and insight of Bell Labs industrial psychologist, and pioneer in human factors engineering, John E. Karlin.
To fully comprehend the profound thinking that went into the design of telephone-style tactile keypads, we urge our readers to read the obituary of John. E. Karlin, published in the New York Times on February 8, 2013.
It is doubtful that the same depth of research has gone into human factors engineering with touch screens, virtual keyboards and keypads, given the amount of companies now developing tools adapted from the analog world to tackle the significant limits of touch screens.
The natural course of progress means that at times even the best practices have to give way to new ideas. But a new idea that makes it difficult for people to perform an everyday task that was previously simple is not progress or innovation.
To get an idea of Albert being used in “Accessibility Mode”, it is worth tuning in to the Talking Tech podcast – June 7, 2016 by David Woodbridge, Senior Adaptive Technology Consultant at Vision Australia. David is demonstrating a tutorial app he downloaded to an Android smart phone. It sounds “easy enough” when David demonstrates the PIN entry steps. But with no disrespect intended to David, the following points need to be made:
- David is an experienced user and demonstrator of technology (he worked for Apple Australia as an Accessibility Ambassador from 2009-2015 so over 6 years of daily experience with touch screen, gesture technology). The average disabled or aged customer will not likely have his level of expertise and confidence in using new technologies;
- The demo includes audio feedback of numbers, which will not happen when using Albert in live-mode for PIN entry;
- David is using the demo in a private, quiet and relaxed setting, not at the check-out queue in a busy and noisy shop, restaurant or mobile food van at a music festival, street carnival or major sporting event;
- David is likely to have practiced the PIN entry step repeatedly, even before presenting this demo. The demo is quite long, yet it’s still the “short version” of how much someone would need to practice to enter their PIN correctly in a few seconds. It’s the equivalent of “I cooked this one before the show”, when a chef demonstrates a recipe on a cooking show;
- Albert is an Android device and the demo tutorial is only for Android devices. Many blind people are more likely to have iPhones or other IOS devices, if they have a smart phone at all;
- The audio prompts in the demo tutorial can be heard cautioning the user to take care of swiping straight in the direction of the numbers on the keypad. Many blind people will find it challenging to trace a line on a smooth surface, as will those who are sighted but may have poor eye-hand coordination; and
- The demo has a friendly little suggestion at the end that you should practice the PIN entry before attempting to enter it in Albert in a real situation. But, what are all those people who don’t have an Android device to practice the demo supposed to do?
Further to these points, the “accessibility mode” in Albert needs to be switched on by a sighted person. Even though the bank added instructions for “accessibility mode” in its Merchant Guide distributed with Albert (in the format of an inaccessibly designed PDF so not even able to be interpreted by a screen reader user) after DGI pointed out its omission in September 2015, many merchants report being unaware this mode is on the device, let alone how to turn it on or guide a customer on how to use it.
So what is DGI’s solution? It is simple enough: Albert has Bluetooth capacity so it should be possible for an auxiliary tactile keypad to be paired to the device.
Next wave of lawsuits against retailers who use touchscreen POS devices
In California, USA, since 2004 the law has required that any newly purchased touch screen-based credit card terminals or any upgraded units be equipped with tactile number keypads.
The Law Office of Lainey Feingold and Co-Counsel Linda Dardarian have negotiated close to a dozen agreements with national retailers requiring telephone-style keypads at point-of-sale devices so that people who are blind do not have to disclose their PIN when using a PIN-based card.
These have included:
- Raley’s Point of Sale Settlement Agreement
- Best Buy Tactile POS Settlement Agreement
- Trader Joe’s Point of Sale Agreement and Amendment
- CVS Accessible Web Site and Point of Sale Settlement Agreement
- Target Point of Sale Settlement Agreement
- Staples Point of Sale Press Release
- Dollar General Settlement Agreement
- Rite Aid Tactile POS Agreement
- 7-Eleven Point of Sale Agreement
- RadioShack POS and Web Agreement
- Safeway POS Agreement
- Wal-Mart POS Agreement
Note: Lainey Feingold is a disability rights lawyer and an author who works primarily with the blind community on technology, digital, and information access issues. She is nationally-recognised in the US for negotiating landmark accessibility agreements without lawsuits and for pioneering the collaborative dispute resolution method known as Structured Negotiation. Lainey’s book about structured negotiation, Structured Negotiation: A Winning Alternative to Lawsuits was just published by the American Bar Association (ABA). Read about Lainey’s book, available for sale on the ABA website in a range of formats.
