All standards should ensure they meet the goals of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So there is a Standard for developing Standards documents to be inclusive, accessible and universally designed. ISO Guide 71 shows how to do this. On day two of UD2021 Conference, Emily Steel explained how the international Standard for accessible Standards documents.
The international standard has done all the thinking for us. The document guides standards committees as they write and update standards for their specific industry or profession. It is also useful for any committee developing guides or standards for accessibility and universal design. So, we don’t have to re-invent the wheel.
The Guide’s use of the the term “accessibility” relates closely to universal design. “The extent to which products, systems, services, environments and facilities can be used by people from a population with the widest range of characteristics and capabilities to achieve a specified goal in a specified context of use”.
ISO Guide 71 Accessibility Goals
The Guide has two main parts. The first describes user needs and 11 accessibility goals. These are similar to the 8 Goals of Universal Design. The second describes human characteristics and abilities, and design considerations.
Suitability for the widest range of users
Conformity with user expectations
Support for individualisation
Approachability
Perceivability
Understandability
Controllability
Usability
Error tolerance
Equitable use
Compatibility with other systems.
Guide 71 was adapted by the European standards authority and is titled, CEN-CENELEC Guide 6. It is basically the same information. You can see a previous postabout this document.
There is also an Accessibility Masterlist by Gregg Vanderheiden. It’s a collaborative resource for understanding access features in digital applications. Also worth a look.
Are you ageist? Probably. An article in The Guardian reports on a survey that found one third of British people admit they have discriminated against others because of their age. The SunLife report, Ageist Britain, highlights casual ageism and the impact it has on everyone. But it is ingrained in everyday language. It seems younger people think that life after 50 must be ‘downhill all the way’. But such attitudes infiltrate all parts of everyday life. That’s how older people are excluded from employment, harassed on public transport, and even when shopping.
Language can demean and depress. “Old fart”, “little old lady”, “bitter old man” and “old hag” were, researchers found, the most used ageist phrases on social media. Four thousand people in the UK were surveyed. Thousands of tweets and blogposts were also analysed for discriminatory and ageist language. And that’s without journalists using the term “the elderly” for anyone aged over 65.
Ageism, attitudes and stereotypes
Do we deploy so-called positive stereotypes of older people as a means to combat ageism and ageist attitudes? If we say older people make more loyal and reliable employees, what does that say about younger people? But are these stereotypes valid? Philip Taylor discussed these important issues about ageism, attitudes, stereotypes and work.
Working at any age – no need for stereotypes
Professor Taylor’s keynote presentation at UD2021 was thought provoking. It challenged almost everyone in the room to re-think their concepts about ageism and work. It seems there are more complaints related to age by younger people. He asked, is there such a thing as ageism or are there other factors that discriminate? And how does this work with concepts of equity and diversity?
Then there are the contradictions related to age: The Federal Government wanting everyone to work until age 70, yet National Seniors are proposing older people should make way for younger people and retire early.
Here’s a quote from one of the slides, “The very arguments for employing older workers put forward in business cases concerning commitment, loyalty and experience risk confirming broader societal perceptions that they are of the past and thus, less able to meet the demands of modern workplaces” (Roberts, 2006).
There is a greater variation in job performance between people of the same age than between people of different ages. Professor Taylor’s presentation slideshave a good amount of text to get the key points of his presentation. Maybe it is time for a product recall on advocacy for older people.
Ageism is bad for your health
A common ageist image. Why not her face?
We have to stop ageism at the older end of the age spectrum. Why? Because it’s killing us. The World Health Organization, says older people who hold negative views about their own ageing will live 7.5 years less than people with positive attitudes. So where do these negative views come from? Everywhere it seems. Ageism is bad for your health because ageing is framed as a negative experience.
An article in the Sydney Morning Herald reports on this phenomenon. Ageist comments, such as “silly old duck” or “they are useless with technology” are socially accepted. Calling someone an “old dear” is not a term of endearment. Language matters because it is an expression of how we think. Ageism is yet to be properly recognised as damaging, unlike racism and sexism. But we must be careful with the term ageism.
Ageism is always referred to as an older age issue. However, it is not. Anyone of any age can be subject to ageism. In Europe, the only region with data on all age groups, younger people report more age discrimination than other age groups. Philip Taylor has more to say on this in his UD2021 presentation.
Ageism affects everyone. Children are brought up in a culture of age stereotypes that guide their behaviours towards people of different ages. They also learn how to perceive themselves at various stages of life.
The WHO says that ageism is everywhere – in our institutions and relationships to ourselves. For example:
Policies that support healthcare rationing by age,
Practices that limit younger people’s opportunities to contribute to decision-making in the workplace
Patronising behaviour used between older and younger people
Self-limiting behaviour based on our own ideas of what a certain age can or cannot do.
Is ageism really a problem?
It’s not just about older people either. This section from the WHO website on ageismsays:
Two older women on a bird nest swing. A more positive image.
“Age is one of the first things we notice about other people. However, age is often used to categorize and divide people in ways that lead to harm, disadvantage and injustice and erode solidarity across generations. This is ageism: the stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel) and discrimination (how we act) towards others or ourselves based on age.
Ageism is pervasive, affects people of all ages from childhood onwards and has serious and far-reaching consequences for people’s health, well-being and human rights. Ageism can be found within institutions, in interactions between people and within ourselves. Globally, 1 in 2 people are ageist against older people and in Europe, younger people report more perceived ageism than other age groups.”
Griffith University supported the 4th Australian Universal Design Conference held in Melbourne by publishing full papers and extended abstracts. See the links below for access.
All standards should ensure they meet the goals of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. So there is a Standard for developing Standards documents to be inclusive, accessible and universally designed. ISO Guide 71 shows how to do this. On day two of UD2021 Conference, Emily Steel explained how the international Standard for accessible Standards documents. 
An article in The Guardian 
Here’s a quote from one of the slides, “The very arguments for employing older workers put forward in business cases concerning commitment, loyalty and experience risk confirming broader societal perceptions that they are of the past and thus, less able to meet the demands of modern workplaces” (Roberts, 2006).
