WEBVTT 00:00:00.710 --> 00:00:03.700 align:center ERIC TREKELL: Thank you all for joining us today. 00:00:03.700 --> 00:00:05.030 align:center My name is Eric Trekell. 00:00:05.030 --> 00:00:07.600 align:center I'm with the DO-IT center at the University of Washington. 00:00:07.600 --> 00:00:10.480 align:center And I'm joined today by my DO-IT colleagues, Andrea Mano 00:00:10.480 --> 00:00:12.310 align:center and Wendy Huang. 00:00:12.310 --> 00:00:15.970 align:center Dr. Brianna Blaser will be with us in a few minutes, as well. 00:00:15.970 --> 00:00:18.700 align:center Our presenters today are Dr. Avery Mack and Dr. Emma 00:00:18.700 --> 00:00:19.870 align:center McDonnell. 00:00:19.870 --> 00:00:22.930 align:center And this webinar is sponsored by the Alliance 00:00:22.930 --> 00:00:26.110 align:center for Identity Inclusive Computing, also known 00:00:26.110 --> 00:00:30.770 align:center as AiiCE, National Science Foundation 2118453. 00:00:30.770 --> 00:00:33.425 align:center The DO-IT is a member of the alliance. 00:00:33.425 --> 00:00:35.800 align:center As we begin, I'd like to share some information regarding 00:00:35.800 --> 00:00:37.670 align:center accessibility for today's meeting. 00:00:37.670 --> 00:00:41.770 align:center This information will also be posted periodically in the chat. 00:00:41.770 --> 00:00:43.630 align:center We are recording this meeting. 00:00:43.630 --> 00:00:45.820 align:center This meeting will be made available 00:00:45.820 --> 00:00:49.155 align:center once it's been processed for accessibility 00:00:49.155 --> 00:00:50.530 align:center and shared out with everybody who 00:00:50.530 --> 00:00:53.800 align:center registered for the conference or for this webinar. 00:00:53.800 --> 00:00:56.820 align:center Live transcriptions are automatic. 00:00:56.820 --> 00:01:00.250 align:center You can enable them by using the CC button in Zoom. 00:01:00.250 --> 00:01:04.910 align:center There is also a real-time captions link part. 00:01:04.910 --> 00:01:06.320 align:center We'll post that periodically. 00:01:06.320 --> 00:01:12.280 align:center But for now, you can, in fact, see the link in the QR code 00:01:12.280 --> 00:01:13.370 align:center on the screen. 00:01:13.370 --> 00:01:15.890 align:center We also have ASL interpreters today. 00:01:15.890 --> 00:01:18.040 align:center If you need the multi-pin feature 00:01:18.040 --> 00:01:21.250 align:center to pin an ASL interpreter, please request multi-pin 00:01:21.250 --> 00:01:25.240 align:center by sending a message in chat to one of my colleagues, Andrea, 00:01:25.240 --> 00:01:27.430 align:center Wendy, or to myself. 00:01:27.430 --> 00:01:29.920 align:center And now, I'd like to introduce and make 00:01:29.920 --> 00:01:32.060 align:center a brief introduction of our presenters. 00:01:32.060 --> 00:01:35.950 align:center Dr. Kelly Avery Mack has a PhD in computer science 00:01:35.950 --> 00:01:37.870 align:center from the University of Washington 00:01:37.870 --> 00:01:41.110 align:center and a BS in computer science from the University of Illinois 00:01:41.110 --> 00:01:42.640 align:center at Urbana-Champaign. 00:01:42.640 --> 00:01:44.920 align:center Their current work focuses on representation 00:01:44.920 --> 00:01:47.740 align:center of people with disabilities in digital technologies, 00:01:47.740 --> 00:01:50.950 align:center like avatars and generative AI tools, 00:01:50.950 --> 00:01:55.090 align:center and in how to support people with fluctuating access needs. 00:01:55.090 --> 00:01:58.030 align:center That is, people, for example, with neurodivergent, chronic, 00:01:58.030 --> 00:01:59.690 align:center or mental health conditions. 00:01:59.690 --> 00:02:03.730 align:center Dr. Emma McDonnell has a PhD in human-centered design 00:02:03.730 --> 00:02:08.229 align:center and engineering from the University of Washington, 00:02:08.229 --> 00:02:10.180 align:center as well as a graduate certificate 00:02:10.180 --> 00:02:13.100 align:center in disability studies. 00:02:13.100 --> 00:02:15.530 align:center Dr. McDonnell has a BS in computer science 00:02:15.530 --> 00:02:16.980 align:center from Northwestern as well. 00:02:16.980 --> 00:02:19.610 align:center Her research practice brings critical perspectives 00:02:19.610 --> 00:02:21.980 align:center from disability studies and activism 00:02:21.980 --> 00:02:26.090 align:center to the design of technology, envisioning and designing ways 00:02:26.090 --> 00:02:29.240 align:center that technology could support a future where access 00:02:29.240 --> 00:02:31.460 align:center is a collective responsibility. 00:02:31.460 --> 00:02:33.830 align:center And so, with that, I will turn it over 00:02:33.830 --> 00:02:36.850 align:center to Dr. McDonnell and Dr. Mack. 00:02:36.850 --> 00:02:38.100 align:center EMMA MCDONNELL: Thank you all. 00:02:38.100 --> 00:02:42.170 align:center I'm going to start sharing our screen here. 00:02:42.170 --> 00:02:44.970 align:center And share. 00:02:44.970 --> 00:02:48.090 align:center You should be seeing my slides. 00:02:48.090 --> 00:02:49.830 align:center Let me grab one more thing on my side, 00:02:49.830 --> 00:02:51.580 align:center and we'll get this talk going. 00:02:51.580 --> 00:02:53.670 align:center I'm also going to drop a link in the chat, which 00:02:53.670 --> 00:02:55.680 align:center is a link to our slides, if it would be helpful 00:02:55.680 --> 00:02:58.700 align:center for you to be able to see those and follow along. 00:03:02.490 --> 00:03:03.900 align:center All right. 00:03:03.900 --> 00:03:05.650 align:center Thank you, everybody, for joining us. 00:03:05.650 --> 00:03:07.560 align:center This is such a lovely group. 00:03:07.560 --> 00:03:10.427 align:center Let's get this show on the road. 00:03:10.427 --> 00:03:12.010 align:center Thank you for the introductions, Eric. 00:03:12.010 --> 00:03:14.440 align:center And this talk is going to be in two parts. 00:03:14.440 --> 00:03:16.740 align:center I'm going to get us started talking about disability 00:03:16.740 --> 00:03:18.450 align:center history for technologists. 00:03:18.450 --> 00:03:20.220 align:center And then, Avery is going to finish up 00:03:20.220 --> 00:03:25.075 align:center with some best practices for accessible presentation. 00:03:25.075 --> 00:03:26.700 align:center An overview of what we're going to talk 00:03:26.700 --> 00:03:31.500 align:center about, language and disability, history of eugenics, disability 00:03:31.500 --> 00:03:33.105 align:center rights, and disability justice. 00:03:33.105 --> 00:03:35.730 align:center And before I jump in, I want to give a little bit of motivation 00:03:35.730 --> 00:03:36.542 align:center for this talk. 00:03:36.542 --> 00:03:39.000 align:center One of the things that I've had the privilege to learn here 00:03:39.000 --> 00:03:42.630 align:center at UW is both how to design accessible technologies 00:03:42.630 --> 00:03:45.010 align:center and how to think critically about disability. 00:03:45.010 --> 00:03:46.890 align:center And one of the things I have noticed 00:03:46.890 --> 00:03:51.270 align:center is so critical is that having a critical perspective 00:03:51.270 --> 00:03:54.120 align:center in disability studies helps me to better identify 00:03:54.120 --> 00:03:56.520 align:center what kinds of technologies I'd like to design 00:03:56.520 --> 00:03:59.560 align:center and how to best respectfully engage with communities. 