One of the biggest challenges I experienced as a deaf and disabled person and who does events and project planning is when someone says that something is accessible. Most non-disabled people will receive that information and trust it as it is labelled accessible. It makes sense when the parking spot is larger, the room is set up differently, and the bathrooms have specific considerations like grab bars to meet the criteria of accessibility. For me, it requires more questions and evaluations to see who is it accessible for.
You may be thinking, well there are building codes and legislation that are required to implement and improve accessibility. You are right, there is legislation that exists to help set standards in accessibility of the built environment. Do you know how far the standards go in terms of criteria? Do you know if there is any enforcement to ensure it is correct? Do the standards include all accessibility needs that exist? The biggest assumption with accessibility is that it is enough and that the disability population is small. Along with that assumption, it is common for non-disabled people to think of disability only from a physical perspective. This is what makes the issue worse. Thinking that the current standards from legislation is enough with consideration of all disabilities and accessibility needs. It is often not the situation we live in.
I know it adds complexity to an already confusing situation of accessibility when the standards and legislation does not always meet the lived experience of people with disabilities. There are a couple of broad concepts to consider when questioning the accessibility of a space.
When considering a space accessible, ask yourself, what is considered accessible in the context and regulations? This question forces you to consider if it is just from a point of physical accessibility such as wheelchairs and mobility aid users or does it consider other needs like sensory, cognitive, communication, and mental needs that are also important in accessibility. When implementing solutions, was the goal to remove barriers or was it to meet the standards that currently exist? It is a distinction due to intentions and accountability. The standard is likely the floor of what is possible, not the ceiling. Creating an accessible and safe experience is usually more than what the standards can explain and the ever changing landscape of technologies that is providing more solutions and new problems. Standards can rarely go as fast as society is moving and demanding so thinking beyond the standards can provide an experience that is difficult to find.
Knowing that the label of accessible is not as simple as it seems, it provides an opportunity to look at accessibility from a concept to person centred. Forget asking yourself, does it have the label accessible? In the current landscape of a mixture of some good accessibility practices with bad accessibility practices, ask yourself this, do I have the flexibility, knowledge, empathy, and creativity to provide a similar experience for everyone who is looking for the experience I am providing? In many cases, it is gaining enough knowledge to know the barriers that exist and creating flexible and creative solutions to help make the experience more equitable.
Making spaces accessible in an inaccessible world can be challenging and the work to improve standards will always be needed. While the standards being the minimum requirements for accessibility, it is still important in providing the power to enact change across different sectors. What is needed from people is the transition from blindly assuming that the accessible label is sufficient to understanding that systematic challenges play a role in the issue and that knowledge can help anticipate and remove barriers to be better than the standards. When all of us recognize the gap in accessibility and have the motivation to change it for better access, everyone’s experiences in society can improve for a better quality of life.
