Co-design research Two: Accessibility Barriers and Regulatory Approaches for Digital Technologies

Between April and May 2024, the Regulating the Digital Domain (RtDD) team continued work with community co-researchers with lived experience of disability to address project challenges.

Our approach

Recognizing that “nothing about us without us” is more than a slogan (and in authentic inclusive practice “nothing without us”), we sought to empower individuals as experts, drawing on their lived experiences to critique and contribute to a process often inaccessible to them. Our objectives were to: empower experts in sharing issues and challenges relevant to the project challenges, engage experts in conversations stemming from their issues and challenges, and encourage experts to review the collective research results.

First, we created three questions that encompassed the six project challenges:

1. What specific problems have you faced using digital tools or systems like computers, things with screens & buttons or apps on phone?
2. Think about new technologies or apps that didn’t work well for you. What rules should have been in place to make them more accessible?
3. Can you see any problems with rules to make things accessible that don’t say how to do it?

Next, we chose to leverage CANVAS a Learning Management System (LMS) which hosts the RtDD community to support participants in preparing for synchronous discussions about standards development, document the discussions, and reviewing their contributions.

Finally, we chose the research method 1-2-4-All to foster discussion from small groups to progressively larger groups as a way to support each co-researcher having an opportunity to share and discuss.

Recruitment and compensation

We recruited co-researchers from our community and list of interested co-researchers. We identified 16 co-researchers out of 149 applicants that would provide a variety of access needs, experiences, languages, regions, and ages. Co-researchers were compensated $250 CAD for their expertise.

The process

The co-research activities were both synchronous and asynchronous online activities. The process was divided into three online sessions over six weeks:

1. Learning, Thinking and sharing: Individually identify detailed experiences within challenges and respond to seed questions in LMS asynchronously

   • synchronous intro to co-design and Canvas learning management system (LMS)
   • Opportunity to learn about the project, standards and standards development
   • respond to questions asynchronously in preparation for discussions.

2. Discussing: expand identified experiences with co-research team and continue 1-2-4-All process synchronously with co-researchers online.

   • synchronous discussion activities through Zoom video communication software. Activities used the 1-2-4-All format.

3. Analysis and review: respond to synthesized output of co-research content. Through the LMS participants were given the opportunity to asynchronously read through the collective content and offer corrections, feedback and additional information as required.

   • asynchronous activities through Canvas LMS for co-researchers to review the contributions and analysis of sessions 1 and 2.

The LMS Modules

Developed by the IDRC team, the modules were designed to support asynchronous group participation involving co-researchers across Canada. When required IDRC facilitators worked one-on-one with participants to support contribution. Three sections in Canvas, one for each session.

1-2-4-All

The approach of a 1-2-4-All format is to start activities with small groups and increase the group size gradually until everyone is together, building out thinking and ideas as the group grows. For this co-design we start by asking co-researchers to think about the three questions individually and document their thoughts on Canvas. We then met synchronously on Zoom and in Zoom breakout rooms for co-researchers to share their thoughts in pairs, groups of four and finally all together in one group. During the synchronous sessions facilitators took notes to capture new information and evolving ideas.

Analysis and review

The IDRC team then summarized the content generated by the co-researchers on Canvas and during the synchronous sessions and looped co-researchers back into the process to review the summarized information. The summarized information was uploaded to Canvas and organized in groups based on each prompt question. Co-researchers were asked, “Is your perspective is included and accurately represented in the summaries. If it is not, then let us know in the response areas what you think should change or be added” and given opportunity using a quiz format to respond to each section of the analysis.

Outcomes and future directions

Over twenty themes surfaced from the discussion content generated by the co-researchers. We organized these themes under the project’s six major project challenges.

Outcomes from the co-research include emphasis on involving users with disabilities in the development process to ensure inclusivity and humanizing accessibility to promote empathy among developers. Key themes that emerged include the need for adaptable technology, improved web accessibility, practical solutions, and continuous innovation.

Co-researchers highlighted the need for clear and enforceable accessibility laws, regular updates to standards, and the integration of accessibility into procurement contracts. Co-researchers emphasised the need for cultural shifts within organizations to prioritize accessibility and encourages creative solutions while maintaining compliance with standards.

Co-design research One: The Standards Development Game