00:03:59.560 --> 00:04:01.740 align:center This is not going to be a lecture that 00:04:01.740 --> 00:04:05.230 align:center can cover all of the entire vast and productive field 00:04:05.230 --> 00:04:08.080 align:center of disability studies, but is designed to give you 00:04:08.080 --> 00:04:09.970 align:center a foothold, give you some of the things 00:04:09.970 --> 00:04:12.850 align:center that I think are the easier stumbling blocks to avoid, 00:04:12.850 --> 00:04:15.790 align:center and places where, if you're curious and interested, 00:04:15.790 --> 00:04:18.160 align:center you can follow this into your own research 00:04:18.160 --> 00:04:19.779 align:center and thinking going forward. 00:04:19.779 --> 00:04:22.690 align:center So we're going to start with some basics around language 00:04:22.690 --> 00:04:23.710 align:center and disability. 00:04:23.710 --> 00:04:26.338 align:center And why are we talking about language and disability? 00:04:26.338 --> 00:04:27.880 align:center Because one of the things that people 00:04:27.880 --> 00:04:29.170 align:center often notice when they start trying 00:04:29.170 --> 00:04:30.878 align:center to work in cases of disability is that it 00:04:30.878 --> 00:04:32.390 align:center can be hard to talk about. 00:04:32.390 --> 00:04:33.820 align:center There's a lot of different words, 00:04:33.820 --> 00:04:37.030 align:center words with different community preferences, 00:04:37.030 --> 00:04:39.457 align:center words with harmful histories, and it matters. 00:04:39.457 --> 00:04:41.290 align:center Language has been a way that disabled people 00:04:41.290 --> 00:04:42.920 align:center have been harmed over time. 00:04:42.920 --> 00:04:44.860 align:center So it's important that we have the lingo 00:04:44.860 --> 00:04:47.500 align:center to be able to jump into conversations. 00:04:47.500 --> 00:04:50.030 align:center We'll start with, is it person-- 00:04:50.030 --> 00:04:52.720 align:center with a discussion of person first versus identity 00:04:52.720 --> 00:04:53.870 align:center first language. 00:04:53.870 --> 00:04:56.780 align:center How do you talk about somebody with a disability? 00:04:56.780 --> 00:04:59.410 align:center Is it person first, they're a person with a disability, 00:04:59.410 --> 00:05:02.980 align:center or is it identity first, are they a disabled person? 00:05:02.980 --> 00:05:05.550 align:center There has been long-standing debate over this. 00:05:05.550 --> 00:05:08.520 align:center Person first does have some history coming from parents 00:05:08.520 --> 00:05:10.160 align:center and disability professionals. 00:05:10.160 --> 00:05:12.660 align:center A lot of the people who have been emphasizing that we should 00:05:12.660 --> 00:05:14.700 align:center say people with disabilities as a way 00:05:14.700 --> 00:05:17.850 align:center to recognize that disabled people are people 00:05:17.850 --> 00:05:22.510 align:center have been parents and teaching and helping professionals. 00:05:22.510 --> 00:05:24.180 align:center And there's many disabled people who 00:05:24.180 --> 00:05:27.090 align:center soundly reject person first language, insisting 00:05:27.090 --> 00:05:29.220 align:center that if you have to say person with a disability 00:05:29.220 --> 00:05:33.813 align:center to remember that I'm a person, that language switch wasn't 00:05:33.813 --> 00:05:34.480 align:center going to fix it. 00:05:34.480 --> 00:05:37.320 align:center There's a deeper problem in the woodwork there, 00:05:37.320 --> 00:05:40.210 align:center and insist that disability is part of an identity. 00:05:40.210 --> 00:05:42.300 align:center You wouldn't call me a person with womanness. 00:05:42.300 --> 00:05:43.680 align:center You'd call me a woman. 00:05:43.680 --> 00:05:47.310 align:center So you would call me a disabled person. 00:05:47.310 --> 00:05:49.020 align:center I do also really like to note, though, 00:05:49.020 --> 00:05:51.450 align:center that identity for person first language 00:05:51.450 --> 00:05:54.150 align:center has a history among some self self-advocates 00:05:54.150 --> 00:05:56.370 align:center with intellectual and developmental disabilities, 00:05:56.370 --> 00:05:59.730 align:center many of whom experienced the world as a world that does not 00:05:59.730 --> 00:06:01.710 align:center treat them like a person. 00:06:01.710 --> 00:06:03.790 align:center So if you're working with those communities, 00:06:03.790 --> 00:06:06.860 align:center it might be most appropriate to use person first language. 00:06:06.860 --> 00:06:08.500 align:center And also, there are some disabilities 00:06:08.500 --> 00:06:11.330 align:center that don't play nicely with identity first language. 00:06:11.330 --> 00:06:14.200 align:center There isn't an adjective form of muscular dystrophy, 00:06:14.200 --> 00:06:17.710 align:center so it's not offensive to say, person with muscular dystrophy. 00:06:17.710 --> 00:06:20.290 align:center This is the first language stumbling block 00:06:20.290 --> 00:06:21.920 align:center that I see a lot of people run into, 00:06:21.920 --> 00:06:24.910 align:center so it's nice to address up top. 00:06:24.910 --> 00:06:27.800 align:center Another word that-- another question, 00:06:27.800 --> 00:06:29.650 align:center if we figured out how we might refer 00:06:29.650 --> 00:06:32.320 align:center to people with disabilities, you will often 00:06:32.320 --> 00:06:35.710 align:center hear me use a mix with a tendency 00:06:35.710 --> 00:06:37.270 align:center towards disabled person, but also 00:06:37.270 --> 00:06:39.860 align:center switch it up depending on the community I'm talking to. 00:06:39.860 --> 00:06:42.110 align:center But what do we call those people without disabilities? 00:06:42.110 --> 00:06:45.330 align:center Is it able-bodied, or is it non-disabled person? 00:06:45.330 --> 00:06:47.830 align:center For a long time, you would refer to non-disabled-- to people 00:06:47.830 --> 00:06:50.270 align:center who did not have disabilities as able-bodied, 00:06:50.270 --> 00:06:52.180 align:center but in recent years, non-disabled 00:06:52.180 --> 00:06:53.680 align:center is increasingly preferred. 00:06:53.680 --> 00:06:58.452 align:center Because it doesn't imply that disability is only bodily. 00:06:58.452 --> 00:07:00.760 align:center If you're saying able-bodied, what about people 00:07:00.760 --> 00:07:02.990 align:center whose disabilities are primarily mental? 00:07:02.990 --> 00:07:06.130 align:center Also, a cool linguistic trick of non-disabled 00:07:06.130 --> 00:07:08.920 align:center is that it makes disabled the default 00:07:08.920 --> 00:07:11.620 align:center and not disabled the condition that we have to name. 00:07:11.620 --> 00:07:14.230 align:center That comes from a history of disability scholars such as Simi 00:07:14.230 --> 00:07:15.770 align:center Linton. 00:07:15.770 --> 00:07:19.040 align:center A final piece of language we'll touch on for today's talk 00:07:19.040 --> 00:07:20.490 align:center is the word Crip. 00:07:20.490 --> 00:07:23.120 align:center It's a word that's in the process of being reclaimed 00:07:23.120 --> 00:07:25.070 align:center by the community, but has a history 00:07:25.070 --> 00:07:26.780 align:center of being an offensive slur. 00:07:26.780 --> 00:07:31.040 align:center It's not one for non-disabled people to use casually. 