Category: Human Rights

What is Easy Read and who needs it?

page from Access Easy English on COVID. Writing for readers.
  Example of Easy English

Easy Read is a good example of how less is more. But conveying messages in fewer words is more difficult than writing more words. Easy Read is for people with low levels of literacy. It’s mostly used for essential information such as health alerts and legal terms and conditions. Writing with minimal words is a skillset of its own. It’s not easy. But it does make you think about what you really need or want to say.

Proficient readers can use Easy Read versions to get the take-home message quickly and easily. That’s also why it’s universal design – it’s for everyone. However, Easy Read is not the same as Easy English – the example in the image. It has even fewer words and focuses on actions not just information. Cathy Basterfield says that Easy Read is not simple enough for some people and explains this in a simple poster analysing the difference

Easy Read not the same as plain English or plain language. Complex documents such as research reports are beginning to include a plain language summary. However, these require an average level of literacy. They are usually presented as a paragraph or a list of sentences in dot points. Easy English drills down further to the key words and concepts. The techniques include:

      • a lot of white space
      • directly relevant illustrations (not photos) to convey the meaning of the text
      • short words and sentences
      • minimal punctuation
      • positive phrasing
      • bullets to separate items in a list. 

Editors can learn from Easy English

The Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading blog has a more detailed article. It summarises Cathy Basterfield’s presentation at their annual conference. She shows how editorial professionals can learn from Easy English. 

Blog writer, Anna Baildon, said she learned a lot from the session and had her assumptions challenged. She said she could see “the links to plain English but it goes further”. The headlines she remembers are:

      • It’s hard to write in Easy English
      • Access to written information should not be a reading test. It should be enabling
      • Unpacking the language so the meaning becomes accessible.
      • Access to information is a right. ‘Access’ means that a person reads, understands and knows what they can do.

The Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading has a guide to Editing in Plain English. 

Many people need it

More than 40% of the population has low literacy skills. In some remote parts of Australia and in institutions it is higher than this. There are several reasons why so many Australians need information in easy to understand formats:

– acquired disabilities
– lifelong disabilities
– poor educational outcomes
– psychiatric or mental illness
– dyslexia
– early school leavers
– older people
– different cultural backgrounds
– hearing impaired and/or people from the Deaf community

Accessibility and universal design needs to be considered at the outset of any project, not as an afterthought. Information formats such as brochures and websites are no exception. Some important government documents include an Easy Read version, but this is still rare. 

Cathy Basterfield has pioneered much of the work on Easy English in Australia. People with high level literacy skills can grasp the key points with little effort. And there are times when people with good literacy skills need help. For example, the stress of a court hearing can temporarily affect one’s reading skills and level of understanding. 

Cathy Basterfield presented a paper on this topic at the Australian Universal Design Conference, UD2021. There is a related post on choice of typeface or font for easy reading. Cathy has an Easy English blogsite that explains more. She did a lot of work for COVID-19 too. 

There is an Easy Read version of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  The Bumpy Road website is a good example of Cathy’s work for interacting with the justice system. 

Go-along walking for dementia research

An older man with a walking cane walks along a path in a park. He is by himself. Go-along-walking research.Understanding the experiences of people with dementia is difficult if they cannot express those experiences well. The next best thing is to observe those experiences. That’s what the go-along walking method is – an observation of how people with dementia experience the environment. 

Researchers carried out go-along walking interviews with fifteen people with dementia. They followed this up with sit down interviews that included a family member. The participants’ stories of venturing outdoors showed that they were aware of their changing circumstances. They all shared a sense of vulnerability and not knowing if they could trust strangers to help if they needed it.

Dementia also has a gender dynamic. Male participants were willing to relinquish control to their wives, whilst female participants were prepared to adapt to changing family dynamics. Men still wanted to be seen as independent as this equated to ‘manliness’. 

A dementia-friendly environment is one thing, but alleviating the pervading personal sense of vulnerability is also important. Regardless, the research showed that people with dementia are able to take responsibility and create other ways of being in the outside world. 

The title of the article is, On being outdoors: How people with dementia experience and deal with vulnerabilities. It’s available for download from ResearchGate. 

From the abstract

This paper advances understanding of how vulnerability is experienced and dealt with by people with dementia when outdoors, and at times shared with family carers. We found that for the person diagnosed with the condition, an awareness of failing knowledge about oneself or the ‘rules’ of outdoor life, which individuals experienced emotionally and dealt with civically. People with dementia attempted to manage risks and anxieties, often doing this independently so as not to burden family members. 

