Are disabled People discriminated in the digital Accessibility Community?
One would think that the accessibility community would be particularly serious about the inclusion of marginalized groups. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. In fact, minorities in the community are discriminated just as much as in the rest of the society. Many accessibility consultants place greater importance on accessibility than on people with disabilities. This isn't new: Karl Marx also valued the working class more than he did on workers.
David Kennedy and the Accessibility Weekly Newsletter
A particularly striking example is David A. Kennedy and his newsletter. Week after week, he sends out a collection of links to articles on digital accessibility. A closer look at his newsletter reveals that he favors articles by Anglo-Americans. These are the all-star authors of digital accessibility, such as Adrian Roseli, WebAIM, and others. It's striking that contributions from disabled people are ignored unless they're among the stars of the scene, like Leonie Watson or Nicolas Steenhout.
Now, one could argue that these people make the best and most important contributions in digital accessibility. But that's not the case. You're more likely to find the 30th article on alternative texts in the newsletter than a perspective from a disabled person or a person of non-Caucasian origin. You want to decide for yourself whether that's coincidence or strategy.
By the way, I'm not accusing Kennedy or anyone else of conscious discrimination. Many of these people probably consider themselves particularly progressive, sign petitions for inclusion or against discrimination, and do whatever other people with the right attitude do. But that doesn't mean their behavior isn't discriminatory in the long run. It's a classic example of cognitive bias.
Conferences Favor the Mainstream
Unfortunately, this also continues in organizations that supposedly want to promote diversity. At Deque's axe-con, one of the world's largest and most important conferences on digital accessibility, people with disabilities or from minorities are explicitly invited to submit presentations. The lineup then includes exactly the same people and topics that we find everywhere else. I can't believe that interesting people with important topics don't apply to speak there. As a disabled person, I haven't even been sent a rejection.
We also find that at #ID24. It it's always the same people with the same topics who are invited every year. The only question is when Stephanie Walter will speak, not whether she will speak. Why do they even make a call?
I envy them. Although I think they could step aside for other people once in a whileThey are famous enough, aren't they? However, they probably consider themselves more important than everyone else. And those who make the decision agree with them.
What can you do?
- You should always give topics and people beside the mainstream a chance. As an organizer, you could reserve a specific section for new ideas and people from minorities.
- The juries that decide on proposals should be diverse.
- As an invited speaker, you can have an equal co-speaker from a minority group. This can also be included as a requirement in the call for speakers.
- People like David A. Kennedy should be made aware of their bias towards people from minorities.
Conclusion
Currently, I am very disappointed with the digital accessibility community. There are certainly people who are well-intentioned and are also actively involved. Unfortunately, I observe an internalized paternalism towards people with disabilities. We are only useful as cues givers or as victims of inaccessibility, not as people with expertise or their own opinions. Once again they are making us to objects.
I am also skeptical about the will to change or the ability to acknowledge that there is a problem. But one should not give up hope.