Changing our Minds
There were a few strands of learning this week, one from the workshop content and another from being able to observe and be around the group. The workshop content also prompted reflective questions on how we intentionally design for accessibility-- and I also had the opportunity to reflect on how we can set the space for learning in future.
The Space
Rather than committing the whole schedule to presenter time-- this workshop allowed more time for reflective questions and answers. The participants asked questions and shared their own reflections with the presenter on accessibility and what it brought up for them in their own organisational context.
Our facilitator for the day, Elisabeth, was also someone with lived experience of the topic she was talking to the group about. This offered an opportunity to further contextualise the subject matter as a “human” challenge as well as a technological one; the workshop gave so much information on specific tools and guidance with which the group could go away and test or include in their own strategic planning.
However, the opportunity to hear the more human barriers and challenges from Elisabeth helped to connect the dots and catalyse the reflections on where challenges we might not be aware of exist in our own organisational context as well as the groups.
The Subject Matter- Accessibility
Having had the chance to prepare for the workshop in advance with the help of Elisabeth, I’d already started to reflect on accessibility being a core principle for designing future Lab interactions in last week's weeknotes.
Thinking about accessibility in a broader sense, and how it can be a valuable tool for overcoming physical and cultural barriers has been something that I have tried to consciously build in more to future content for the programme.
There was more that we learnt and observed from the workshop itself:
Attitudes to disability and the cultural barriers to overcome in tandem to designing accessible content.
How reframing the challenge of user research and testing-- from accessibility to inclusivity can create outcomes better than the norm.
Where to go to think about basics or fundamentals for making change-- something which can be impacted by cost but also something which is also very much in reach if we are to start making change.
We heard some of the statistics and case study examples around cultural challenges related to accessibility-- according to the facilitators presentation, nearly 50% of disabled people don’t feel valued by society. This, combined with a prevailing attitude within society that disabilities are a minority occurrence in the population-- or that the term disability only really applies to a small select part of our society means there is a huge gap to overcome to create enabling conditions for accessibility. It can clearly be something which escapes our mind-- even in contexts where we are thinking about designing technologies to support people or be “user-friendly”.
An interesting exercise put forward by Elisabeth, asked us to imagine a world where society was designed for a population who were-- as an example-- all needing to use wheelchairs. What would this world look like and what would become the new physical norms in that space?
A reflection from the group concerned how, even with the intention of setting out to accommodate or be as inclusive as possible to multiple divergent access needs-- a key constraint might be in having the funds to do so well. For example, being able to pay for transcription services or live captioning services might be a barrier that inhibits certain organisations from being the accessible service they aspire to be.
In thinking about how there are societal norms, assumptions or unintentional barriers being put in place-- Elisabeth asked the group (and us all attending the session) to consider how society can potentially “disable” people. Creating societal barriers which undermine the ability of disabled people to thrive or engage in services or with content. For example, not providing alternative means to access certain online content leads to the exclusion of individuals who have a disability.
Some of our organisations support directly, or work to provide enabling environments for disabled people. During the session, even with these societal landscape challenges in mind, there was still opportunity to identify areas where changes could be made. Such as the use of forms and feedback for accessing the services they provide.
Through Elisabeth’s facilitation, the group session slowed down our thinking and reflected the context in which the challenge of accessibility presents itself in different ways. The session helped us all to consider wider structural barriers-- but also to identify where we may be missing opportunities to make changes before defaulting to introducing something new. This happens often with adding technological solutions to challenges where variety is required over specialisation.
Reframing the challenge of accessibility into thinking more about “inclusivity'' gave the group time to think about what procedures, tools or resources were within their ability to influence and change-- before exploring later what technologies, resources and tools existed externally.
Interestingly, the case was made to us that in fact, more inclusive design can result in outcomes that are often better than the norm. As well as the cost of organisations not thinking about the “purple pound” "purple pound"-- a link to an article explaining what this term means-- the workshop told us that one in five people are disabled. This means “inclusivity” needs to be a fundamental pillar of any innovation or technological solution they may be implementing or exploring.
The design approach of iterative testing and exploring user needs also compliments an inclusive approach to future community technologies that are being sought to be provided by organisations within the Design Lab-- through this process, we learnt that this cumulative approach to accessibility helps to constantly update live services to meet a variety of needs.
