Software Accessibility: It's Everybody's Business

Software Accessibility: It's Everybody's Business

Presentation to Australian Taxation Office Software Development Group

Bruce Maguire, Policy Officer HREOC

Sydney, April 7 2005

Introduction

Good morning everyone. I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we're meeting today.

I suppose we all have things we've passionate about - causes that we'd be prepared to die for, issues that give us the will to carry on in the face of criticism and ridicule.

My cause is the hexadecimal numbering system. You know: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9, a, b, c, d, e, f.

I admit that you don't see many newspaper stories about it, and I can't remember the last time I saw an editorial saying how much better it is than this antiquated, wimpish decimal system that we have.

And I admit, too, that while I was working for a large organisation in the 80s and 90s, I was never able to convince their finance and administration people to introduce the hex system in their accounting practices - something about not enough fingers to add up the balance sheet. So when I started my own business in 1997 I rejoiced in my new freedom, and I introduced this really ingenious system of filing my invoices based on hex arithmetic. I prepared my invoices in a word processor, gave them invoice numbers based on hex, and then filed them in a hexadecimal way.

The problem came when I took them along to my accountant. After spending an hour trying to explain the system to him, he said that I had two options: I could change the system, or change my accountant (and, by the way, here's the bill for the past hour). I didn't want to change my accountant because he has good coffee, so I figured I'd better take the plunge and get some small business accounting and management software. In any case, the GST had just been introduced, and I needed a better system of invoicing and reporting.

And here's where the problems really began. It was almost impossible to find a package that I, as a person who is blind, could access. I was able to download and install all the demos, but that's about all I could do. With some of them, I couldn't get past the opening screen because they had a large bitmap that you had to click on, and the screen-reading software that I and other blind people use couldn't interpret the bitmap. With others, there were no help files and I wasn't able to read the Getting started guides because they were in an inaccessible format. Others had no keyboard shortcuts and didn't use standard Windows programming controls, which meant that the screen-reading software couldn't read the menus, lists and dialogue boxes..

In short, none of the programs on offer followed the guidelines for accessible software design that have been developed by Microsoft and IBM. The bottom line was that for three months while I was desperately searching, I couldn't print a single invoice, which meant that I had absolutely no income for that time. I eventually did find a package whose main features I can use, but as far as I know, it is the only small business package on the market today that is in any way accessible to people who are blind or vision impaired.

I tell this personal story to illustrate that inaccessibility and discrimination are not just abstract concepts based on vague theoretical notions of social justice and corporate responsibility. They have a real impact on people as they go about living their daily lives and trying to achieve their goals. It isn't much fun when you know you're owed thousands of dollars, but can't print a single invoice to prove it.

The DDA

I want now to replace my small business Brailleways hat with my Human Rights Commission hat, and to give you a brief overview of the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), which became law in 1993. The Commission administers the DDA, along with other human rights legislation.

The DDA makes it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of a disability. The objects of the DDA include eliminating, as far as possible, discrimination against people with disabilities, and promoting recognition and acceptance that people with a disability have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the community.

The DDA uses a broad definition of "disability" that includes physical, intellectual, psychiatric, sensory, neurological, and learning disabilities, as well as physical disfigurement, and the presence in the body of disease-causing organisms.

It is worth noting, at this point, that the DDA definition of disability is broader than that used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in arriving at a figure for the percentage of the population that has a disability. In the context of computer software, the broader definition is particularly relevant. For example, people who have a temporary disability such as a broken arm that makes it difficult for them to use a physical mouse will still want to be able to use their accounting package, and so software that incorporates the principles of universal web design will benefit a much broader group than even the 20% of the population that the ABS has identified as having a disability.

The DDA sets out specific areas in which it is unlawful to discriminate. These areas include access to premises; accommodation; education; employment; the provision of goods, services and facilities; and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. The definitions of "goods" and "services" in the DDA include computer software, as well the kinds of services provided for example, by banks and other financial institutions, retail shops, churches, cinemas, and companies providing training and professional development. A company, or an organisation such as a government department, that provides services or information through a website is also liable for complaints under the DDA if those services are not accessible to people with disabilities.

The DDA defines two kinds of discrimination: direct discrimination is when a person with a disability is treated less favourably because of that disability. An example would be if a company providing training in the use of a particular product refused to allow a blind person to enroll, or if a shop assistant refused to serve a person because they were using a dog guide. Indirect discrimination refers to treatment that, on the face of it, is not discriminatory, but which actually has a disproportionate impact on people with a particular disability. For example, an employer might require that applicants for a particular job have a driver's license, even though the job does not involve driving. Such a requirement would indirectly discriminate against people who are blind or who have another disability that prevents them from driving a car. Providing emergency service information only in audio form may also involve indirect discrimination, as it would not be accessible to many people who are deaf or hearing-impaired. A software program that requires the use of a mouse and does not support keyboard shortcuts would discriminate against people who are blind and who cannot use the physical mouse.