In America it is therefore predicted the next wave of lawsuits under the ADA (their country’s equivalent to our own Disability Discrimination Act) will undoubtedly be against businesses that use inaccessible touch screen point-of-sale terminals. A number of complaints have already been lodged here in Australia under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) regarding the inaccessibility of this device.
It would therefore surely be prudent and relatively cost-efficient, and technically feasible without compromising the concept or design of the product, for CommBank to supply all the merchants who have signed up (or will sign up in the future) to use the Albert terminals, with compatible auxiliary Bluetooth tactile keypads (which must be secured to the device by a cable so they are immediately available whenever a customer requires access to it).
Disabled unable to get a fair piece of the App Pi
The PIN entry issue is just one barrier. Albert has pre-installed Apps, and at the time of writing we were unable to obtain verifiable information if these Apps are accessible.
On the Pi App bank support pages, which feature basic descriptions about each app available for use on Albert, there is no mention of Accessibility.
One of the most talked-about Apps on Albert, however, is the “Split Bill” App. The description states this App “has been designed to enrich the customer experience between restaurants and their customers. It allows:
- Fast and simple splitting of the bill with a human touch
- Each person at the table to pay their share and add tips
- A summary showing total amount of a bill paid on card, by cash and tip amount”
To read and hear these upbeat promos, and to know that chances are that many people will miss out on that “enriched customer experience”, or to put it in more down-to-Earth lingo, miss out on the ordinariness, or sheer fun, of working out one’s share of a bill, like everyone else sitting around the restaurant table, is dispiriting.
Even for those who manage to get used to entering their PIN in the device, what about access to all these other Apps? The description of the Accessibility App states that it “Enables customers to practice the secure PIN entry process using Accessibility mode.” On the “Accessibility Mode” page, again reference only appears to be made to PIN entry “accessibility”.
App developers and merchants have been encouraged to design new Apps for the device, and there is a Software Developer Kit (SDK) but it is only available to registered developers and there is no reference to Accessibility whatsoever in its Pi Developer Terms and Conditions Agreement.
And if CommBank’s stylish YouTube Albert promo includes any mention of the Accessibility Mode, it certainly didn’t rate a mention in the lead presentations.
Sounds like Accessibility is not cool enough, or not profitable enough! And yet it can be both.
Albert continues to leave a bad taste in the mouth
But it appears that it’s not only accessibility issues plaguing Albert. As was reported in our second feature article, the Taste of Tasmania was one of the first large-scale events in Australia to use the Commonwealth Bank’s Albert system. This year the event will again be a cashless event, but Hobart City Council has abandoned the controversial Albert system in favour of a more accessible EFTPOS setup.
Albert processed more than 330,000 transactions for the event, but was plagued by connectivity failures and voided transactions. So it didn’t just fail in being accessible for all, but also from a universal design perspective.
No doubt CommBank’s competitors are watching all of these matters closely and are being mindful of the need to truly innovate in this competitive arena by not losing sight of the human factor in the design of new technologies.
Although this article has once again focused on the Albert payment terminal, it is only one of the inaccessible touch screen devices used in payment and related processes that DGI has been monitoring. Touch screen payment devices are also becoming increasingly used in the taxi and ridesharing industry. Touch screen self-service kiosks are also in use in airports, libraries, Centrelink, Medicare and other customer service centres, and are now being installed in major retail centres such as supermarkets. Touch screen controls are replacing physical buttons in lifts and security systems in many office buildings, hotels and residential apartments. Then there is the full range of home appliances now overlooking us as consumers. If legislation and mandatory standards on the accessibility of digital technologies are not applied soon, it will be of little consequence if payment devices are accessible because for many there will be few things usable to buy.
How DGI was born
Gisele Mesnage founded the Digital Gap Initiative (DGI) on a stormy Sunday in Sydney on 7 December 2014.
“At the time I was in the midst of a legal action pursuant to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) against supermarket giant Coles, over the accessibility of their website. It was at least the 12th DDA complaint I had lodged over web accessibility issues since 2001. My experience in conciliating these cases led me to believe that a more systemic approach – including legislative reforms – was needed to tackle digital accessibility issues in our digital age. So on Sunday 7 December 2014 I was bouncing ideas on this question over the phone with a friend, Leah Grolman. We were both drinking Rooibos tea and chatting between breaks in the wild thunderclaps that raged over Sydney. By the end of the storm, the Digital Gap Initiative had been born and named.”
Gisele then connected with people who shared the vision for the goals of DGI. On 15 April 2015 an inaugural meeting of an informal DGI management committee was held over Skype. It was decided that DGI would operate as a network.
