2B. Benefits of Accessibility

Source: The Body of Knowledge

Two short paragraphs describe a bunch of benefits in a highly condensed form. I'm going to draw it out so I can visualize the whole scope better.

Benefits for the Individual with the Access Need

Benefits for Individual's Family

Benefits for Community

Benefits for Nation

Source: Council of Canadians with Disabilities

I'm very glad that the BoK curators included this as a part of the reading, but I also feel like this launches into a bunch of political dimensions of Disability and edges into the territory of the Disability Rights movement without providing adequate context.

We'll read this article with the lense of focusing on the 'benefits of accessibility,' but it's important to note that this article is as much about the need to institute robust welfare projects to support Disabled people to live independent lives, as it is about changing the way we structure our physical and digital environments.

When the authors from CCD talk about 'accessibility,' they are talking about only 'accessible design,' but 'accessibility' full stop. Accessibility happens when the needs of Disabled people are met.

Statistics form the backbone of their argument. We learn that people with disabilities face high rates across a variety of metrics: employment, education, poverty and abuse. A large portion of this population require day-to-day support from family members. The current statistics are 'unacceptable in a country as prosperous as canada', the authors argue. Only when Disabled people have the income, assistive technology, support and accomodations that they need, can Disabled people benefit from the nation itself in ways equal with other canadians.

The argument for accessibile design is pretty simple: it is one building block necessary to create a national culture where Disabled people live equal lives.

The CDCC has their gaze ardently fixed on the plight of Disabled people in canada, though they also bring up the issue of their caretakers and families. It is only in the last paragraph that they make a more universalized argument.

Committing to a long-term disability strategy is a commitment to building a better Canada for all.

The rhetorical strategies of the authors very closely follow the Human Rights model of Disability. Contrast their communications with most arguments for accessibility that are found within the digital accessibility profession.

Source: W3C, 'Important for Individuals, Businesses, Society'

This source is brief and is aimed to convince a general audience. It names access to the digital environment as a 'basic human right' in the UNCRPD, states that accessibility improves the lives of people with disabilites as well as older people, people in rural areas and developing countries. It also mentions the business case, as well as the legal requirement. There's more elaboration on the business section than any other section, but we'll see this fleshed out in even more detail in our next source.

Source: W3C, 'The Business Case for Digital Accessibility

I think that on a moral level, and for the sake of progress, we shouldn't have to ever make the case for digital accessibility beyond the human rights-based case. But due to the face that We Live In A Society, this article regretfully exists and may prove to be extremely helpful. Here's their thesis statement:

Businesses that integrate accessibility are more likely to be innovative, inclusive enterprises that reach more people with positive brand messaging that meets emerging global legal requirements.

Innovate

Example: Apple got ahead of the curve on issues of accessibility and now Makes A Lot of Money.

Example: Google's AI advances got a headstart from their visual context engines initally designed for Blind clients. Auto-complete and voice control also were initially designed for Disabled users.

Reach More People

Example: NPR instituted transcripts for all material. Search traffic and unique visitors up 4%-6%.

Postive Brand

Example: Barclays implemented a very robust company wide policy, gained a very good reputation as a result.

Example: Microsoft took made changes after criticism from the Disabled community, now its efforts are praised.

Legal Requirements

Example: ADA lawsuit with Winn-Dixie lost their case, establishing precedent that Title III of the ADA is relevant in digital environments/websites and e-commerce.

Source: Section 508, Benefits of Accessible Design

This source is similarly concerned with making pragmatic arguments that will appeal to business leaders. Very similar to 'The Business Case for Digital Accessibility,' but the rhetorical strategy is gives sligthly more agency to Disabled people themselves. As a result, it's a better-formed article.

The argument is broken into three sections.

1. More Customers

2. Cost Savings

3. Innovation