Call for nomination is still going on. Visit the Centre For Accessibility website for more information on the the criteria.
Call for nomination is still going on. Visit the Centre For Accessibility website for more information on the the criteria.
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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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:
We also touched on the questions of:
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 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.
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):
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.
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:
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.
Underpinning the rationale for this Position Statement, and others DGI will develop, are the following fundamental principles.
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];
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:
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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;)
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;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
DGI had an opportunity to conduct very constructive talks with Standards Australia to discuss such issues as:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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).
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.