00:07:31.040 --> 00:07:33.350 align:center Don't just throw it around if that's not something 00:07:33.350 --> 00:07:35.180 align:center that you're identifying with. 00:07:35.180 --> 00:07:38.270 align:center But for things like Crip Theory or Crip time, 00:07:38.270 --> 00:07:41.840 align:center which are disability theory words, or official media names, 00:07:41.840 --> 00:07:43.970 align:center like Crip Camp, it is not a word that you 00:07:43.970 --> 00:07:46.490 align:center need to avoid naming in naming these media. 00:07:46.490 --> 00:07:49.800 align:center It's OK to say in its formal context. 00:07:49.800 --> 00:07:54.390 align:center I also want to note that not everybody loves the word Crip. 00:07:54.390 --> 00:07:57.463 align:center Especially, it's been a term primarily used 00:07:57.463 --> 00:07:59.130 align:center by white disabled communities, and there 00:07:59.130 --> 00:08:01.200 align:center are some within Black disability communities 00:08:01.200 --> 00:08:05.010 align:center that don't see the use of a word that has primarily gang 00:08:05.010 --> 00:08:07.110 align:center connotations in a lot of communities 00:08:07.110 --> 00:08:09.100 align:center as one that they are interested in reclaiming, 00:08:09.100 --> 00:08:12.550 align:center and white disabled communities don't always listen as well. 00:08:12.550 --> 00:08:15.510 align:center So I think it's worth knowing because it's 00:08:15.510 --> 00:08:17.700 align:center a word you'll definitely hear in disability spaces 00:08:17.700 --> 00:08:20.160 align:center and it's not an uncomplicated one. 00:08:20.160 --> 00:08:23.040 align:center There is plenty more disability language we could talk about, 00:08:23.040 --> 00:08:24.720 align:center but these are the ones that I think 00:08:24.720 --> 00:08:26.770 align:center are entry points into a conversation. 00:08:26.770 --> 00:08:29.160 align:center And when we get to questions at the end of the talk, 00:08:29.160 --> 00:08:31.890 align:center I do want to just let everybody know we're going to do questions 00:08:31.890 --> 00:08:35.070 align:center after Avery and I both present, so if you have questions for me, 00:08:35.070 --> 00:08:37.320 align:center it might be good to write them down along the way. 00:08:37.320 --> 00:08:39.840 align:center So this is language we're going to touch on now. 00:08:39.840 --> 00:08:43.080 align:center And we're going to step into, now, eugenics. 00:08:43.080 --> 00:08:46.670 align:center And this is part of our run through disability history. 00:08:46.670 --> 00:08:50.190 align:center I do want to flag for folks as I jump into history of eugenics 00:08:50.190 --> 00:08:52.170 align:center that this is not a happy history. 00:08:52.170 --> 00:08:55.050 align:center There are some pretty horrible and grotesque details 00:08:55.050 --> 00:08:56.050 align:center that come into eugenics. 00:08:56.050 --> 00:08:59.310 align:center I'm not going to show anything that is intentionally 00:08:59.310 --> 00:09:01.785 align:center provocative or exploitative, but I 00:09:01.785 --> 00:09:05.440 align:center am going to be pretty honest about this history. 00:09:05.440 --> 00:09:07.700 align:center So what is eugenics? 00:09:07.700 --> 00:09:10.580 align:center Eugenics is a term that means well-born. 00:09:10.580 --> 00:09:13.850 align:center It was coined by Sir Francis Galton in the late 1800s. 00:09:13.850 --> 00:09:17.110 align:center And it's the idea that science can and should 00:09:17.110 --> 00:09:19.930 align:center engineer a master future race. 00:09:19.930 --> 00:09:23.710 align:center You can hear in how I have provided that definition that 00:09:23.710 --> 00:09:29.110 align:center maybe it's not a neutral thing, but eugenics was the forefront 00:09:29.110 --> 00:09:31.910 align:center of science in the early 1800s. 00:09:31.910 --> 00:09:34.510 align:center Where did it-- sorry, not in the early 1800s. 00:09:34.510 --> 00:09:36.830 align:center The late 1800s and early 1900s. 00:09:36.830 --> 00:09:40.570 align:center But its roots come from the early 1800s. 00:09:40.570 --> 00:09:44.050 align:center A lot of the roots of eugenics come from the scientific racism 00:09:44.050 --> 00:09:45.850 align:center that, particularly in the United States, 00:09:45.850 --> 00:09:47.960 align:center was used to justify slavery. 00:09:47.960 --> 00:09:51.370 align:center Some of the most clear examples of the ways that science 00:09:51.370 --> 00:09:54.100 align:center collaborates to enforce discrimination against people 00:09:54.100 --> 00:09:57.850 align:center on basis of race and disability is through a diagnosis that was 00:09:57.850 --> 00:10:01.720 align:center in medical textbooks through the 1800s known as drapetomania, 00:10:01.720 --> 00:10:07.190 align:center which was the desire to escape slavery being presented 00:10:07.190 --> 00:10:09.000 align:center as a mental illness. 00:10:09.000 --> 00:10:11.690 align:center People who had escaped slavery were then 00:10:11.690 --> 00:10:15.980 align:center institutionalized as insane for wanting to escape 00:10:15.980 --> 00:10:17.970 align:center such a heinous institution. 00:10:17.970 --> 00:10:20.400 align:center But doctors named this as a compulsion. 00:10:20.400 --> 00:10:22.460 align:center They used the language of mental health 00:10:22.460 --> 00:10:25.010 align:center to further enforce racism. 00:10:25.010 --> 00:10:28.448 align:center We also are playing with another root of science 00:10:28.448 --> 00:10:29.990 align:center at the time, which is the development 00:10:29.990 --> 00:10:34.280 align:center of the statistical ideas of normal. 00:10:34.280 --> 00:10:35.990 align:center Statistics feels like something that's 00:10:35.990 --> 00:10:38.130 align:center kind of background noise to many of us today. 00:10:38.130 --> 00:10:40.650 align:center It feels like a neutral science that we learn in class. 00:10:40.650 --> 00:10:44.600 align:center But when statistics hit the field in the 1800s-- 00:10:44.600 --> 00:10:48.620 align:center it was created as a scientific field in the 1830s in France-- 00:10:48.620 --> 00:10:51.710 align:center it had some pretty big social implications. 00:10:51.710 --> 00:10:54.140 align:center Prior to the ability to take a population, 00:10:54.140 --> 00:10:57.315 align:center measure it, and define who is and is not normal, 00:10:57.315 --> 00:10:58.940 align:center when people were thinking about ideals, 00:10:58.940 --> 00:11:03.590 align:center they were often thinking about neoclassical Greek ideals. 00:11:03.590 --> 00:11:05.750 align:center Lennard Davis is a disability studies scholar 00:11:05.750 --> 00:11:07.740 align:center who has written on this extensively. 00:11:07.740 --> 00:11:11.160 align:center But we're thinking about an ideal person, 00:11:11.160 --> 00:11:13.170 align:center prior to the ability to measure and name 00:11:13.170 --> 00:11:16.170 align:center what is ideal, would be a Greek goddess, 00:11:16.170 --> 00:11:18.930 align:center and with the inherent understanding that no one can 00:11:18.930 --> 00:11:20.220 align:center be a Greek goddess. 