The second day of the Ed-ICT Symposium has begun! Yesterday was just so amazing and thought-provoking that I will be sad to have to leave Friday morning! I have had so many opportunities to network and to learn about the wonderful things that individuals are working on at their own universities.
The Symposium Continues
Today’s chapter of the symposium got underway rather quickly. There were a few minutes of logistics to cover before the main events began, but not all that many! I am happy to report that the symposium hosts definitely read their evaluation cards at the end of the day so that they can improve. Yesterday, there was an issue because the room we were seated in was absolutely freezing (okay, maybe it was just a little chilly for most people). Apparently, they spoke with the maintenance personnel at Dawson College and they got the heat on for today! Now that I can feel my fingers while I type, I think today will go very well, although I still am rather cold!
Keynote Address: Learning Digital Accessibility from Industry
“The grass is greener in the private sector because there’s so much more money to throw around.”
The public sector often comments on how situations, being accessibility in this case, must be so much easier to accomplish in the private sector because the private sector is so often viewed as having a great deal of money. However, that is not always the case. Oftentimes, there is just one or a small handful of people being told to handle all of the accessibility of a product. It isn’t usually until you view one of the larger organizations that you see accessibility teams. Successful organizations typically have a team of people devoted to accessibility, and that team is split into smaller teams to cover individual products. This allows products to be more clearly and patiently evaluated for accessibility before products are sent to production.
The speaker for this panel spoke about his career history, most relevantly being his roles in technology teams and in engineering teams. He shared that he prefers being in engineering teams because that allows him to be closer to the products that are being developed, rather than on the outside. That closeness contributes to user research, which many technology companies employ. The data gathered from user research informs design and other aspects of a product. Having actual users with accessibility concerns test products allows companies to head off many problems that could arise post-distribution. It also can assist in empathy building, which allows stakeholders to see problems from individuals with disabilities and then utilize empathy to be open to finding new solutions.
Top 3 Stakeholders to Focus On
The speaker identified the top 3 stakeholders that he believes we should focus on.
1. Students with disabilities/impairments: can allow higher-ups to see how the technology works and the issues that arise
2. Senior management: leadership starts talking about accessibility in meetings makes it matter to people and sets the tone
3. Procurement: set the tone with contracts; can hold vendors accountable to their contracts and communicate with those making purchasing decisions
Panel 3: Students as Stakeholders
The student panel sat 6 students with various disabilities from local colleges and universities. After the panelists each introduced themselves, they were asked a series of 4 questions to share their experiences on. I will do my best to give an overview of the most common themes that arose in the students’ answers, but I did have issues with the translation headset again so I do apologize!
1. “What barriers have you encountered in using technology effectively?”
⇾ Lack of awareness, knowledge, and education about disabilities
⇾ “How is accessibility different than usability?”
⇾ “Just because you’re a user of assistive technology doesn’t mean you are an expert.”
⇾ “Perceptions of disabilities are far more disabling than disabilities themselves.” (I love this quote!)
⇾ Costs: For example, technology can be too expensive.
⇾ Not knowing about new technology as it becomes available
⇾ Lack of access to computers with the correct software
⇾ Software may only be available in specific locations or at specific times
⇾ Student pick-up services may have limited hours so students cannot stay in the library/lab until very late working or they will be forced to take a cab.
2. “Who (their role, not their name) and what has helped you access and use technology?”
⇾ Disabilities services for helping to teach technologies
⇾ Youtube.com for technology and software instructions
⇾ Parents for advocating on the behalf of students, especially young students
3. “Who should be involved in making technology accessible and usable to students with disabilities?”
⇾ Teachers
⇾ Schools
⇾ Technology companies
4. “What would it take to make technology accessible at your educational institution?”
⇾ Computer labs being more accessible: For example, having iPads for students who find those to be easier to use than traditional computers.
⇾ Make sure that doors and desks are accessible for those in wheelchairs
Workshop 1: Linking Research, Reality, and Policy
For the first workshop, we were tasked with working alongside our teammates to create an idea map. After discussing the links between research, policy, reality, and ICT, a representative from each table moved to discuss their group’s ideas with others.
The answers were all pretty hectic, and everyone had different ideas. Basically, research, policy, reality, and ICT are all related in very confusing and convoluted ways. To really showcase this jumble of thoughts, I’ve decided to include my group’s idea map here.
Workshop 2: Practical Implications and Take-Home Messages
We participated in a “Global Cafe” activity for the second workshop. “Global Cafe” activities are where each group gets a large pad of paper, and each individual writes down their reaction to the statement written on each. I didn’t want to speak for anyone else or share their private thoughts, so I’ve just included my own responses to each statement.
⇾ Disabled students should be taught self-advocacy skills.
“Agreed. In today’s society, students cannot always rely on others to advocate for them. Additionally, the students themselves are the ones who know their needs the best, so they are often the most effective advocates for their individual circumstances.”
⇾ All stakeholders are equal, but some are more equal than others.
“Who divides the definition of “equality?” Those in power who benefit the most, or those in the minority who need the most? Equality is subjective.”
⇾ We need to stop complaining about how unresponsive some of our stakeholders are and instead try to empathize with them and walk in their shoes.
“You can empathize with someone without becoming complacent. Is this subtle gaslighting (being made to feel guilty for standing up for yourself/your beliefs/others)?”
⇾ It is not possible to engage with disabled students who choose not to disclose their access needs.
“Nonsense. Universities can work towards universal accessibility. Anonymous testimonials could also work.”
⇾ There is too much red-tape (bureaucracy) that universities and colleges have that stops technology companies from meaningfully engaging with disabled students.
“This sounds like technology companies trying to make excuses for not making their products accessible by default. There is always a way to obtain feedback. However, who defines “meaningfully engaging?” Will the feedback be utilized?”
⇾ Distributed ownership of the accessibility mission is a pipe-dream.
“I disagree. Shared responsibility can be achieved. Work has to occur before dreams become reality. We just have to convince people to work.”
In Closing
The symposium came to a close after the groups shared their ideas from the Global Cafe. We adjourned to the hallway to enjoy wine and cheese while we networked. After about an hour (and so many pieces of bread with cheese), I figured that it was time to head out so I found the few people that hadn’t left yet and said, “au revoir” (that’s about all of the French that I know). I had a wonderful time, and I appreciated the opportunity to have thought-provoking conversations with others who are passionate about this work.
While I hope to be able to go to the next symposium, which will be in Israel, I doubt that I will make it out there. I do want to extend my thanks to the Ed-ICT International Network for extending the invitation and providing the funding that I needed to get here. It was an invaluable experience that I sincerely appreciated.
Stay tuned for another post about my reflection on the symposium soon! Plus, I will definitely be sharing my experiences in Montreal in a later post!