Archive

Archive for the ‘accessibility’ Category

Walkability for Everyone

July 1st, 2009

walkability-network Walkability is a relatively new concept that focuses on determining if a community or neighbourhood is pedestrian friendly (see Walk Score as a Google Map mashup that is a really cool application). As part of this measure, features that are measured include things like sidewalk continuity, population and employment density, land use mix, safety and security and a few other factors. However, although there is mention of accessibility for things like safety at crosswalks, there is very little mention of accessibility.

The “everyone challenge” is to embed factors that are relevant to people with disabilities, seniors, families with small children, etc. The current approach basically gives a neighbourhood credit for simply having a resource. If there is a recreation centre within a mile of a community, it would score points for that. For the other 20 – 40% of the population where this might not be enough it doesn’t take into consideration whether or not the building is accessible, whether or not there are inclusive programs and services and whether there are accessible paths from residential areas to accessible destinations (resources that meet the daily needs of citizens).

More work needs to be done to determine if the existing measures are the right ones or the measures are accurate for everyone while still being feasible to assess. The walkability scores you will find on the Internet leverage easy to access information from GIS (Geographic Information Systems) databases. This approach uses this data to develop proxy scores for walkability and ideally similar approaches can be found that can consider accessibility and inclusion.

More to come…

mike accessibility, community engagement, inclusive programs

Nodes in non-social networks

June 11th, 2009

One challenge of using social network analysis to help describe and assess the accessibility of environments is the nature of nodes. In traditional social network analysis, a node or vertex represents an entity that, when removed, reduces the connectivity of the network. In a communication network, if someone leaves, any connection to that person disappears. However, in a physical network such as a commercial district, an inaccessible business does not preclude someone from continuining onto the next business.

The two options for dealing with this have their strengths and weaknesses. The first option is to add more nodes to the network and represent a street with businesses along the sidewalk similar to that of workstations in a computer room using the bus network typology. Basically this would be like having a straight line (the sidewalk) with a node in front of every business and another node at the entrance of the business. This means that the sidewalk can can continue to be accessible (unless some barrier was encountered) even if businesses weren’t. They would be dead end branches along a main trunk. The junction would require properties such as 1500 mm X 1500 mm turning space on a level, firms surface free of barriers and hazards. The node for the business would depend on the standards for that type of business. With this approach, traditional measures of graph theory and social network analysis can be used but graphical representation can become rather messy.

The second approach is to simply connect the businesses to each other and identify two types of nodes – critical juncture nodes (nodes where two paths cross or a barrier exists like a curb cut or construction) and utility nodes (nodes that don’t impede physical access but may cause someone to change their behaviour due to cumulative effects of lack of access). In other words, if I’m going down the street and I encounter 4 or 5 inaccessible businesses in a row, nothing is physically stopping me from continuing (a critical junction node) but I may encounter a psychological barrier (utility node). The feedback I’m getting from this experience is – there’s nothing for me here so I should try somewhere else (dimunition of utility function), effectively resulting in a disconnected network.

The challenge with this is twofold. Firstly, traditional measures are not available for this type of data although Markov Chains may approximate its effects. Secondly, a utility function needs to be subjectively defined to determine at what point someone is going to give up on a particular path. This could be a heuristic such as, any time I have 3 consecutive businesses that are inaccessible, I will change direction or backtrack. Another possible rule of thumb is if there isn’t an accessible business for 50 m at a time, I will change direction. The rule has to be simple enough to visualize but complex enough to represent how a person navigates in their environment. Variables such as distance, frequency, type of node (relative to its environment), subjective utility based on the individual, rates of decay, etc. could all influence the utility function devised.

The benefit of this approach is that it is cleaner to represent on a network map. The dimunition of utility function may be necessary for both options because the same principle emerges regardless if the business is represented as being a node on the immediate path or a branch off a main path. The fact remains that if I’m rolling down the street and I encounter business after business that is not accessible, I am not enjoying a seamless, total experience and I’m likely to seek out a new destination (and subsequently spend my money elsewhere).