Ruth Bartlett has a follow up article that builds on this work. The title is, Inclusive (social) citizenship and persons with dementia. It is published in Disability & Society and needs institutional access for a free read. Or request a copy from the author. 

From the abstract

The study found that access work entailed three spheres of activity: ‘access to location technologies’, ‘access to ordinary places’, and ‘consciously sharing the responsibility of access work’. Overall, this article contributes to the growing literature on cognitive accessibility by evidencing the mental demands of access work, as experienced by people with dementia, and need to share the responsibility of access work between humans and non-humans, and state and non-state actors.

 

Stella Young and Inspiration Porn

In this entertaining video the late Stella Young talks about how we have been sold a lie about people with disability being ‘inspirational’ for just being themselves. She argues that people with disability are objectified in this process as being ‘special’ in some way. They are discounted as normal everyday people doing everyday jobs in an everyday world. On the topic of a positive attitude Stella says, “No amount of smiling at a flight of stairs has ever made it turn into a ramp.”

 

The economics of assistive technology

Chart showing return on investment for individuals, families and society.Why is some technology called “assistive” technology?  After all, isn’t all technology assistive? It seems that any technology developed for people with disability is assistive, while other technology is just, well, technology. Technologies specific to disability used to be called “aids and equipment”, but we have moved on. Smart phones are  everyday technology for most people. For people with disability they can also be an important part of a suite of technologies. 

In Australia and other countries, access to assistive technology (AT) is not automatic. It has to be applied for and justified and then a budget assigned to it. Some people have to resort to charities for help. Imagine if you had to do this for cancer treatment. Denying and delaying access to AT comes at a cost. It’s a quality of life cost and an economic cost to the wider community. Instead of talking “cost” we should be talking “investment”.

The value of providing AT is documented in a global report. The research focused on four devices, hearing aids, prostheses, eyeglasses, and wheelchairs. They found that for every one dollar invested, nine dollars are gained. That’s a return on investment of 9:1.

If we include home modifications in the suite of technologies to enhance functioning and independence, we would no doubt find similar a return on investment. It would be a better investment if homes were universally designed in the first place. This is one study that recognises the benefits to the whole family, not just the individual. This is an important point. Most people with disability do not live alone. 

The title of this important document is, The case for Investing in Assistive Technology. Replace the words “assistive technology” with built environment and housing and the report still makes sense. AT requires the rest of the world to be accessible and universally designed. That way, we can all benefit from people getting the AT they need when they need it. 

The research was funded by several international organisations. The four AT items in the research are more readily available in Australia than other countries. But there is much AT that is not readily available when it is needed. Only a very small proportion of people with disability are eligible for the NDIS.

Easy English and Bumpy Road

Home Page of Bumpy Road website showing nine coloured sections, each with a separate document.Everything seems more difficult when life is spiralling out of control. And when you can’t understand the forms and documents people are asking you to read, it gets so much harder. Going to court to sort things out is very stressful and even more so if you don’t understand what’s going on. 

A new website called The Bumpy Road was developed with and for parents with intellectual disability. There are 32 fact sheets on interacting with NSW Community Services and the court system. They cover child protection, going to court, meeting with a lawyer, the role of an advocate and tips from other parents. Information is in Easy English and video format. Child Protection is a companion document. Much of the content will apply to other states. 

Women With Disability Australia website hosts many Easy English publications.  If you scroll down you will find Auslan videos among others. Scroll further and there are documents in Kriol, Torres Straight Islander Creole, and Warumungu.

Your Human Rights Toolkit is a bundle of four documents in Easy English.

Easy Read UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is also a good resource for getting a grasp of this long complicated document.

Editor’s comment: I’d like to see Easy Read and Easy English standard for all organisations . Universally designed documents make so much sense for everyone. It gives an opportunity to get the key points and before looking at a more complex document.

Easy Read UNCRPD

Front cover of Enable Easy Read version of the UN ConventionWe hear people talk about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), but how many of us have read it? It’s a big document and not easy to read. It covers every aspect of life and every person of every age. The CRPD matters to all of us. Eventually disability will touch each of us and our family members and friends. So disability rights are everyone’s rights. But not everyone can understand the way it is written. The Easy Read CRPD captures the key content in less words.

