According to Cathy Basterfield, there is a difference between Easy English and Easy Read. She says one is led by evidence with people who rarely read (Easy English), the other is led by lived experience (Easy Read).
Easy English:
Is grounded in universal design principles
Applies the ISO Plain Language Standard
Applies academic evidence
Consults diverse people with low literacy
The two examples above of how to make a complaint clearly show the differences. The Easy English example has a clear title with an illustrative graphic. The Easy Read example uses marketing images and branding. This corporate presentation requires knowledge of what the images and brand mean.
The intended audience of Easy Read is people with intellectual disability. They don’t learn differently, they just learn in smaller steps. They need to learn the skills in the place they will use them and will need more repetition.
Speech pathologist Basterfield stresses the lack of regard for Easy English with an emphasis on lived experience advisory panels for Easy Read. She asks why people who experience real difficulty reading remain unheard in written communication. Of course, if they can’t read the invitation, how can they find out about such events?
Easy Read is good for some people, but not all the 44% of people with low literacy.
The disability discrimination case involving the Sunshine Coast University Hospital provides a few important learning points. The hospital was found to have caused indirect discrimination to people with vision impairments. Rectifying the long list of breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act reaches into the millions of dollars. But does compliance make for inclusion in the prescribed solutions?
The Sunshine Coast University Hospital (SSCU) was the subject of the late Peter Ryan’s complaint. As a legally blind person he claimed disadvantage in the way access was provided for him. The main point was inadequate wayfinding.
Learning from the court case
A blog article from the Humanics Collective website discusses the issue of the Court’s demands for specific features to be rectified and/or applied. The Court ruled that the hospital did not meet the obligations of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and the Access to Premises Standard.
Many areas of the hospital did not contain tactile or Braille signage or a functional wayfinding strategy. This included lack of luminance contrasts, small fonts, and appropriate signage. In addition, floor surfaces and other finishes, including the use of colour, came under scrutiny as well. This impacted Ryan’s ability to navigate the spaces independently and with dignity.
Beyond compliance is required
Humanics Collective was engaged to improve compliance with the Court’s ruling. They assert that complex environments need to consider more than compliance to standards. That’s because it doesn’t guarantee usability, and equity isn’t always achieved through uniformity. Indeed, many people experience issues with finding their way around hospitals.
In their list of solutions, Humanics Collective includes the use of hospital volunteers to assist people with vision impairment. The use of volunteers was used as a defence in the court case, but the key issue is that many aspects of the building and surrounds did not comply with the Access to Premises Standard. You cannot use volunteers as a work-around to make up for deficiencies in the design.
Wayfinding not just about signage
The goal of a wayfinding strategy is to help people find their way. So installing more of the same signage isn’t necessarily the answer. However, the strategy should at the very least provide the statutory minimums.
‘One key point of contention in the ruling was the interpretation of “replace.” We argued that replacement shouldn’t mean reinstalling flawed signage in the same location, but improving usability through better placement, higher contrast, and greater visibility.’ Image from Humanics Collective.
The Humanics Collective blog suggests the answer is not in more signage but in smarter support. This includes meaningful pre-visit information and training front of house staff to assist people with vision impairment.
Their on-site testing with user groups found that their proposed changes beyond compliance made the space feel easy to navigate. Importantly, users consistently said there is no single vision impairment experience. Consequently, different people use different tools to get around – a cane, a guide dog, signage, and now wayfinding apps on their phone.
The title of the blog post is, “What We Learned from the Court Case: The Sunshine Coast University Hospital ruling and its impact on inclusive wayfinding”. The real learning is not to think management strategies, such as volunteers, are the answer to failings. And make sure you comply with the Access to Premises Standard as a very minimum. Taking a universal design approach to go beyond compliance minimises the risk of indirect discrimination and an action under the DDA.
It’s about the whole journey to and within the building
Everyone should be able to arrive by any means, make their way to the main entrance and to a toilet. They should also be able to find their clinic and practitioner. Hospitals are now relying on digital applications to guide patients. These include screens on which to register arrival and machines to produce a ticket number. Then patients are to locate a screen within the clinic that tells them when their number comes up. Then they are to make their way to the consulting room.