Launch events in Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra
Melbourne – Global Accessibility Awareness Day
On 13 May 2015 the company AccessHQ hosted an event at its Melbourne offices to launch DGI. Ted McCoskey, who had taken on the role of President of DGI, and Gisele Mesnage, founder of DGI, both spoke at this gathering.
Sydney – Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD)
This was followed by a bigger launch event at the Sydney Hilton on 21 May 2015, Global Accessibility Awareness Day. The event was again sponsored by AccessHQ and attended by over 50 government and business representatives. Ted and Gisele again addressed this gathering. One of the guests at the event was Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon, who invited DGI to hold a launch event at Australian Parliament House in Canberra.
Parliament House, Canberra – World Usability Day (WUD)
The Canberra launch took place at Australian Parliament House on 12 November 2015 on World Usability Day (WUD).
The event was co-hosted by Senators Rachel Siewert and Lee Rhiannon (the Greens) and Senator Jo Lindgren (Liberal Party) and Senator Carol Brown (ALP).
The launch event, opened by DGI Founder, Gisele Mesnage (download Opening Speech document here) was attended by 60 people, including parliamentarians and other government representatives, as well as business and community leaders.
The highpoint of the event was Gisele’s opening speech (below), and a panel discussion hosted by Ted McCoskey. Panellists included Greg Barnett (AccessHQ), Roger Sniezek (Coles), Andrew Arch (Digital Transformation Office), Christos Petrou (IBM), Alex Varley (Media Access Australia), Johmar Gazo (NAB), Sarah Pulis (PWC) and James Newton (DGI). The animated discussion explored the theme of inclusion and innovation. The event received a special video message from Lainey Feingold of the Lainey Feingold Legal Office in the US.
We extend warm thanks to all those who donated to our chuffed.org appeal and made it possible for three DGI members to travel to Canberra to participate in the event. We also wish to extend special thanks to Coles for paying for the catering at the event, to NAB for a $1,000 donation, and to all panellists and other supporters who assisted us with practical tasks.
Other 2015 Highlights
- In July 2015 DGI was invited to speak at the A11y Camp in Sydney. The Camp was fabulous and provided a great opportunity to network with like-minded individuals and groups.
- In September 2015 DGI took up the issue of the CBA’s new EFTPOS touch screen payment device, Albert. DGI posted two researched articles on its website Councils set to leave a bad Taste in the mouth of disabled event-goers across Australia by James Newton and Commbank’s new EFTPOS “Albert”: Accessibility Short-changed by Gisele Mesnage and Ted McCoskey. DGI also met with CBA bank officials. This campaign is ongoing.
- On 3 December 2015 DGI President Ted McCoskey and founder Gisele Mesnage were invited to present at an International Day of People with Disability event held at NAB in Melbourne. Ted and Gisele were impressed by NAB’s efforts to promote accessibility in the company, and all spheres of their activities.
Our Focus for 2016
- Accessible online shopping such as Coles
- Continued campaigning on Touch Screen POS devices such as the “Albert”
- Advocating for designated accreditation codes to be applied to ICT, web and other digital accessibility skills training under the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA)
- Accessibility and ICT public procurement
- Advocating against PDF as a sole format for online downloadable documents
- Opening up discussion on compliance-based standard on digital accessibility
On 12 November 2015, Digital Gap Initiative will call on the government to kick-start serious discussion on what is being done to ensure access for up to 1 in 5 Australians currently locked out of the digital marketplace.
The DGI launch event at federal Parliament, hosted by cross-party representatives Senators Rachel Siewert, Jo Lindgren and Carol Brown, follows DGI launch events in Sydney and Melbourne, and coincides with World Usability Day. The Canberra event features a panel discussion with Coles, the Digital Transformation Office (tbc), IBM, NAB, PwC Australia, AccessHQ and Media Access Australia, chaired by DGI President, Ted McCoskey.
“The panel will focus on ‘Innovation’. How can Australia be innovative in this domain? What are business and government doing to ensure that when they innovate, they innovate for everybody?” Mr McCoskey explains.
Access to technology is at least as important as accessing premises. One struggles to find a transaction that, these days, takes place without the use of digital technology – computers, payment devices, mobile phones and tablets, white goods and appliances.
The Digital Gap Initiative advocates for national, compliance-based standards to address impediments to accessibility of digital technologies.
Digital Gap Initiative has been invited to Canberra on World Usability Day (12 November, 2015) to voice our message with our politicians, business leaders, academics and the wider community who have the power to ensure that this issue is addressed. We need to show them what it’s like for a person who is blind, for example, to use websites and touch-screen payment devices whose design overlooks accessibility.
About 1 in 5 Australians live with disability (approximately 20% of the population). Digital accessibility is therefore an incontrovertible issue for our country’s political agenda.