In reframing the challenge of accessibility to “inclusivity” in design of future infrastructure technologies, the group reflected in the discussion that this is something which means much more than just being compliant with accessibility governance and legislation. An overarching message to take forward in thinking about future robust infrastructures might be to change the assumptions we have that an individual doesn’t have access needs until they tell you they do. Rather, our emergent infrastructure and design should be operating on the assumption that people do have access needs and will therefore require that flexibility in design and implementation.
On where to go in the immediacy to make content more accessible, the workshop provided lots of examples in relation to online content-- such as using logical headings, use of plain english and sentence structure, links, images and colour formatting. A comprehensive list of tools and advice for how to make changes to how we publish, compose and share content-- or how we can enable more inclusive processes for individuals to access services were provided. All of which can be easily taken as a self-assessment guide to test just how accessible we are making things we publish for different audiences.
Changing our own minds
Within the planning for future Design Lab structure, I’ve also been reflecting on how the accessibility workshop can help influence how we in Careful Industries can create an inclusive environment. This week I also had the chance to speak with someone from the Human Learning Systems community which has influenced some of our planning for structuring the Lab.
Now that we’re in a position where we have met each of the organisation's members, have had time together in workshops and have generally got to know one another, our workshop structure will focus on how we can identify and work through the challenges shared by participants (and identifying where they are shared challenges). After this we can then start to join up these areas of interest and provide a structure for working through them together for the programme.
Part of this involves creating an environment where we are able to “change our minds”-- for me as a facilitator on the program wanting to adapt and respond to the needs of programme participants. Also, for the programme participants themselves to have the space to change their own minds about the challenges and subsequent needs and solutions they could explore throughout the programme.
The conversation with John from the HLS community brought to mind the Iceberg model in systems thinking-- where often, we are responding to “problems” which are patterns on the surface obscuring more structural or potentially impactful challenges beneath. These underlying structures have the greater potential to make positive change. In terms of identifying the support which might be more sustainable for emerging infrastructure in the longer term, getting to a place where we can surface and explore these structural challenges could help these organisations more and enable a more “inclusive” programme structure.
The challenge again is time-- however, investing in this time means that changing our minds, or being able to change our minds, is a good thing and is something the Lab should intentionally build in.
Should we do workshops differently then?
Where there have been some differences of opinion about the “usefulness” of workshops on the programme, it feels like this week we have reflected that it is the workshop structure that makes the difference and allows for them to feel more valuable.
No one has commented negatively on the workshops so far-- what we are grasping with is the balance between addressing the presenting needs of our audience as well as gently probing for insights into how exploring these topics could elicit moments of reflection.
In previous posts we have talked about how some programme participants have enjoyed the content but feel it is no replacement for “doing and testing”-- this week, some of our feedback has reflected that the discussion and content we include in workshops goes some way to feeling “tangible” for taking back to individual organisational contexts.
In order to improve future Design Lab workshops then, there are some points we are going to consider for planning:
Ask about the challenges first-- before we introduce a topic, getting that feedback on what parts of the topic are causing challenges or are of particular interest can help balance making the workshop reflective (to allow for moments where our thinking can shift), as well as providing those tangible opportunities to support the challenges that are being presented.
Work with collaborators who can balance providing expertise with experience around the topics we explore where possible-- particularly for the Lab where we can find other Third Sector organisations who have already grappled with the complexity of these themes.
Not assuming that a group is a “team”- the conversation with John from the HLS community highlighted that a group of people brought together is not necessarily a team; and in order to work through any complex challenge during the programme, creating a sense of team with shared mission and value would be highly beneficial for maximising what we can learn during the programme. What are we doing next?
Next week “the Lab” is actually on holiday… but after the break we will be aiming to run the first of our co-design sessions as well as matching organisations with mentors to explore their more bespoke areas of interest for the programme.
Our next workshop will be on a very important topic-- Data privacy and Data Security. A subject which several of the programme group have highlighted as very important to them. We’re looking forward to sharing what we learn from the next workshop and Lab interactions to come.
“Rethinking our position”
On changing our minds- Episode #112 of the Knowledge Project gives a really interesting insight as to why organisations should not just invest time in thinking, but also on “rethinking our position”.
It’s been really helpful to listen to whilst thinking through and remaking plans for the Design Lab. For some people, it might feel like wasted time to go back and reflect on decisions we have already made. The process of “thinking” and “re-thinking” has enormous benefit for reviewing and strengthening organisational cultures and practise.