The tall signboard on the right hand side of the image has a black background and very small light grey font. It lists places under Orange Lifts and Purple Lifts. The corridor has a high glaze with lots of reflection and glare. Image from ABC News.
The journey from the front entrance to the consulting room is fraught with difficulty for many people, not just people with vision impairment. It assumes many different abilities in sight and hearing, speech, dexterity, mobility, and digital literacy.
The Court ruled on two things: the breaches of the Access to Premises Standard, and the indirect discrimination under the DDA. It seems from the blog that Humanics Collective wants to do better than just compliance.
Background to the court case
The 2021 court ruling in Queensland is a reminder to designers and builders not to ignore disability access. But many do, and that is probably because they are unlikely to be called to account. Complaints under the Disability Discrimination Act that go to court are rare.
That’s because the person who experiences the discrimination has to make the complaint. And that’s tough. Court cases are very stressful for complainants who often have fewer resources to cope.
The Hospital supposedly complied with the National Construction Code and the Access to Premises Standard. However this was not the case and calls into question the issue of building certification.
This case highlights conflicts of interest could be more common than we know. Both the building certification firm and the access consultants are owned by the same group. Consequently, conflicts of interest can lead to builders ignoring disability access.
The building won numerous awards for Architecture. So this raises questions about what is judged as a good building. Time to start including accessibility for all in the judging criteria for these awards.
Unfortunately Peter Ryan passed away before the Judge handed down his decision. A Sourceable article written by Bryce Tolliday has a lot more detail. The title of the article is Non-Compliant Hospital Costs Queensland Taxpayers Millions.
ABC News in 2023 has an article about the delays in implementing the remediation work after two years. In 2025 the remediation work is still lacking which could lead to another complaint under the DDA.
The relevant ministries of the five Nordic countries are concerned that cities are becoming more socially divided. For countries known for supporting social justice and inclusion, this is a relatively new development. So what is going on, and what to do about it? Fortunately Nordic countries have laws supporting the concept of social inclusion through participatory planning. However, it’s more complex than that.
Participation is a prerequisite for democracy. It enables the redistribution of power by involving citizens in making decisions both for their own good and in the public interest. A Nordic group is looking beyond segregation to social inclusion.
Population segregation has emerged as a growing issue in the five Nordic countries and policy-makers are looking to improve social inclusion. Citizen participation is strongly emphasised in national legislation and the governance of municipalities. So the concept of community involvement is already present. However, legislation alone is insufficient to bring about change.
Social inclusion: beyond segregation
A research report looks at all five countries and compares policies and practice. Part three of the report looks at polices for counteracting segregation and encouraging social inclusion. Part 5 looks at the participatory planning aspects in each of the countries. The discussion in part 7 draws together the research findings.
Participatory planning approaches
Part 7 of the report covers the types of participatory planning approaches used. Each country has a national strategy and policy programs emphasising participation. However it falls to the local municipalities to implement the strategies and policies. Some municipalities go beyond the policy requirements and legal frameworks.
Each of the Nordic cities has a good story to tell about creative ways of involving citizens in planning. This includes engaging with children and young people, older people and people with disability.
However, challenges remain, particularly engaging with more silent, passive or marginalised groups. While there is a strong public desire to participate, limited understanding of the processes can hold things back. In other situations, citizens are uncertain whether their voices will play out at the implementation stage.
Limited resources are also an issue. Norwegian municipalities tend towards informing rather than involving. A shortfall of competence at municipal level is also a factor. Consequently, there is less participation in the early stages of planning.
All five Nordic countries are ultimately seeking to promote democratic decision-making and inclusive urban development. They seek to address challenges such as legal ambiguity, resource constraints and the engagement of marginalised groups. The different participatory approaches demonstrate advances in overcoming barriers to engagement.
An “age-inclusive” approach – such as accessible public transport, diversified housing options, and telemedicine – has immediate benefits. It enhances wellbeing and economic growth and generates long lasting benefits for creating inclusive cities. A new OECD report considers these factors and the economic and social costs of inaction. Cities for all ages should mean children to older age, but the report focuses on older age.
The report provides a checklist of nine key actions that governments can take to create age-inclusive cities. The 80 page document covers the rationale for action based on changing demographics. The second section explores policies for age-inclusive cities including housing. The checklist is in section 3.