To help us advocate for digital access to be prioritised for the political agenda at our Canberra event, and build good foundations for future research and campaigning, we have launched a fundraising campaign on Chuffed.org, a crowd-funding platform that supports social causes by allowing them to raise funds in this way.
Hobart City Council is on the verge of signing up to use the Commonwealth Bank’s inaccessible EFTPOS tablet, Albert as the key payment device for their 2015/16 Taste of Tasmania food festival.
The Digital Gap Initiative wrote about this device on 18 September, after its Founder and President met with CommBank to express their concerns.
Digital Gap Initiative Tasmanian member, James Newton, met with Hobart City Council representatives last Friday, 25 September.
We’re excited to announce that Digital Gap will be taking its message of inclusive design and a call for national compliance standards on Accessibility to Canberra on November 12 2015 at Parliament House at 10am. The event has been scheduled to coincide with the 10th anniversary of World Usability Day which seeks to use innovation to ensure that technology enhances the lives of people rather than placing additional barriers to everyday life.
by Gisele Mesnage and Ted McCoskey
Our first editorial is not published with the intent of naming and shaming the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) or any other business. Our message is that the story of Albert highlights the need for national, compliance-based standards on digital accessibility.
Albert has been available to Australian merchants since March 2015 and the bank is marketing it to retailers, cinemas, restaurants and other businesses and government services that use EFTPOS terminals.
When CBA initially announced the coming of Albert in a media release on 17 July 2012, it proclaimed, “Albert, created using the Android Ver 4.0 operating system, is a first-of-its kind solution in the market. Moving beyond the parameters of traditional, simple payment devices, the human-centric design of Albert has been specifically created to improve customer interaction.”
But that “human-centric design approach”, which the media release, states was “engineered from the ground-up”, does not appear to encompass use by customers of diverse abilities and needs. Accessibility does not appear to have been integrated into the design from the ground-up.
Don’t exclude us from the digital era: Call for National Standards on Digital Accessibility Gisele Mesnage, is known to many as the blind woman from Sydney who took on Coles Supermarket. The highly publicized landmark case challenged the supermarket giant over accessibility issues on their online shopping website. The Case settled amicably in February 2015 however, Gisele was motivated more than ever to continue in her quest in closing the digital gap that exists for as many as 20% of Australians affected by disability and for older people. The Digital Gap Initiative (http://www.digitalgap.org), founded by Gisele, is a non-profit network that has brought together like-minded individuals from varied backgrounds all around Australia. They share a wealth of personal first-hand experience, daily facing issues which affect them as normal people who contribute to society and wish to access life. This includes the readiness to spend money with retailers who often inadvertently place barriers in the way of these willing customers. Access to digital technology should be guaranteed by law. The Digital Gap Initiative project will focus on advocating for legal, policy and other systemic reforms, with the aim of reducing digital barriers experienced by people with disability and older people. The project will provide information to groups and individuals on how best to communicate with those whose services are currently inaccessible. At a higher level, the Digital Gap Initiative will seek to bring about systemic change by involving individuals, governments, companies and other stakeholders to work towards policies and compliance-based accessibility standards that are equitable and workable. Gisele: “Digitalisation offers unprecedented opportunities for universal access to education, employment, entertainment and much more, because it is far easier to adapt digital codes than the mortar and bricks of the built environment. And for people with disability, older people etc., it is far more convenient to access online services.” Ted McCoskey, an adaptive technology trainer and vision impaired web developer who is President of the digital Gap Initiative Network, echoes this sentiment and adds: “Leaving this to the better angels of conscience simply isn’t working. People would be shocked by how many companies, even huge ones who ought to know better, and government services too, either ignore or are ignorant of how to make this work. Access to digital technology should be guaranteed by law, in the same way as is access to premises” Integrating Human Quality in Accessibility. With the generous support of innovative quality integrator consultancy AccessHQ and a grant from My Choice Matters, the Digital Gap Initiative will be launched in Sydney on Thursday 21 May at a breakfast seminar to be hosted by AccessHQ. Greg Barnett, General Manager – Customer Experience Consulting at AccessHQ, where HQ stands for Human Quality, comments: “Despite an increased focus on accessibility in recent years, the rush of businesses coming online has created a situation where the rate of websites becoming accessible is being outpaced by the rate of new, inaccessible websites. Although the WCAG 2.0 guidelines are a powerful and sincere way to approach web accessibility, we are seeing gaps in the effectiveness of WCAG 2.0 to cover all accessibility requirements”. Global Accessibility Awareness Day The Launch has been timed to coincide with Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD) 2015. GAAD encourages people around the world to talk, think and learn about digital accessibility in all forms. Gisele