While this sounds like esoteric and theoretical, it may have great impact to any “connected experience” and application to other environments might prove useful.

mike accessibility, parks & trails, travel

Take the next STEP – Seamless Total ExPerience Approach

June 2nd, 2009

The STEP© Approach breaks up the customer experience into a connected series of steps to be assessed for accessibility and inclusion. This gives context to the organization or entity being assessed so that it can make informed, strategic decions about how to address any gaps. It also helps to identify novel and innovative ways to meet the needs of every customer, partner or citizen depending on the situation. The idea is that experiences are defined by interdependent products and services. Meeting or exceeding expectations means more than just successfully delivering on any individual stage but ensuring that there are no gaps between stages and that the provider-user interface is never compromised. The STEP© Approach provides a simple, yet powereful, model for taking stock of how a business or community is doing in delivering their products and services to everyone.

mike accessibility, inclusive programs

Best Practices in Parks and Recreation

April 12th, 2009

The National Center on Accessibility in the U.S. highlighted a number of best practices for parks and recreation organizations:

  1. Provide information in a variety of formats
  2. Exceed existing standards
  3. Facilitate inclusive programming and accessible facilities
  4. Train staff
  5. Establish an Advisory Board that includes people with disabilities
  6. Demonstrate buy in at the leadership level
  7. Market accessible and inclusive programs
  8. Recruit people with disabilities
  9. Promote inclusion as an organizational value
  10. Invest in adapted equipment

One idea I had for the first best practice that can go beyond parks and recreation is the use of podcasts or vidcasts to provide “virtual tours” of a variety of experiences that your business offers. For a restaurant this could be a feasible way to market and communicate your menu or for a museum an opportunity to provide information about the latest collection.

mike accessibility, inclusive programs

Physical Activity Deficits for PWD

April 11th, 2009

In my recent research I stumbled across this article from 2004:

The vast majority of Americans with disabilities are not obtaining the recommended amount of physical activity needed to confer health benefits and prevent secondary conditions associated with a sedentary lifestyle (e.g., heart disease, obesity, osteoporosis). The risk to this population from secondary conditions associated with inactivity is particularly acute, as persons with disabilities are far more likely to have significantly lower levels of overall activity. The current version of the Healthy People 2010 report notes that significantly more people with disabilities reported having no leisure-time physical activity, 56% vs. 36%, compared to people who did not indicate they had any disability.

The HP 2010 Chapter 6, Disability and Secondary Conditions, suggests that the significantly lower rate of participation among people with disabilities may be
related to environmental barriers, including architectural barriers, organizational policies and practices, discrimination, and social attitudes, and recommends that
public health agencies begin to evaluate which environmental factors enhance or impede participation..

This article, Development and validation of AIMFREE: Accessibility Instruments Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments from Disability and Rehabilitation, 2004; Vol. 26, No. 18, 1087–1095 highlights the challenge faced by schools, recreation centres, governments and private industry to better meet the needs of people with disabilities sooner, rather than later. Considering the focus on infrastructure during this economic downturn, improving facilities and programs for people with disabilities and seniors would seem to provide short, medium and long term benefits to society.

mike accessibility, healthy living, recreation ,

everyoneincluded.com

April 10th, 2009

I thought it might be useful to dedicate a site that had information and resources for people with disabilities and the businesses and communities that want to serve them. As a person with a disability and someone who has worked to engage organizations across North America, I have seen a gap in supply and demand when it comes to serving people with disabilities. Some of this is because of a lack of awareness, some of it is because providers aren’t sure what they can do and some of it is because demand isn’t effectively communicated.

I don’t take a traditional advocacy approach (not that there isn’t a place for that). My goal is to make it easy and attractive for businesses and communities to serve everyone. When it comes down to it, people with disabilities want pretty much the same opportunities as everyone else. Considering most people will have a disability of some kind – this includes everyone (hence everyoneincluded.com).

I am starting to build the (resource section) and would be more than happy to take suggestions as to content to include. I’m going to start with the things I know best for no other reason than I can get something on the site quickly. I will add community tools later on once I figure out what might work best.

In the meantime, this blog will serve as the place to highlight updates or comment on activities and events in the world that have implications for people with disabilities.

mike accessibility