The checklist is based on:
Strategy setting for a structured policy approach
Resource development and increasing capacity
Stakeholder co-ordination to involve local citizens to help solve problems
Checklist for creating cities for all ages
The report provides a checklist of concrete actions for governments. It builds on the initiatives from the previous chapters which review existing guidance and standards.
As this is an OECD document it necessarily includes the actions and ideas from across the globe – both developed and developed nations. Consequently, some of the actions listed are well known in Australia. However there is always more to learn from others especially as there is no one-size-fits-all in urban development even in the one city.
The title of the OECD urban studies report is, Cities for All Ages. Potentially if cities are good for older people they will automatically be good for everyone regardless of age.
The rules of research ethics are to make sure people who are the subject of the research are protected from harm during the research process. This can mean leaving them out of the research project because the ethics approval process is so onerous. So who decides which groups are ‘vulnerable’ group and those that are not?
Vulnerable groups involve people considered susceptible to coercion or undue influence in a research setting. They may be people who are incapable of understanding what it means to participate in research. Or they might not understand what constitutes informed consent.
Individuals considered vulnerable might have a diminished capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and/or recover from the impact of a natural or constructed hazard. Vulnerable groups may also consist of individuals who are unable to care for themselves and/or may have an increased chance of suicide, self-harm, or the likelihood of harming others.
In some cases, involving the people from the nominated vulnerable group to be part of the research team and the processes is another way to conduct the research. See the section on Co-design Processes for more.
From the abstract: Obtaining informed consent is the foundation of ethics in clinical research involving human participants. The “Common Rule” identifies “vulnerable subjects” as “children, prisoners, individuals with impaired decision-making capacity, or economically or educational disadvantaged persons.”
This article explores a pragmatic approach for Institutional Review Boards to review research protocols involving individuals with disabilities and/or those who are educationally-disadvantaged as study participants. As a direct result, we formed a process for obtaining informed consent of vulnerable participants in social and education sciences research.
Navigating ethical challenges
Mary Quirk brings an “Inclusion as Process” approach to ethical issues in her doctoral study involving people with disability. Her article is based on a case study where she relates her experience in the first person.
In her doctoral research, Quirk adopted Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning approaches as a way to engage in inclusive research. The aim was to facilitate the voices of people with disabilities in education during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
The case study explains “Inclusion as Process” as an approach to research. It discusses ethical implications of relevance to educational and other researchers. In particular, it examines the application of Universal Design (UD) and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) thinking in research and how these approaches relate to these individual yet interdependent themes. Finally, the case study outlines an “Inclusion as Process” framework to guide inclusive research.
How much does software design impact the way women and men perform tasks? Seems there is a gender bias. A study found the amount of thinking required (cognitive load), aesthetics, and emotional design could affect task performance. The level of usability, however, has little significance when it comes to gender.
Gender is not factored into the design for usability or performing tasks. Female users are poorly represented in software development which means males are designing for themselves.
Language processing and visual perception are notably different in females and males. Technology applications usually need additional cognitive processing determined by emotional perception. They also need retained working and memory details. So if men are the ones designing software, they will build in a bias towards their cognitive strengths. Consequently, women deal with increased cognitive load when using software applications.
Reducing gender bias in software design
The study introduces the key theories and the study design. Twenty-three females and seventeen males were participants in the study. Statistical analyses support the findings. Cognitive load and emotional design was found to have more of an impact than aesthetics for females. Consequently, software design should aim to reduce cognitive load. Men were not significantly impacted on either variable indicating the design suited their them – hence the bias.
Stereotypes have a major role to play so particular colour schemes, icons and language are ineffective. Minimalist design principles are recommended to minimise distraction to keep attention on the task. Another recommendation is to make it clear what the next step in the task is the sequence. The key point is to integrate psychological and biological differences into technology applications.
Most software designers are men, while women are usually linked with the aesthetic aspect of software design.
Software design is critical to the development of software, but literature suggests a gender bias. This bias might be causing differences in task performance between males and females. Applying cognitive load theory, emotional design theory and Aesthetic-Usability Effect we explore the differences between women and men.