00:11:20.220 --> 00:11:23.490 align:center But when we start to be able to measure people's heights, 00:11:23.490 --> 00:11:28.140 align:center people's weights, people's intelligence on a scale, 00:11:28.140 --> 00:11:31.620 align:center and we can say, ah, you are 2 standard deviations away 00:11:31.620 --> 00:11:34.320 align:center from normal people, we also start 00:11:34.320 --> 00:11:37.710 align:center to be able to have normal as an ideal somebody could achieve 00:11:37.710 --> 00:11:41.280 align:center and an abnormal as something we could identify and discriminate 00:11:41.280 --> 00:11:42.130 align:center against. 00:11:42.130 --> 00:11:44.130 align:center I have on the right side of the screen 00:11:44.130 --> 00:11:48.060 align:center a chart that shows different terms used in eugenics 00:11:48.060 --> 00:11:50.640 align:center to classify different people, idiot, 00:11:50.640 --> 00:11:54.180 align:center low-grade imbecile, medium imbecile, high-grade imbecile, 00:11:54.180 --> 00:11:55.210 align:center and moron. 00:11:55.210 --> 00:11:57.840 align:center These were actually associated with different IQ ranges 00:11:57.840 --> 00:12:00.180 align:center and used to determine how people who 00:12:00.180 --> 00:12:03.510 align:center were seen to be unintelligent were 00:12:03.510 --> 00:12:07.120 align:center put into different forms of institutionalization, 00:12:07.120 --> 00:12:10.020 align:center forced labor, and other forms of discrimination. 00:12:10.020 --> 00:12:12.700 align:center This is also another place where when we think about disability 00:12:12.700 --> 00:12:14.158 align:center language, these are words you might 00:12:14.158 --> 00:12:16.450 align:center hear all the time in day-to-day conversation, 00:12:16.450 --> 00:12:18.850 align:center but they really stand out as profoundly violent 00:12:18.850 --> 00:12:21.180 align:center towards disabled people in this kind of example. 00:12:24.460 --> 00:12:26.262 align:center As we move from ideal to average, 00:12:26.262 --> 00:12:27.970 align:center we've moved to being able to discriminate 00:12:27.970 --> 00:12:30.150 align:center against non-average people. 00:12:30.150 --> 00:12:31.900 align:center And I also want to highlight that eugenics 00:12:31.900 --> 00:12:33.410 align:center was legally protected. 00:12:33.410 --> 00:12:36.220 align:center It was the framework of scientific and legal thought 00:12:36.220 --> 00:12:40.030 align:center in early, especially America and Britain at the turn of the 20th 00:12:40.030 --> 00:12:40.960 align:center century. 00:12:40.960 --> 00:12:45.190 align:center In 1927, there was a Supreme Court case, Buck v Bell, 00:12:45.190 --> 00:12:49.480 align:center where a young woman, Carrie Buck, was forcibly sterilized 00:12:49.480 --> 00:12:50.930 align:center and challenged this. 00:12:50.930 --> 00:12:53.980 align:center But the Supreme Court justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, 00:12:53.980 --> 00:12:55.790 align:center ruled that it was allowed. 00:12:55.790 --> 00:12:58.330 align:center It was legally allowable within United States law 00:12:58.330 --> 00:13:01.660 align:center to have sterilized this woman because on basis 00:13:01.660 --> 00:13:03.460 align:center of her mental disability, stating 00:13:03.460 --> 00:13:06.510 align:center that three generations of imbeciles are enough. 00:13:06.510 --> 00:13:09.650 align:center This is still the legal standard in the United States law. 00:13:09.650 --> 00:13:12.430 align:center Buck v Bell has never been overturned. 00:13:12.430 --> 00:13:19.180 align:center Eugenics was a deeply violent control over disabled people. 00:13:19.180 --> 00:13:21.250 align:center But it's not our current science. 00:13:21.250 --> 00:13:23.050 align:center How did that come about? 00:13:23.050 --> 00:13:25.690 align:center It was the dominant scientific and political framework 00:13:25.690 --> 00:13:27.260 align:center through 1945. 00:13:27.260 --> 00:13:29.260 align:center You might have some guesses, seeing that year, 00:13:29.260 --> 00:13:31.900 align:center as to why eugenics came to an end. 00:13:31.900 --> 00:13:35.320 align:center Nazism borrowed eugenics from American scientists, 00:13:35.320 --> 00:13:38.060 align:center and it was a driving force of the Holocaust. 00:13:38.060 --> 00:13:40.900 align:center So after World War II, there was a move away 00:13:40.900 --> 00:13:42.840 align:center from public support of eugenics. 00:13:42.840 --> 00:13:46.360 align:center The Holocaust, in many ways, was the logical conclusion 00:13:46.360 --> 00:13:49.220 align:center of trying to engineer a master race. 00:13:49.220 --> 00:13:51.370 align:center And it was only after having to face 00:13:51.370 --> 00:13:55.090 align:center the atrocities of the Holocaust that eugenics became something 00:13:55.090 --> 00:13:59.410 align:center that American scientists, lawmakers, and popular figures 00:13:59.410 --> 00:14:01.400 align:center could not just support anymore. 00:14:01.400 --> 00:14:04.450 align:center We still see eugenics playing underneath a lot 00:14:04.450 --> 00:14:05.800 align:center of current politics. 00:14:05.800 --> 00:14:07.930 align:center It has in no way gone away. 00:14:07.930 --> 00:14:12.850 align:center But it has become the unpopular thing. 00:14:12.850 --> 00:14:15.760 align:center I teach this as part of this lesson for a really important 00:14:15.760 --> 00:14:18.430 align:center reason, partially because I hadn't heard about eugenics 00:14:18.430 --> 00:14:21.400 align:center until I started learning about disability studies. 00:14:21.400 --> 00:14:24.730 align:center And we often, as scientists-- 00:14:24.730 --> 00:14:27.970 align:center I had a strong engineering background 00:14:27.970 --> 00:14:30.340 align:center until I came here to UW and was in a more critical-- 00:14:30.340 --> 00:14:33.620 align:center in a more critical program, and also doing disability studies. 00:14:33.620 --> 00:14:36.190 align:center I had not been invited to see science as anything 00:14:36.190 --> 00:14:37.940 align:center other than a force for good. 00:14:37.940 --> 00:14:40.810 align:center We like to understand our science as a way 00:14:40.810 --> 00:14:43.830 align:center to make the world better through critical and thoughtful 00:14:43.830 --> 00:14:49.120 align:center experimentation that is rigorous and sound and free of ideology. 00:14:49.120 --> 00:14:50.960 align:center That has never been the case. 00:14:50.960 --> 00:14:53.560 align:center Science has always been deeply connected 00:14:53.560 --> 00:14:55.600 align:center to ideologies of power. 00:14:55.600 --> 00:14:58.960 align:center And I think it is our job as technologists 00:14:58.960 --> 00:15:02.890 align:center to understand the ideologies of power that we are working within 00:15:02.890 --> 00:15:05.290 align:center and to think critically about them. 00:15:05.290 --> 00:15:08.410 align:center In 1924, if I was doing my job thinking 00:15:08.410 --> 00:15:12.970 align:center about disability and technology, I would be doing eugenics. 00:15:12.970 --> 00:15:15.310 align:center I am happy, as a disabled person, 00:15:15.310 --> 00:15:17.065 align:center to be working in this field today. 