Where a person with a disability believes they have been discriminated against, they can complain to the Commission, which will investigate the complaint and attempt to conciliate a solution between the two parties. Where conciliation is not possible, the complainant may take their complaint to the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Service, which have the authority to determine whether unlawful discrimination has occurred.

The DDA does recognise that in certain circumstances, providing equitable access for people with disabilities could cause "unjustifiable hardship" for an individual or organisation. The Federal Court has the authority to determine what constitutes "unjustifiable hardship". If the court concludes that removing discrimination would cause unjustifiable hardship, then the complaint is not upheld, that is, although there may be a finding of discrimination, there is no finding of unlawful discrimination.

Unjustifiable Hardship

There are two points to keep in mind about this notion of unjustifiable hardship: firstly, it implies that removing discrimination may involve some justifiable hardship - it is not enough for an organisation defending a complaint of disability discrimination simply to say that removing discrimination will be hard or costly. Rather, the question is when that hardship becomes unjustifiable, and the answer will depend on a number of factors that can be considered by the court. Secondly, the concept of unjustifiable hardship recognises that not all discrimination can be removed, and that the rights of people with a disability are part of a social framework whose diverse and sometimes incompatible elements must be balanced.

Having said that, it is important to note that the defence of "unjustifiable hardship" is not available where a complaint relates to the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. This reflects the government's view that it has a particular responsibility to promote the objectives of the DDA, and by eliminating discrimination against people with a disability.

Information and software access and the DDA

Over the past several years, there has been a growing awareness that the DDA covers the accessibility of government and non-government websites. Websites that fail to comply with international best practice accessibility standards are liable for complaint under the DDA, and there have, in fact, been several DDA complaints about the inaccessibility of websites, and also about the inaccessibility of information published only in PDF format without an accessible alternative such as HTML or RTF.

However, the DDA also covers products such as computer software and associated training materials. There have so far been few DDA complaints about inaccessible software, but based on the growing number of inquiries that I have received recently, I think it is quite likely that this situation will change. People who are blind or vision-impaired are becoming frustrated about the lack of attention that is being paid to making mainstream software accessible at a time when comprehensive guidelines are readily available. There are many programs that are accessible to people with disabilities, but there are also many that aren't. I know of quite a few blind people who are unemployed and would very much like to run their own business, but are prevented from doing so by the lack of suitably accessible software. As I tried to demonstrate earlier, software inaccessibility has a real impact on the way people with disabilities can participate with equality, independence and dignity in society.

Accessible procurement

Back to numbers: 1fc. That's the hexadecimal equivalent of 508. You may never come across 1fc again, but you will almost certainly hear more of 508. Section 508 of the US Rehabilitation act requires that the US government purchase products and services that are accessible to people with disabilities. So if there are two companies bidding for a government contract to supply, say, accounting packages, and only one of them has a package that is accessible, the government is normally required to purchase from the company that has the accessible software. Section 508 has had a significant and growing impact on improving the accessibility of a whole range of products and services, from telecommunications products, to software, to websites. And I know of at least one Australian company that was making changes to its software so that it could bid for US government contracts.

Japan and the European Union are also implementing public procurement policies that require governments to purchase products and services that are accessible to people with disabilities. Here in Australia, there is growing interest in similar policies. A number of groups have been lobbying for this for some time, and only last week, the issue was raised at forums that have been held as part of the Commission's inquiry into the employment of people with disabilities. The Commission has had some initial discussions with government about this, and I am anticipating that there will be further discussions in the near future. If Australia follows the trend in developed countries, then in due course we will have some kind of public procurement policy that mandates the purchase by governments of accessible products and services. If I were a software developer, I'd be thinking seriously about how I could change my software so that I'd be ready if such a policy is introduced.

In a short presentation such as this, I obviously can't go into the technical details of how to make software fully accessible. There are some excellent resources that have been produced by Microsoft and IBM that cover these issues. I do want to emphasise, though, that the Commission is happy to have discussions with companies and developers about how you can meet your responsibilities under the DDA. One of the Commission's roles is to work with government and industry to develop strategies for eliminating discrimination against people with disabilities, and we have had considerable success in such areas as the development of voluntary standards for electronic banking. It is usually preferable to discuss issues and move forward by dialogue and consensus than to have to deal with complaints, especially if those complaints proceed to the Federal Court. And people with disabilities would also prefer to work with industry in a spirit of goodwill where there is a genuine wish to find solutions to accessibility problems.

So, in conclusion, I extend an invitation to you to contact me to talk confidentially about any questions or issues that you may have. I've very much appreciated the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to ongoing dialogue.