Scottish
Disability
Team
NB This is the third page of the online version of the SDT Guidance Note Disability Equality Duty: Implications and Opportunities for ICT provision in Higher Education Institutions and Colleges of Further Education, published in April 2006.
Under the DDA 1995, institutions/colleges should already be active in taking steps to reduce or remove accessibility barriers present in existing ICT and to avoid introducing new ICTs with unjustified accessibility barriers. The General and the Specific Duties in the DDA 2005 have potential further implications relating to ICT provision and ICT has a potentially valuable role in helping HEIs/Colleges meet their obligations.
The Code explains the concept of equality of opportunity as ensuring that disabled people have:
full opportunities and choices to improve the quality of their lives, and be respected and included as equal members of society.
(from Para 2.7)
It is widely documented that there is enormous potential for the use of ICT to help promote equality of opportunity for disabled people, through enhanced access to information and services, and improved communication. However, there is also a danger that exclusion can be introduced or exacerbated by particular decisions. For example, some disabled people may be unnecessarily excluded if a job specification requires the use of specific ICTs which have inherent accessibility problems, such as software that cannot be used with a screen reader, when the job could be done in other ways, without using that ICT.
NB Screen readers are dedicated text-to-speech software applications which enable blind people to use other software, such as word processing, database, spreadsheet and email applications, and web browsing software. Screen readers can also work with Braille display devices to allow the output of on-screen content in Braille.
In particular, there is an obligation to ensure that ICTs, including generic software, web sites and e-learning applications, are designed with accessibility in mind. The positive duty under the DDA 2005 requires this to be a proactive and anticipatory approach, rather than a reactive one. This means ensuring that accessibility considerations are of the highest prominence in specification, budgeting, procurement, development, evaluation, support and maintenance of ICTs provided by institutions for use by staff and students.
The General Duty places a responsibility on public authorities to take account of disabled persons' disabilities "even where that involves treating disabled persons more favourably than other persons" (Para 2.13). In other words, the amended DDA "does not prohibit or restrict positive discrimination in favour of disabled people in any way" (Para 2.15).
As such, amendments to existing practice may need to be supplemented by "additional dedicated services" (Para 2.16). For example, in addition to encouraging attendance of general ICT induction programmes, HEIs/Colleges may need to provide specific training for disabled staff and students on use of the assistive technologies provided by the HEI/College.
The Code also states that, where an alternative dedicated service is provided for disabled people, this should be provided as a choice, not as an "enforced, segregated provision".
The General Duty sets out obligations of organisations to have "due regard to the need to eliminate harassment of disabled persons that is related to their disabilities" (para 2.22). At first glance, it may be difficult to establish the relevance of this aspect of the duty to ICT provision. However, there is potential relevance in that an institution's/college's ICT support staff should ensure that disabled staff and students do not encounter undue harassment, regardless of the nature or frequency of any requests they make for assistance.
The General Duty requires public authorities "to have due regard to the need to promote positive attitudes towards disabled people" (para 2.25).
In an ICT context, this could be translated as the involvement of disabled people as advisors throughout the design and development stages of ICT projects, such that not only does the advice provided by disabled people inform the project, but that others involved in the project develop an awareness and understanding of the capabilities and opinions of disabled people with respect to ICT. For example, a positive step would be to ensure that disabled people are included in user personae and scenarios when developing specifications for a new ICT.
The Code also points out that conformance with the DDA should not be cited as the reason behind closure or withdrawal of a service, noting that: "the Disability Discrimination Act would not require the closure of any service, as the duty to make adjustments requires only what is 'reasonable'". This would apply to any ICT that institutions/colleges might have previously considered withdrawing on accessibility grounds.
NB The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) provides more information on definitions of "reasonable" in the context of service provision, in: What are Reasonable Adjustments? http://www.drc-gb.org/businessandservices/bizdetails.asp?id=190&title=bs
The General Duty requires institutions "to have due regard to the need to encourage participation by disabled people in public life" (para 2.27).
An ICT-related example might be to ensure that committees responsible for devising and implementing ICT-related strategies include at least one disabled person, who has an influence on decision making at least equal to the other committee members.
Next page - 4: Specific Duties.