00:15:17.065 --> 00:15:19.600 align:center I don't think that what we're doing is eugenics, 00:15:19.600 --> 00:15:23.110 align:center but I do think it is so important that this coming 00:15:23.110 --> 00:15:26.920 align:center generation of technologists knows how to think critically 00:15:26.920 --> 00:15:30.070 align:center about the frameworks we're working with, especially 00:15:30.070 --> 00:15:33.250 align:center when we're thinking about how we work with disabled people. 00:15:33.250 --> 00:15:36.310 align:center But how did we get from 1924, when 00:15:36.310 --> 00:15:38.440 align:center eugenics would have been the law of the land, 00:15:38.440 --> 00:15:41.680 align:center to 2024, when we're thinking about accessible and inclusive 00:15:41.680 --> 00:15:42.580 align:center design? 00:15:42.580 --> 00:15:46.130 align:center A lot of the answer to that is disability activism. 00:15:46.130 --> 00:15:48.670 align:center So now, we're going to step out of the eugenics portion 00:15:48.670 --> 00:15:52.450 align:center of today's talk into different disability activist movements, 00:15:52.450 --> 00:15:54.610 align:center beginning with disability rights. 00:15:54.610 --> 00:15:57.820 align:center The disability rights movement traditionally has its-- 00:15:57.820 --> 00:16:00.520 align:center stories have their roots in Berkeley, 00:16:00.520 --> 00:16:04.420 align:center California in the late 1960s. 00:16:04.420 --> 00:16:06.820 align:center After the polio virus left a large number 00:16:06.820 --> 00:16:09.280 align:center of young people disabled, those young people got to a point 00:16:09.280 --> 00:16:11.320 align:center where they were ready to go off to college, 00:16:11.320 --> 00:16:14.260 align:center and colleges were profoundly not ready 00:16:14.260 --> 00:16:17.230 align:center for disabled students, especially disabled students 00:16:17.230 --> 00:16:19.900 align:center with high support needs, such as ventilators. 00:16:19.900 --> 00:16:24.400 align:center Ed Roberts was one such student, and he had a really solid setup 00:16:24.400 --> 00:16:27.100 align:center with his mom, who was a fantastic advocate for him, 00:16:27.100 --> 00:16:29.720 align:center and he was a fantastic advocate for himself. 00:16:29.720 --> 00:16:32.920 align:center So they petitioned the University of California 00:16:32.920 --> 00:16:36.310 align:center at Berkeley to enroll Ed as a student on campus, 00:16:36.310 --> 00:16:38.557 align:center who got to go live on campus instead of having 00:16:38.557 --> 00:16:40.390 align:center to live at home with his parents and commute 00:16:40.390 --> 00:16:42.160 align:center into school, which at the time was 00:16:42.160 --> 00:16:45.220 align:center about the best to disabled college student could hope for. 00:16:45.220 --> 00:16:49.030 align:center And Ed Roberts and his mom were successful and actually managed 00:16:49.030 --> 00:16:54.530 align:center to set up a dorm in California Berkeley's hospital setup. 00:16:54.530 --> 00:16:57.190 align:center They were on the top floor of the Student Health Services, 00:16:57.190 --> 00:17:00.230 align:center living in a combination hospital/dorm. 00:17:00.230 --> 00:17:02.800 align:center And when you have one student in the setup, 00:17:02.800 --> 00:17:05.960 align:center suddenly, Berkeley could say yes to others who needed support. 00:17:05.960 --> 00:17:09.160 align:center And this top floor of Berkeley's Health Center 00:17:09.160 --> 00:17:13.030 align:center became a nexus of disability rights and disability thinking. 00:17:13.030 --> 00:17:17.630 align:center You're in Berkeley in the 1960s, revolution is in the air, 00:17:17.630 --> 00:17:20.270 align:center and suddenly, you get these young disabled people who are 00:17:20.270 --> 00:17:24.260 align:center able to come together and think together and reimagine together 00:17:24.260 --> 00:17:26.869 align:center what it would look like to be included in society. 00:17:26.869 --> 00:17:29.450 align:center They become a group known as the Rolling Quads 00:17:29.450 --> 00:17:31.790 align:center and do a ton of activism throughout Berkeley 00:17:31.790 --> 00:17:33.530 align:center while they're in school, and after. 00:17:33.530 --> 00:17:35.810 align:center They stay in the Berkeley area, many of them. 00:17:35.810 --> 00:17:38.870 align:center And a thing that comes directly out of this group 00:17:38.870 --> 00:17:41.240 align:center of disabled folks thinking about how they could make 00:17:41.240 --> 00:17:44.840 align:center their world more accessible, more livable, bigger, 00:17:44.840 --> 00:17:49.010 align:center is something known as Centers for Independent Living. 00:17:49.010 --> 00:17:50.990 align:center Many disabled activists came together 00:17:50.990 --> 00:17:55.250 align:center to say, hey, we actually know a lot about what kinds of supports 00:17:55.250 --> 00:17:58.052 align:center we need to be able to live independently in community. 00:17:58.052 --> 00:18:00.260 align:center I want to highlight that when folks say independently 00:18:00.260 --> 00:18:03.080 align:center in community, they don't say like-- that doesn't mean like, 00:18:03.080 --> 00:18:05.060 align:center a rugged individualist, I don't need any help, 00:18:05.060 --> 00:18:06.950 align:center but it means, how do I have the support 00:18:06.950 --> 00:18:08.460 align:center to be able to control my life? 00:18:08.460 --> 00:18:09.980 align:center How do I have autonomy? 00:18:09.980 --> 00:18:13.880 align:center And so folks, having coordinated services for themselves, went, 00:18:13.880 --> 00:18:16.100 align:center we could help others do this and came together 00:18:16.100 --> 00:18:18.590 align:center to create Centers for Independent Living, which 00:18:18.590 --> 00:18:20.070 align:center are still in existence today. 00:18:20.070 --> 00:18:21.463 align:center I think they're in all 50 states. 00:18:21.463 --> 00:18:22.880 align:center And Centers for Independent Living 00:18:22.880 --> 00:18:27.380 align:center are required to have at least 51% disabled employees making 00:18:27.380 --> 00:18:30.260 align:center the big decisions in these centers. 00:18:30.260 --> 00:18:32.820 align:center And this comes directly from disability activism. 00:18:32.820 --> 00:18:35.540 align:center One of the key places people are thinking 00:18:35.540 --> 00:18:38.000 align:center is, how do we get the resources and coordinate 00:18:38.000 --> 00:18:41.900 align:center the resources to be able to live in community on our own 00:18:41.900 --> 00:18:44.600 align:center with the appropriate supports? 00:18:44.600 --> 00:18:47.060 align:center And so Centers for Independent Living 00:18:47.060 --> 00:18:49.860 align:center start to make the world more accessible to disabled people. 00:18:49.860 --> 00:18:51.660 align:center And then, there's also a legal component. 00:18:51.660 --> 00:18:53.420 align:center How do you force people to understand 00:18:53.420 --> 00:18:55.770 align:center that they need to make the world more accessible? 