Accessibility of Community Life
- "The [Disability Discrimination Act] is predicated on this fundamental assumption that disability is a part of ordinary human community: that [people with disabilities] are an integral belonging part of the whole... Many people with disabilities do not wish to be altered, cured or transformed. They do wish their equipment would work reliably; and that [services including] information were accessible without discrimination...
- "People who have disabilities do not wish to "be included": they wish it to be acknowledged that they already belong."
- (Hastings, Elizabeth (1997) "FounDDAtions: reflections on the first five years of the Disability Discrimination Act in Australia", http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/hr_disab/found.html" target="_blank">http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/hr_disab/found.html, accessed on 24 October, 2007.)
D/deaf and hard of hearing people often find explaining the issue of accessibility difficult because hearing people do not realise how much information is communicated only through auditory channels, and consequently hearing people do not value auditory information. Comments such as “Oh it will be ok, you won’t need an interpreter, I have a powerpoint display that I shall be talking to, all the information is there”, and “Oh, we manage to communicate quite fine, we won’t need a loop, we can provide notes if needed” demonstrate how unaware hearing people are that auditory information provides significant elaboration and reinforcement of visual communication.
Elizabeth Hastings (Australian Disability Discrimination Commissioner 1993-97) identified the argument for accessibility stems from the realisation that "disability is a part of ordinary human community: that [people with disabilities] are an integral belonging part of the whole…People who have disabilities do not wish to "be included": they wish it to be acknowledged that they already belong.”
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability (2007) goes even further, recognising that “disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others,” ( http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=199" target="_blank" title=http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=199>UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=199), accessed 20 November 2007). That is, they recognise that the disability is not “in the person” but rather as a result of attitudes and environment. This social definition of disability then places a responsibility on national governments to remove the barriers, so that the “disability” no longer exists. When attitudes are changed and environment is adjusted to be inclusive, life becomes “accessible”.
Using this definition we can see that if all aspects of life, all services and products were designed with an inclusive concept of the “user” – including the 20% of the population who are deemed to “have a disability” – then there would be very little “disability”. As Graeme Innes commented “It's well known that designers [and policy makers] tend to design environments [and policies] that suit their own situations... and not much thought given to all those people the product [policy] will exclude. This is the heart of the problem,” ( http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/speeches/2007/epilepsy.htm" target="_blank" title=http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability rights/speeches/2007/epilepsy.htm>NOT HAPPY JAN : Speech for Epilepsy Action AGM (http://www.hreoc.gov.au/disability_rights/speeches/2007/epilepsy.htm), Graeme Innes AM, 15 October 2007, accessed 20 November 2007, insertions mine).
For full accessibility to occur all that is required is an attitude of “universal design” – that is "the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design.“
( http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml" target="_blank" title=http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml>Article 2: Definitions, UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml), accessed 20 November 2007). If accessibility Advocacy? results in universal design implementation in Early Childhood? Intervention programmes, Education? systems, Political? arenas, Religious? organisations, Transport systems,? Telecommunications? systems, Cultural? expression, Health and Medical? fields, Legal and Justice? systems, Entertainment? experiences, Workplace and Training? arenas, then all aspects of life, including Family life,? Language? and Communication,? and even Emergency Response? systems become accessible.
| Contents |
[Edit]1 Health
[Edit]2 Telecommunications
Mobile phones are an integrated part of the lives of most Westerners. They are used for both personal and business purposes. Even more importantly however, mobile phones play a role in safety based on their portability. In many situations, mobile phones are the only immediate access to emergency services. For this reason, the accessibility of mobile phones is critical for all citizens, including those with hearing impairment.
[Edit]3 Entertainment
[Edit]3.1 Television
http://areena.yle.fi/toista?id=843123" target="_blank" title=http://areena.yle.fi/toista?id=843123>News in Finnish Sign Language (http://areena.yle.fi/toista?id=843123)