The study was performed on two groups that possessed comparable educational backgrounds and professional experiences. The investigation encompassed two tasks aimed at evaluating performance in both professional and domestic contexts.
The study identified disparities among females, including high perception of cognitive load and lack of emotional design. It emphasizes the importance of incorporating phycological cognitive differences in design and ensuring inclusive design personas in software development.
Addressing the cognitive and emotional aspects of software design will reduce task performance discrepancies. It shifts the misbelief that task performance discrepancies are attributable to gender-based intellectual differences, rather than deficiencies in software design.
Overcoming bias in AI
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is entering our everyday lives with increased speed and sometimes without our knowledge. But it is only as good as the data it is fed, and the worry about bias is a concern for marginalised groups. AI has the potential to enhance life for everyone, but that requires overcoming bias in AI development. In his article, Christopher Land argues for more advocacy and transparency in AI.
The power of machine learning comes from pattern recognition within vast quantities of data. Using statistics, AI reveals new patterns and associations that human developers might miss or lack the processing power to uncover.
Designing for the average is fraught with problems. Statistical averages do not translate to some kind of human average. That’s because statistics don’t measure human diversity. That’s why AI processes are at risk of leaving some people behind. But in gathering useful data there are some privacy issues.
AI shows great promise with robot assistants to assist people with disability and older people with everyday tasks. AI imaging and recognition tools help nonvisual users understand video and pictures.
Christopher Land outlines how AI and machine learning work and how bias is introduced into AI systems if not prevented. He also has some recommendations on strengthening legal protections for people with disability. The paper is not technical. Rather it explains clearly how it works, where it’s used, and what needs to be done.
Bias in artificial intelligence (AI) systems can cause discrimination against marginalized groups, including people with disabilities. This discrimination is most often unintentional and due to a lack of training and awareness of how to build inclusive systems.
This paper has two main objectives: 1) provide an overview of AI systems and machine learning, including disability bias, for accessibility professionals and related non-development roles; and 2) discuss methods for building accessible AI systems inclusively to mitigate bias.
Worldwide progress on establishing legal protection against AI bias is provided, with recommendations on strengthening laws to protect people with disabilities from discrimination by AI systems. When built accessibly, AI systems can promote fairness and enhance the lives of everyone, in unprecedented ways.
Diversity and inclusion in AI
An Australian book chapter takes a comprehensive and practical approach to how equity and inclusion should be considered throughout development. This should be done at both governance and development levels by applying inclusive design and human-centred design to the AI ‘ecosystem’.
Amnesty International has created a list of five inclusive language tips that puts the person first rather than how society defines them. The five elements are pronouns, gender, First Nations Peoples, cultural diversity, and disability. The aim of this list is to help create a culture of respect and inclusion.
“Inclusive language is language free from words, phrases or tones that reflect prejudiced, stereotyped or discriminatory views of particular people or groups.”
How people use pronouns for themselves and others has changed significantly in recent years. If you are not sure what someone’s pronoun is, ask respectfully and preferably privately. Avoid ask “What pronouns do you prefer?” because their pronouns and identity are not a preference.
The list of tips gives examples of language to use and avoid in relation to gender-specific terms. Many of these are commonly understood now.
The section on First Nations Peoples has a longer list of language to avoid. A lesser known aspect is using generic terms that excludes the lived experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Comments such as ‘all Australians have access to quality medical care’ excludes their lived experience.
More than 30% of Australia’s population was born overseas. Asking where a person is from can make them feel set apart from others. Avoid referring to their ethnic or racial background unless there is a valid or legal reason for doing so.
The section on disability and accessibility covers the usual material. Avoid language that implies heroism or victim status. If it is not necessary to acknowledge that a person has a disability then don’t mention it. A list of language to use and avoid is included here.
The title of the blog article is 5 Inclusive Language Tips You Need to Know About. Of course, people can fall into more than one of the five groups. Take care not to miss one while focusing on another.
Access for people with disability was unheard of when Sydney Opera House was designed in the late 1960s. It’s complex and unusual shape caused delays until it’s opening in 1973. In the 2020s the same complexity meant a lot of creative design work to create an accessible Sydney Opera House. And to do it in a way that maintained the integrity of the original design.