The Easy Read version of the CRPD is a great way for most people to get a grasp of the issues. This version by Enable is complete with illustrations. 

These documents make for handy ready reference for everyone without having to work through the UN document itself. You can access all documents through the UN website.

There’s also a great two-minute video from the Disability Advocacy Resource Unit. This is very useful for anyone wanting to get the disability rights message across, say, in a training session or group meeting. Different people with disability each list a right that is within the CRPD. Nicely put together and easy to watch. 

Beginning of the video. A man is standing in a large empty room that looks like a performance space.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has an overview of human rights on their website. 

UN Strategy for disability inclusion

Front cover of the UN report with icons for the four areas of action.In the context of “leave no-one behind” the United Nations is keen to live the message of disability inclusion in its own operations. The UN will be better placed to support Member States with their challenges in implementing inclusive practice. The United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy spells out what needs to be done. 

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) is no longer a side event to everything else. Disability inclusion is written into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Strategy was launched in 2019 and the 2020 report provides a first baseline of disability inclusion across the system. The report lays down concrete steps for improvement and to support Member States to implement the CRPD and the SDGs.

Mainstreaming is the key strategy for inclusion and empowerment. It’s about seeing people with disability as agents of change and not a vulnerable population.

There are 15 common indicators against which all UN entities will report annually. It covers leadership, strategic planning and management, inclusiveness, programming and organisational culture. Time to get real about disability inclusion.

You can read on overview on Global Accessibility News. 

The full strategy document is available on the UN Disability Inclusion Strategy website. A short video from the Secretary General is below. 

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities sets out the obligations of signatories to the Convention. Australia is a signatory to the Convention, and the obligations are detailed in separate sections called Articles. The General Principles of the Convention align with the Principles of Universal Design.

Article 3 – General principles

The principles of the present Convention shall be:

    1. Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons;
    2. Non-discrimination;
    3. Full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
    4. Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity;
    5. Equality of opportunity;
    6. Accessibility;
    7. Equality between men and women;
    8. Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities.

Equitable Access to Justice

This new courtroom has timber backed seats and a long timber desk that seats the justices. A abstract painting covers the wall behind the bench. Daylight comes in through large windows. We need equitable access to justice.
Brisbane Court Room

Justice systems and courthouses are scary at the best of times – even when you haven’t done anything wrong. The processes and places are foreign to most of us. Interacting with the justice system is very stressful – even more so for people with any kind of disability. It’s the same for people who come from a migrant community. Equitable access to justice is yet to evolve.

The newly published guidelines for access to justice for persons with disabilities is available on the United Nations Human Rights web page. It gives the background and a summary of the consultation process. The title of the document is, International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities. The document was developed in collaboration with disability rights experts, advocacy organisations, states, academics and other practitioners. There are ten principles, each with a set of guidelines for action.

Ten Principles 

Principle 1  All persons with disabilities have legal capacity and, therefore, no one shall be denied access to justice on the basis of disability.

Principle 2  Facilities and services must be universally accessible to ensure equal access to justice without discrimination of persons with disabilities.

Principle 3  Persons with disabilities, including children with disabilities, have the right to appropriate procedural accommodations.

Principle 4  Persons with disabilities have the right to access legal notices and information in a timely and accessible manner on an equal basis with others.

Principle 5  Persons with disabilities are entitled to all substantive and procedural safeguards recognized in international law on an equal basis with others, and States must provide the necessary accommodations to guarantee due process.

Principle 6  Persons with disabilities have the right to free or affordable legal assistance. 

Principle 7 Persons with disabilities have the right to participate in the administration of justice on an equal basis with others. 

Principle 8  Persons with disabilities have the rights to report complaints and initiate legal proceedings concerning human rights violations and crimes, have their complaints investigated and be afforded effective remedies. 

Principle 9  Effective and robust monitoring mechanisms play a critical role in supporting access to justice for persons with disabilities. 

Principle 10  All those working in the justice system must be provided with awareness-raising and training programmes addressing the rights of persons with disabilities, in particular in the context of access to justice.

Brisbane court room showing the glass surround for the defendant dock and a short steep ramp to the doorway.
Brisbane courtroom dock

The picture at the top is from the Brisbane Supreme Court showing a large abstract mural behind the Judges’ bench. The picture at the bottom is an attempt to make the defendant dock wheelchair accessible. 