urges Australians to take the Global Accessibility Awareness Day challenge: “For just one hour on 21 May, do not use your mouse – use the keyboard instead. Or switch on a screen reader like VoiceOver or TalkBack on your mobile device” The Digital Gap Initiative Launch Time: 8.30 am – 9.30 am Location: Hilton Sydney Hotel, 488 George Street Sydney Key Speakers: Greg Barnett (AccessHQ); Ted McCosky and Gisele Mesnage (Digital Gap Initiative) Contact Gisele Mesnage (Founder/Coordinator Digital Gap Initiative Network) Phone: 02 9799 5388 (please use this landline # as main contact or to leave a message) Mob: 0428 260 600 Email: Gisele@digitalgap.org Ted McCoskey (President, Digital Gap Initiative Network) Mob: 0404 878 957 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Greg Barnett (General Manager – Customer Insights Practice AccessHQ) Mob: 0430 453 304 Email: email@example.com Digital Gap Initiative: http://www.digitalgap.org/ Gisele Mesnage Founder and Coordinator Digital Gap Initiative web: http://www.digitalgap.org/ email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 02-9799 5388 mob: 0428 260 600 (please use landline number as first contact or to leave messages)
Don’t exclude us from the digital era: Call for National Standards on Digital Accessibility
Gisele Mesnage is known to many as the blind woman from Sydney who took on Coles Supermarket. The highly publicised, landmark case challenged the supermarket giant over accessibility issues on their online shopping website.
The Case settled amicably in February 2015 however, Gisele was motivated more than ever to continue in her quest in closing the digital gap that exists for as many as 20% of Australians affected by disability and for older people.
About Digital technology is now so integral to our everyday life; it can be compared in scope to the built environment. The plus is that digitalisation offers unprecedented prospects for universal access and real social inclusion, due to being more adaptable than the bricks and mortar of the built environment. Yet the reality is that a social gap, an e-gap, exists between those able to participate in this rapid transformation of our society and those who, through circumstances rather than choice, are being left behind. The Digital Gap Initiative, or e-gap project, will aim to contribute to efforts in Australia and internationally to promote inclusive digital accessibility. The Initiative’s focus will be centred on advocating for legal, policy and other systemic reforms, with the objective to reduce the barriers that people with disability, older persons, socially disadvantage or technically-challenged people face in using digital technology – online services, mobile apps, touch screen devices, ATMs and other automated services, digital TVs and radios, cloud technology and intranet systems in work places and educational establishments, many of which are inaccessible because they have not been designed with accessibility and inclusion in mind. Goals The Initiative will motivate discussion on, and advocate for, the adoption of national, compliance-based digital accessibility standards to be adopted in Australia. These standards would complement the Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (Cth), administered by the Attorney-General’s Department, which codifies requirements for ramps and other accessible features in the built environment. At present, enforcement of digital accessibility is via a complaints process to either the Australian Human Rights Commission or an anti-discrimination body at the State or Territory level. With no uniform minimum standard of digital accessibility guaranteed under Australian law, equality remains a distant promise. The Initiative will aim to connect with stakeholders and experts across disciplines and sectors, towards exploring and developing these model standards and implementation strategies, which would: · go beyond the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, and include criteria for qualitative usability, responsiveness and performance of web design and online services; · cover the broad spectrum of digital systems and services that have become central to our lives; · shift away from piecemeal change through disputes and litigation, instead effecting systemic change; · avoid ambiguity about legal requirements; · include review mechanisms to reduce lag between technological progress and the law; · include training certification and other occupational accreditation standards for those working or teaching in the digital industry to ensure quality of professional services; · apply to government and the non-government sectors; · set proportionate requirements or exemptions as appropriate for individuals, the community sector, small businesses and so on; · Address the question of digital security measures where these impact inclusive access; · Enhance flow-on benefits to the wider community and business; and, · Include other ideas, as generated through the conversation process in working towards this goal. Recognising that no one pathway can bring about change overnight, the Initiative will also pursue a broader strategy which will include: · where feasible, influence public and private sector policies and programs that will generate digital inclusion and minimise the impact of accessibility barriers on educational and employment opportunities, independence and social interactions in Australia; · Connect with international efforts, including lobbying the United Nations to declare an International Year focusing on closing the digital gap globally. The Initiative will operate on the basis of building a network of people committed to these ideals, through the website, social media, conversations and consultations, and other collaborations. Gisele Mesnage Digital Gap Initiative
The Star Trek series was avant-garde not only because of its theme of the voyages of the Star Ship Enterprise in deep space, but also because it portrayed such an optimistic vision of the future.