The commitment of the Sydney Opera House to the vision of “The People’s House” is clear. The creative design work shows that complex heritage buildings can be accessible to all. This design work is evident on theSydney Opera House’s website section on accessibility.
Even if you aren’t planning to visit the Sydney Opera House, the information is an exemplar of how to make all visitors feel welcome.
The webpage has clearly organised information on accessible performances, getting there, and getting around the precinct. There are separate sections on vision and hearing, mobility, and access programs. There are four videos to help visitors find their way around the building and precinct. The website also has access maps for the four main areas of the building.
Accessible journey videos
The section on accessible journeys is particularly interesting if you’ve never been to the Sydney Opera House. You get to see the inside of the building with the fly-through videos as well as finding your way around. Access from the underground car park does not take you directly into the building. Consequently, when the place is busy, finding the way to the foyer might be confusing. The video clearly shows where to park and how to get to the foyer.
A really good example of how to make visitors feel welcome at any venue or destination. This type of information can be a deciding factor in whether to go to an event or a visit a building.
How many steps at the Sydney Opera House?
A previous post featured a list showing how many steps visitors need to climb to various parts of the building. It also shows the complexity of overcoming the many stairways in the refurbishments. However, this list is no longer as relevant as all areas are now accessible. Consequently, the Sydney Opera House has removed it from their website.
The aim of the guide was to help patrons decide which seats are best to book for the greatest convenience. It also helped with traversing such a large building, especially if you are not familiar with it.
Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know how many other venues in Australia have this type of guide – not just a standard access guide, which is usually for wheelchair users, people who are blind or have low vision, or are deaf or hard of hearing. Knowing how far you have to walk and how many steps is important for non wheelchair users and people accompanying wheelchair users.
Why don’t older people want to talk about ageing? Is there really a lack of people willing to talk about older people and ageing? That is, compared to other interest groups. Or is it part of the general stereotyping or prejudice that a new report has highlighted? How can we shape the perceptions of ageing in the media? And what should journalists do?
“It is vital that older people are humanised and valued in mainstream culture, with their voices amplified, and the issues they face told in an accurate and balanced way.” RobertFitzgerald AM, Age Discrimination Commissioner
Although the Human Rights Commission’s report is about older people, ageism can happen at any age. Young people are just as likely to experience ageism as well. Demographers and marketers divide the population into segments, which isn’t helpful especially when assigning specific characteristics to each group.
The executive summary of the Human Rights Commission’s report begins with a good explanation of ageism:
“Ageism refers to the stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel) and discrimination (how we act) directed towards people based simply on their age. Ageism remains pervasive and normalised … it is one of the most socially accepted forms of prejudice in Australia.”
The media shapes perceptions
Demographers and marketers aside, the media plays an important role in reflecting and shaping how older people are perceived. Finding appropriate experts to talk about older people, and not just ageism, is key. But they have to be aware of their own stereotyping too.
The late Stella Young called out “inspiration porn” for people with disability. We must do the same for older people. Anything that a younger person can do should not become an inspirational story when an older person does it. It might be a human interest story for the media but it reinforces stereotypes albeit positive.
Conversely, older people are more often portrayed as a burden on society. Stories reflect the deficit model of inability, incapacity and vulnerability. Terms such as “the elderly” immediately stereotype everyone over a certain age as all being the same. However, the term “elderly” should not be confused with respectful term “elders” used in Indigenous communities.
Three opportunities for action
No experts: The reports suggests the media and the age sectors should get together to address the expert and advocate gap. Reshaping the narrative on ageing is a must.
Training: The best way to address the gap in media education and training is by the media co-designing training with advocates of older people. The age sector can also support and inform editorial practices on age-related reporting.
Community education: A communication campaign for the broader community is another key opportunity for change. More accurate and diverse representation of ageing as well as the coverage of different age groups is essential.
The full report has some interesting and revealing comments by journalists, producers and editors. Their take on the subject of the lack of experts able to speak to the media is especially enlightening.
Equal access to sex workers
Almost everyone likes a hug, and sometimes something a little more intimate. The Conversation has an article arguing that the NDIS should pay for sex workers. But being a resident in an aged care home should not be a barrier to having this kind of intimacy either. That’s whether it’s from a sex worker or a partner.