 

Who do designers design for?

Four women and one man sit casually around a table where there are coloured pens and drawings.Who does the designing and what do they design? If the design works, users don’t think about the designer. But when the design works poorly, or not at all, the designer becomes the focus. “What were they thinking?” is the catch-cry. In spite of much research and literature on designing thoughtfully and inclusively, we still have a long way to go. So who do designers design for?

A short paper takes a critical look at five design approaches from last century that remain current. The author discusses “Accessible” in terms of partial inclusion and design afterthoughts. “Inclusive/Universal Design” is discussed from the perspective of eliminating disability rather than embracing diversity. Six degrees of “User-Centred Design” is the focus of this design approach where users get a say in the design. An extension of user-centred design is “Participatory Design” which is also a learning experience for designers. Lastly, “Emancipatory Design” is praised for being empowering for people with disability.

The title of the short paper is, Design Methodologies and Ethos in Disability: Research Snapshot.

Editor’s Note: The Universal Design movement is sometimes accused of wanting to design out disability. Perhaps this view can be traced back to the mistaken interpretation of universal as “one-size-fits-all”. The concept of universal design in the context of the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is very much one of inclusion, equity and acceptance of diversity. 

From the Introduction

The subject of design is one that dominates the disability literature. Throughout the past number of years, there has been a push among researchers and advocates to think critically about the ways in which design is executed and by whom. Design has taken on a central role in the ‘normalization’ of disability. Each of these design methodologies and ethos has had an essential impact on built and design environments; however, there is still a considerable need for progress. Importantly, these design methodologies and ethos bring to light the significance of understanding that in today’s society, it is normative that environments and technologies are designed for people with disabilities, not by people with disabilities. 

 

Smart City: Dream or Nightmare?

A city skyline at night against a backdrop of a computer circuitry board. Smart cities are talked about as a good thing, but can we be sure where they are leading us? This promised land with sustainability, connectivity and optimisation, might have a human rights cost. An interesting point from Amnesty International. 

On the one hand we have a model for inclusive urban growth with jobs and green credentials. On the other, community groups say this as a contest between surveillance capitalism and democracy. This is the point of an article by two tech people at Amnesty International.

The authors discuss the growth of smart cities and the Internet of Things.  The connectivity of devices and people and the wonders of inventions seems like Utopia. But a lot of data is being collected and this is where the threat to human rights emerges. They argue that human rights must be put at the centre of development plans for smart cities. Otherwise the Big Tech companies will be empowered even more.

It’s good to see these issues being raised. People who are marginalised could be even further disadvantaged. The title of the article is Smart Cities: dreams capable of become nightmares. There are links to further articles on the topic.

 

Who thought of kerb cuts?

A concrete kerb ramp with yellow tactile markers on the slope.Who thought of kerb cuts in the footpath? 30 years ago policy makers couldn’t understand why anyone needed kerb cuts in footpaths. “Why would anyone need kerb cuts – we never see people with disability on the streets”. This is part of the history of disability rights that we rarely think about these days. But kerb cuts (curb cuts) didn’t happen because of policy – they happened because people took matters into their own hands. And accessibility eventually shaped the streets.

Stories of activists pouring concrete on kerbs have made their way into urban legends. It is sometimes referred to as the “Curb Cut Revolution”. (Note the American spelling. In Australia we call them kerb ramps.) It was the beginning of a turning point for accessibility.

Of course, the injustice is not evident to those who are perhaps inconvenienced but not excluded. And it’s not just about wheelchair users. Anyone using a wheeled device: delivery trolley, pram, bicycle or luggage knows the value of the kerb cut. They’ve also benefited from the other accessibility features in the built environment. That’s how the term “universal design” was coined – good for wheelchair users, good for everyone. 

The Forgotten History of How Accessible Design Reshaped the Streets is a nicely written blog article. It provides an interesting context to what we know now as access standards. But compliance to legislation does not guarantee inclusion. It only provides access. That’s why we still need universal design thinking.

The Universal Design Movement goes back to the 1970s and it’s still going. That’s because every improvement for inclusion is hard won. The article has a great quote:

“When injustice is tied up with the physical spaces of cities and the policies that create them, it becomes difficult to assign responsibility for it – and hence difficult to change.”

The article is from Bloomberg CityLab. 

Accessibility Toolbar