00:18:55.770 --> 00:18:57.920 align:center And this is where disability rights movements 00:18:57.920 --> 00:19:01.310 align:center focus on legal harms comes in. 00:19:01.310 --> 00:19:05.750 align:center In 1973, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 00:19:05.750 --> 00:19:11.360 align:center a piece of legislation that had been in US law since, I believe, 00:19:11.360 --> 00:19:14.930 align:center World War II, it was updated to read, 00:19:14.930 --> 00:19:18.440 align:center "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability 00:19:18.440 --> 00:19:21.830 align:center shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, 00:19:21.830 --> 00:19:25.280 align:center be excluded from the participation in, be denied 00:19:25.280 --> 00:19:29.960 align:center the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any 00:19:29.960 --> 00:19:34.880 align:center program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." 00:19:34.880 --> 00:19:38.450 align:center By all accounts, whoever wrote this law didn't really 00:19:38.450 --> 00:19:41.970 align:center realize what they were doing, but disabled activists certainly 00:19:41.970 --> 00:19:42.470 align:center did. 00:19:42.470 --> 00:19:44.780 align:center Because this is the first time in US law 00:19:44.780 --> 00:19:46.940 align:center that disabled people are treated as a group 00:19:46.940 --> 00:19:49.790 align:center with civil rights who are being excluded 00:19:49.790 --> 00:19:54.050 align:center from participation in society and have the right not to be. 00:19:54.050 --> 00:19:56.840 align:center Section 504 is signed into law without much fanfare, 00:19:56.840 --> 00:19:59.270 align:center but it certainly isn't implemented 00:19:59.270 --> 00:20:02.660 align:center until disabled activists get involved. 00:20:02.660 --> 00:20:08.320 align:center This is where we see protests to support Section 504 because it 00:20:08.320 --> 00:20:10.130 align:center wasn't being enforced. 00:20:10.130 --> 00:20:12.970 align:center And by 1977, disabled activists had 00:20:12.970 --> 00:20:16.960 align:center been talking to officials at the HEW, Health, Education, 00:20:16.960 --> 00:20:18.230 align:center and Welfare office. 00:20:18.230 --> 00:20:21.950 align:center Now, this is Housing and Human Services, HHS. 00:20:21.950 --> 00:20:26.410 align:center And that's what the current organization is. 00:20:26.410 --> 00:20:29.920 align:center But disabled activists had been talking and agitating 00:20:29.920 --> 00:20:32.620 align:center and showing up at meetings and nothing was changing. 00:20:32.620 --> 00:20:37.690 align:center So they staged sit-ins at the San Francisco office of the HEW. 00:20:37.690 --> 00:20:41.140 align:center You had a ton of disabled people who swarm into this government 00:20:41.140 --> 00:20:44.980 align:center building and refuse to leave for 27 days, 00:20:44.980 --> 00:20:48.520 align:center until finally, there's motions signed that will actually 00:20:48.520 --> 00:20:50.780 align:center start implementing 504. 00:20:50.780 --> 00:20:54.410 align:center This was an amazing instance of disability activism. 00:20:54.410 --> 00:20:58.520 align:center It's really well-documented in the documentary Crip Camp. 00:20:58.520 --> 00:21:00.680 align:center And it's also kind of our first example 00:21:00.680 --> 00:21:03.980 align:center of cross-disability and cross-movement solidarity. 00:21:03.980 --> 00:21:07.550 align:center Prior to the late 1970s, people had been organizing disability 00:21:07.550 --> 00:21:08.422 align:center in silos. 00:21:08.422 --> 00:21:10.130 align:center People who were blind organized together. 00:21:10.130 --> 00:21:12.020 align:center People who were deaf organized together. 00:21:12.020 --> 00:21:15.650 align:center People who had survived polio were organizing together. 00:21:15.650 --> 00:21:18.740 align:center And now, all of a sudden, disability 00:21:18.740 --> 00:21:21.350 align:center is a category that links all of these people who 00:21:21.350 --> 00:21:24.680 align:center can see that their rights are tied up with other folks 00:21:24.680 --> 00:21:28.250 align:center with the disability rights, and that disability rights are tied 00:21:28.250 --> 00:21:29.850 align:center to other movements as well. 00:21:29.850 --> 00:21:32.450 align:center Section 504 protesters had significant support 00:21:32.450 --> 00:21:34.760 align:center from the Black Panthers, the United Farm Workers, 00:21:34.760 --> 00:21:36.900 align:center and LGBT activist groups. 00:21:36.900 --> 00:21:40.580 align:center We're starting to see disability as a key part of larger 00:21:40.580 --> 00:21:43.210 align:center civil rights conversations. 00:21:43.210 --> 00:21:47.520 align:center And after 504 is implemented, this makes some differences. 00:21:47.520 --> 00:21:50.440 align:center Disabled people begin to have access to government buildings. 00:21:50.440 --> 00:21:52.330 align:center But government buildings are actually not 00:21:52.330 --> 00:21:55.030 align:center most of everyday life, and so activism 00:21:55.030 --> 00:22:00.940 align:center begins to spark towards a more nationwide disability 00:22:00.940 --> 00:22:03.227 align:center legislation. 00:22:03.227 --> 00:22:05.560 align:center I'm not going to cover as much of this activist history, 00:22:05.560 --> 00:22:09.040 align:center but we're going to look at what it resulted in, the Americans 00:22:09.040 --> 00:22:10.135 align:center with Disabilities Act. 00:22:10.135 --> 00:22:14.830 align:center I| think it's actually really useful to read some of the ADA. 00:22:14.830 --> 00:22:18.010 align:center The goal of the ADA is "To provide a clear 00:22:18.010 --> 00:22:20.980 align:center and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination 00:22:20.980 --> 00:22:24.110 align:center of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 00:22:24.110 --> 00:22:27.160 align:center We've moved from only focusing on government services 00:22:27.160 --> 00:22:28.970 align:center to broad and nationwide. 00:22:28.970 --> 00:22:31.570 align:center It's a broad mandate, and it's intentionally 00:22:31.570 --> 00:22:33.750 align:center civil rights legislation. 00:22:33.750 --> 00:22:35.790 align:center And it's really interesting to think about who 00:22:35.790 --> 00:22:38.010 align:center has a disability under the ADA. 00:22:38.010 --> 00:22:40.260 align:center Because if we're going to protect the rights of people 00:22:40.260 --> 00:22:42.330 align:center with disabilities, we need to know who they are, 00:22:42.330 --> 00:22:45.570 align:center which is, historically, a very fraught thing to do. 00:22:45.570 --> 00:22:48.120 align:center Under the ADA, a person has a disability 00:22:48.120 --> 00:22:51.060 align:center if they have a physical or mental impairment that 00:22:51.060 --> 00:22:53.820 align:center substantially limits one or more major life 00:22:53.820 --> 00:22:58.740 align:center activities of such individual, a record of such an impairment, 00:22:58.740 --> 00:23:03.190 align:center or a record of being regarded as having such an impairment. 00:23:03.190 --> 00:23:04.870 align:center This is a really interesting definition. 