An article in the Australian Ageing Agenda, Addressing sexual intimacy, looks at the issues. “Aged care providers are ‘ill-equipped’ to deal with matters of sex and sexuality.”
Sex work in aged care more than just physical. For some clients of sex workers it is about being close and touching another human being rather than sexual intimacy. It’s about feeling the warmth of another body, feeling their heartbeat and breathing.
The royal commission into aged care also commented that services aren’t acceptable for older LGBTI people either. Some staff and other residents find same sex relationships confronting.
When it comes down to it, older people have the right to access sex and intimacy services just like anyone else. However, those who live in their own homes might be in a better position than those in an aged care facility. Time for policies on this aspect of aged care to be universally designed.
Words matter. Our perceptions, beliefs and attitudes are shaped by the words we see and hear. The media relies on words for their work which has the power to influence, uphold or denigrate. Journalists must check their words for perpetuating stereotypes that harm, albeit unintentionally. The ageing sector must do the same. Yes, even older people perpetuate stereotypes in the language they use too.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has produced a report on how the media reports on ageing and older people.
“How we view the world and those around us is largely shaped by what we read, what we hear and what we watch. Media informs how we see and treat others, and even how we see and treat ourselves.” – Robert Fitzgerald AM, Age Discrimination Commissioner
Ageism is one of the most socially accepted forms of prejudice in Australia. The media industry and the age sector must improve the accuracy, quantity and quality of coverage of the issues.
In the video below, Robert Fitzgerald explains that the overwhelming portrayal of older people is in the negative. This is particularly so when talking about health and aged care. The framing is that of a burden on society without recognising how this language impacts older people themselves. It also impacts policy-makers and private enterprise when it comes to providing goods and services.
Positive portrayals can also stereotype
The media and marketing professionals like to segment the population into age groups. They assume people in these age groups all have something in common or behave in a particular way. They also assume that each group is different from each other and have little in common. This is stereotyping. Even positive stereotyping is harmful especially when pitting older and younger cohorts against each other.
Highlighting a few prominent older Australians as being highly productive or contributing to society is portrayal by exception. It is only their age that makes it a story. For example a woman of 90 years, usually described as a “grandmother” taking a parachute jump. The only other time parachute jumpers make the news is if their parachute failed.
Ageing is not a charity case any more
Ageing and aged care left the charity model last century, but some aspects linger on. For example, special weeks or international days for older people only serve to perpetuate stereotypes and patronise. Stereotyping behaviour is difficult to overcome – it’s ingrained into our culture.
Key findings from the report
There are known and real issues with Australian media portrayals of ageing and older people. The prevailing narrative is of decline, frailty and vulnerability. Their everyday lived experience is invisible to the media.
Australian media representations reflect a broader mainstream culture that undervalues older people. Their issues are often regarded as ‘less than’ those affecting other groups.
The culture of undervaluing older people underpins media industry drivers. Some of these briefly include:
Lack of access to subject matter experts – people who can speak on ageing
Invisibility of age withing the diversity and inclusion space
Time, resources and lack of experienced journalists
Business drivers and ‘click bait’ nature of reporting especially around intergenerational tensions.
The report reviews current knowledge and evidence on age and ageing and the way Australia media presents it. The title of the full report is, Shaping Perceptions: How Australian Media Reports on Ageing. There is also a summary reportwith the findings and opportunities for change. Even advocates for older people can fall into the trap of using language that patronises or emphasises ‘specialness’.
Viewing older people through the prism of health and disability ignores their continuing contribution to society. The 2015 Intergenerational Report talks of the ‘three Ps’ – population, participation and productivity. But where is the fourth P – policy?
Emily Millane discusses the issues of ageism, employment and social participation in a percapita report. She asks, where is the fourth P, policy, and argues we need policies to overcome age discrimination in all its forms. This includes the design of public spaces, parks and streets. Urban design plays an important role here. It needs to capture all ages and foster interaction between generations. This strategy might be easier than changing community attitudes in the short term.
Older people are considered lesser value than others – something highlighted by the Royal Commission into Aged Care. By perpetuating the idea of being less capable or being a burden on society affects attitudes that are hard to shift. It also affect attitudes older people have about themselves.
