Why Make Research Accessible to People with Disabilities
As a freelance researcher who has worked in both a consulting and internal capacity for a wide array of organizations, it's nice not to have to advocate for the benefits of usability testing continually. Most tech companies get the value of seeing their products tested by users before launch. However, I still see a practice in an industry that has a long way to go. I want to see less emphasis on production speed and more concern about building the right product well, and that takes more investment in generative research. I also want to see a more concerted effort to involve people with disabilities in generative and evaluative research. I'd go even further than that; I want to see the practice normalized. We should involve people with disabilities in our research all the time.
There are lots of reasons for this. There are legal reasons, moral reasons, and economic reasons.
Moral Reasons for A11y (Accessible) Research
The moral reasons are relatively simple. It's just the right thing to do.
People with disabilities experience indignities and exclusions regularly. From their interactions with others, to not being able to navigate their neighborhoods and cities, to having to ask for accommodations when an accessible design would have made it unnecessary, to just plain old discrimination. Their daily experience is quite different from what able-bodied people take for granted.
If we as researchers, designers, and product managers don't want to be a part of the barriers the disabled community experiences, then we have to make an active effort not to. Involving people with disabilities in research can be part of those efforts by surfacing issues your team would otherwise not be aware of.
We cannot expect teams to design accommodations for situations they've never seen before. When we don't see the problem, it's easy for us to be part of the problem.
Legal Reasons for A11y Research
The Americans with Disabilities Act became law in 1990. It mandates that people with disabilities cannot be discriminated against for jobs, education, transit, and public space. A landmark lawsuit against Target in 2008 determined the web also counted as public space and, therefore, should be accessible to people with disabilities. And the lawsuits haven't stopped since. Between 2017 and 2019, there was a 296% jump in accessibility lawsuits under the ADA. The penalty for losing these lawsuits is not just about the damages awarded to the plaintiff, but the cost of retrofitting an inaccessible website or app into something accessible. This mandate can increase the overall site or app development costs by 10,000 times.
The European Accessibility Act is relatively new and covers a wide array of digital products and services. It encourages companies to integrate accessibility into their development process instead of as an afterthought.
As a Canadian (and American), I can't wrap this up without mentioning the Accessible Canada Act passed just last year in 2019. It's true! Canada just got its first federal accessibility law less than a year ago. There are no official standards yet because the Canadian Accessibility Standards Organization is in the middle of writing them, but they're on their way.
If the law of multiple countries requires businesses to eliminate barriers against inclusion, can we, as people who do research, say that we are honestly in compliance? Could we be held legally liable?
Economic Reasons for A11y Research
In the United States, Pew Research says 6.2% of the population identifies as being disabled, which translates into 40 million people. Stats Canada says 20% of the population identifies as disabled, equalling 6 million people. According to Return on Disability, 18% of British people and Europeans identify as disabled, which equals 91 million people.
From a technical perspective, these numbers may be inaccurate. Many people may technically qualify as disabled, but not identify themselves that way because the label doesn't fit how they view their situation. The number is likely much higher, but we cannot know for sure because a person's disability or lack thereof is their business.
When we view these numbers in terms of disposable income, we can make comparisons to other minority communities:
Americans with disabilities have an estimated $490USD billion in disposable income, while African Americans have roughly $501USD billion.
Canadians with disabilities have about $55CAD billion in disposable income, while Chinese Canadians have around $53CAD billion.
People with disabilities in Europe and Brittan have an estimated €429 billion in disposable income, which is more than all of the British people estimated at €384 billion.
These numbers don't account for the friends and loved ones of people with disabilities. Word of mouth matters and people are more likely to buy from and have positive stories to tell about products and services that break down barriers for their loved ones rather than create them.
Business Reasons for A11y Research
If the past few years in media has taught us anything, it's that visibility matters. Not only is seeing people like yourself in positions of power and influence empowering, but it's also a wakeup call for everyone else. It is near impossible to create solutions to problems you were never aware of. Bringing marginalized people to the forefront of any creation process is a great way to promote visibility and accessibility to our clients.
Tech companies are increasingly getting on board. Companies with a web presence who do not build and test for accessibility are vulnerable to lawsuits. Ignorance and whether or not these are edge cases are no longer an excuse. Top people in technology recognize solving for these 'edge cases' make their systems easier for everyone to use. Not just people with disabilities But, while sites and apps can be technically accessible under official guidelines, it doesn't mean the site is usable by people with disabilities. Doing research and testing inclusively matters.
The largest consumers of healthcare services and products are people with disabilities, but rarely are they incorporated in healthcare research. It's ignoring a $750USD billion a year market and ¼ of all healthcare expenditures.
Governments should also be looking to listen to people with disabilities if only because these people are also their constituents. Most people didn't think of the straw ban as much more than an inconvenience, but to people with specific disabilities, not having access to a plastic straw means they cannot drink fluids. Talking to people with disabilities during the policy development process would have brought this to policymakers' attention.
When our clients ask for creative workshop participants, suggest incorporating people with disabilities. They regularly work their creative muscles far harder than non-disabled people. Their lives depend on it. Thinking about snack packaging is small potatoes in comparison to navigating how to make dinner when you've lost the use of one of your arms.
Next Step: Understanding Disabilities
I made a pretty strong moral, legal, economic, and business arguments for conducting research inclusively. Hopefully, you're on board and want to know more. Good, because you're in luck. This essay is the first in a series of posts on the why's and how's of conducting research accessible to people with disabilities.