00:23:04.870 --> 00:23:08.040 align:center You are protected under the ADA if you currently 00:23:08.040 --> 00:23:11.430 align:center have a disability, if you used to have a disability-- 00:23:11.430 --> 00:23:15.550 align:center maybe you had cancer a year ago, and now you're pretty good, 00:23:15.550 --> 00:23:17.910 align:center but while you had cancer, you needed a lot of support, 00:23:17.910 --> 00:23:20.430 align:center or you were fired from your job on the basis of not being 00:23:20.430 --> 00:23:23.500 align:center able to function in the same way that you used to. 00:23:23.500 --> 00:23:25.950 align:center You're also protected under the ADA. 00:23:25.950 --> 00:23:29.440 align:center Or maybe you don't consider yourself having a disability. 00:23:29.440 --> 00:23:31.330 align:center That's not how you're identifying, 00:23:31.330 --> 00:23:36.340 align:center but you've been fired at work for a perceived disability. 00:23:36.340 --> 00:23:41.190 align:center Maybe somebody is discriminating against people 00:23:41.190 --> 00:23:44.130 align:center on basis of intellect, and that can 00:23:44.130 --> 00:23:46.960 align:center be seen as an instance of disability discrimination, 00:23:46.960 --> 00:23:48.570 align:center even if that person says, I don't 00:23:48.570 --> 00:23:50.460 align:center have an intellectual disability, but I 00:23:50.460 --> 00:23:52.560 align:center was being treated like someone who does, 00:23:52.560 --> 00:23:56.700 align:center and therefore, I am protected under the ADA. 00:23:56.700 --> 00:23:58.860 align:center Also, we've got this-- 00:23:58.860 --> 00:24:02.730 align:center major life activities is one of the big considerations 00:24:02.730 --> 00:24:03.730 align:center of the ADA. 00:24:03.730 --> 00:24:04.990 align:center What are those? 00:24:04.990 --> 00:24:06.490 align:center They're really broad. 00:24:06.490 --> 00:24:10.620 align:center They include, but are not limited to caring for oneself, 00:24:10.620 --> 00:24:14.620 align:center performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, 00:24:14.620 --> 00:24:18.400 align:center walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, 00:24:18.400 --> 00:24:20.880 align:center learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, 00:24:20.880 --> 00:24:23.130 align:center communicating, and working. 00:24:23.130 --> 00:24:26.620 align:center This is most activities that people can do. 00:24:26.620 --> 00:24:29.040 align:center And there's a lot of times where, like, maybe we're 00:24:29.040 --> 00:24:32.400 align:center really sleepy, or maybe we have the flu, where a lot of us 00:24:32.400 --> 00:24:35.400 align:center would pass into being impaired in major life activities 00:24:35.400 --> 00:24:37.680 align:center under the definition of the ADA. 00:24:37.680 --> 00:24:40.420 align:center But most of us don't identify as disabled 00:24:40.420 --> 00:24:41.800 align:center just because we've had the flu. 00:24:41.800 --> 00:24:43.258 align:center So it's really interesting to think 00:24:43.258 --> 00:24:45.610 align:center about how legal definitions don't necessarily 00:24:45.610 --> 00:24:49.750 align:center interact or intersect perfectly with how people identify. 00:24:49.750 --> 00:24:52.630 align:center Other major life activities also include the operation 00:24:52.630 --> 00:24:56.020 align:center of a major bodily function, including, but not limited to, 00:24:56.020 --> 00:24:59.590 align:center functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, 00:24:59.590 --> 00:25:03.730 align:center bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, 00:25:03.730 --> 00:25:06.050 align:center endocrine, and reproductive functions. 00:25:06.050 --> 00:25:07.900 align:center I know this is a lot of text on the screen, 00:25:07.900 --> 00:25:09.768 align:center and it's a lot of legalese, but I 00:25:09.768 --> 00:25:12.310 align:center think it's important as we work with disability to understand 00:25:12.310 --> 00:25:14.355 align:center what legal frameworks we're working within. 00:25:17.030 --> 00:25:17.880 align:center Let's see. 00:25:17.880 --> 00:25:20.850 align:center Slides are a little broken here. 00:25:20.850 --> 00:25:22.752 align:center Let me just get us the next one. 00:25:22.752 --> 00:25:24.210 align:center We're going to wrap up our thinking 00:25:24.210 --> 00:25:27.210 align:center on the legacy of the disability rights movement. 00:25:27.210 --> 00:25:29.130 align:center From disability rights, we understand 00:25:29.130 --> 00:25:31.720 align:center that disability is a social category, 00:25:31.720 --> 00:25:33.270 align:center and disabled people are a group that 00:25:33.270 --> 00:25:36.540 align:center experiences systemic discrimination, not solely 00:25:36.540 --> 00:25:39.580 align:center a set of individuals with medical diagnoses. 00:25:39.580 --> 00:25:42.090 align:center We also understand that disabled people can make 00:25:42.090 --> 00:25:44.700 align:center their own political demands. 00:25:44.700 --> 00:25:47.370 align:center A key slogan that comes from the disability rights movement 00:25:47.370 --> 00:25:49.570 align:center is nothing about us without us. 00:25:49.570 --> 00:25:52.560 align:center No decisions about disability and disabled people 00:25:52.560 --> 00:25:55.850 align:center should be made without disabled people at the table. 00:25:55.850 --> 00:26:00.110 align:center However, the movement was very white, very male, 00:26:00.110 --> 00:26:03.050 align:center and it focused on physical disabilities. 00:26:03.050 --> 00:26:05.570 align:center It also set up decades of disability organizing 00:26:05.570 --> 00:26:07.470 align:center that were not very intersectional. 00:26:07.470 --> 00:26:10.820 align:center Disability rights was focused pretty solely on the identity 00:26:10.820 --> 00:26:12.650 align:center of disability, even though it had 00:26:12.650 --> 00:26:16.060 align:center some cross-movement solidarity at the beginning. 00:26:16.060 --> 00:26:18.400 align:center Also, by focusing on public policy, 00:26:18.400 --> 00:26:20.750 align:center it focused on state solutions. 00:26:20.750 --> 00:26:24.670 align:center Disability rights was focused on rights, which is important, 00:26:24.670 --> 00:26:26.140 align:center but not everything. 00:26:26.140 --> 00:26:27.640 align:center Which is where we're going to end 00:26:27.640 --> 00:26:32.080 align:center with this last era of disability activism, one that we're in now, 00:26:32.080 --> 00:26:34.180 align:center and that's disability justice. 00:26:34.180 --> 00:26:36.580 align:center Disability justice is an activist movement 00:26:36.580 --> 00:26:40.420 align:center led by disabled people who are queer, trans, Black, Indigenous 00:26:40.420 --> 00:26:41.740 align:center and people of color. 00:26:41.740 --> 00:26:44.650 align:center It has its roots in disability culture and art, 00:26:44.650 --> 00:26:49.120 align:center particularly the performance collective Sins Invalid. 00:26:49.120 --> 00:26:52.540 align:center Disability justice thinking lays out 10 key principles, 00:26:52.540 --> 00:26:54.400 align:center emphasizing that disability justice is 00:26:54.400 --> 00:26:57.160 align:center a sustainable, intersectional movement that 00:26:57.160 --> 00:27:00.930 align:center centers those who are most impacted by oppressive systems. 00:27:00.930 --> 00:27:02.980 align:center There are two that I at least have 00:27:02.980 --> 00:27:07.730 align:center found are really motivating when we're thinking about technology. 00:27:07.730 --> 00:27:10.560 align:center First, interdependence, which Sins Invalid 00:27:10.560 --> 00:27:14.050 align:center defines as we meet each other's needs as we build 00:27:14.050 --> 00:27:17.200 align:center toward liberation, knowing that state solutions inevitably 00:27:17.200 --> 00:27:20.080 align:center extend into further control over lives. 00:27:20.080 --> 00:27:22.300 align:center When we're thinking about interdependent activism, 00:27:22.300 --> 00:27:24.070 align:center we're not just thinking about, how can we 00:27:24.070 --> 00:27:24.970 align:center get rights from the state? 00:27:24.970 --> 00:27:27.140 align:center We're thinking about, how can we support each other? 00:27:27.140 --> 00:27:31.040 align:center And we're emphasizing that no one exists alone. 00:27:31.040 --> 00:27:32.270 align:center No one exists in a bubble. 00:27:32.270 --> 00:27:33.800 align:center People do life together. 00:27:33.800 --> 00:27:36.110 align:center That's not a unique facet of disability. 00:27:36.110 --> 00:27:38.200 align:center It's actually a strength of disabled people, who 00:27:38.200 --> 00:27:40.330 align:center are much better at doing life together 00:27:40.330 --> 00:27:44.110 align:center than non-disabled people tend to be. 00:27:44.110 --> 00:27:46.030 align:center Also, another key motivating principle 00:27:46.030 --> 00:27:48.460 align:center which I feel is really connected to interdependence 00:27:48.460 --> 00:27:53.350 align:center is collective access, which is the idea that access needs can 00:27:53.350 --> 00:27:56.620 align:center be articulated and met privately through a collective 00:27:56.620 --> 00:28:00.880 align:center or in community, depending upon an individual's needs, 00:28:00.880 --> 00:28:03.230 align:center desires, and the capacity of the group. 00:28:03.230 --> 00:28:05.980 align:center We can share responsibility for our access needs. 00:28:05.980 --> 00:28:08.650 align:center We can ask that our needs be met without compromising 00:28:08.650 --> 00:28:09.740 align:center our integrity. 00:28:09.740 --> 00:28:14.460 align:center We can balance autonomy while being in community. 00:28:14.460 --> 00:28:17.350 align:center Collective access isn't the answer for every access problem. 00:28:17.350 --> 00:28:20.160 align:center Sometimes, you need to be able to watch TV on your couch alone, 00:28:20.160 --> 00:28:21.660 align:center and if that means you need captions, 00:28:21.660 --> 00:28:22.920 align:center captions are there for you. 00:28:22.920 --> 00:28:27.910 align:center But a lot of access problems can be solved together. 00:28:27.910 --> 00:28:29.550 align:center And I argue that as technologists, we 00:28:29.550 --> 00:28:32.478 align:center should be looking for those. 00:28:32.478 --> 00:28:34.020 align:center Thank you so much for your attention. 00:28:34.020 --> 00:28:37.400 align:center I'm going to end us with just a couple concluding thoughts here. 00:28:37.400 --> 00:28:40.850 align:center Namely, what role can knowledge of disability history 00:28:40.850 --> 00:28:45.110 align:center play in our work in technology and design in computing? 00:28:45.110 --> 00:28:48.450 align:center We're able to ground the questions we ask in context. 00:28:48.450 --> 00:28:50.360 align:center The more you know about disability history, 00:28:50.360 --> 00:28:53.330 align:center the better grounded your questions can be. 00:28:53.330 --> 00:28:56.000 align:center I think it can be really helpful to have a theoretical approach, 00:28:56.000 --> 00:28:59.750 align:center to say, I am investigating how we can apply interdependence, 00:28:59.750 --> 00:29:04.100 align:center or collective access, or other disability studies and activist 00:29:04.100 --> 00:29:06.620 align:center principles in research. 00:29:06.620 --> 00:29:08.540 align:center Knowing disability history also helps 00:29:08.540 --> 00:29:11.930 align:center us know why certain approaches are rejected by communities. 00:29:11.930 --> 00:29:13.820 align:center If you understand a history of eugenics, 00:29:13.820 --> 00:29:16.490 align:center you might understand better how to enter into a disability 00:29:16.490 --> 00:29:18.350 align:center community with respect and knowing 00:29:18.350 --> 00:29:22.430 align:center that there's reasons for people to be suspect of your work. 00:29:22.430 --> 00:29:25.340 align:center Also, when you know more about the community 00:29:25.340 --> 00:29:30.850 align:center you're working with, I argue that you do better work. 00:29:30.850 --> 00:29:32.570 align:center Thank you all for your attention. 00:29:32.570 --> 00:29:36.190 align:center Like I mentioned, we're going to save questions until Avery 00:29:36.190 --> 00:29:37.360 align:center finishes presenting. 00:29:37.360 --> 00:29:41.860 align:center And we are going to move on to their talk now. 00:29:41.860 --> 00:29:44.050 align:center Avery, I don't-- would you like me to click, 00:29:44.050 --> 00:29:46.490 align:center or would you like to stop the share and take over? 00:29:46.490 --> 00:29:47.200 align:center Because I don't-- 00:29:47.200 --> 00:29:51.580 align:center AVERY MACK: If you could stop sharing, I will take over. 00:29:51.580 --> 00:29:52.140 align:center All right. 00:29:52.140 --> 00:29:53.307 align:center EMMA MCDONNELL: There we go. 00:29:56.372 --> 00:29:57.330 align:center AVERY MACK: Here we go. 00:29:57.330 --> 00:29:59.080 align:center OK. 00:29:59.080 --> 00:30:01.490 align:center I think that's sharing the right thing. 00:30:01.490 --> 00:30:02.087 align:center All right. 00:30:02.087 --> 00:30:03.670 align:center And, Emma, could you give me a verbal. 00:30:03.670 --> 00:30:04.900 align:center Can you see that? 00:30:04.900 --> 00:30:06.233 align:center EMMA MCDONNELL: Yes, I can. 00:30:06.233 --> 00:30:07.150 align:center AVERY MACK: OK, great. 00:30:07.150 --> 00:30:08.230 align:center Awesome. 00:30:08.230 --> 00:30:09.030 align:center Hi, everyone. 00:30:09.030 --> 00:30:10.960 align:center Thanks so much for joining today. 00:30:10.960 --> 00:30:13.000 align:center And thank you, Emma, for sharing that talk. 00:30:13.000 --> 00:30:14.800 align:center No matter how many times I hear it, 00:30:14.800 --> 00:30:16.330 align:center I feel like I learned something new. 00:30:16.330 --> 00:30:19.100 align:center It's just so densely populated with really good information. 00:30:19.100 --> 00:30:20.560 align:center It's really well done. 00:30:20.560 --> 00:30:22.870 align:center My presentation is going to be focusing 00:30:22.870 --> 00:30:26.230 align:center on how to give presentations, like the one that I'm 00:30:26.230 --> 00:30:29.930 align:center giving right now, in a generally more accessible format. 00:30:29.930 --> 00:30:32.890 align:center And so we're going to be getting into some pretty specific, nitty 00:30:32.890 --> 00:30:35.330 align:center gritty details rather than at a high level. 00:30:35.330 --> 00:30:37.493 align:center Please know that you have access to these slides. 00:30:37.493 --> 00:30:39.160 align:center We shared the link in the chat, so don't 00:30:39.160 --> 00:30:41.160 align:center feel like you have to be jotting down everything 00:30:41.160 --> 00:30:42.520 align:center that I'm saying right now. 00:30:42.520 --> 00:30:45.760 align:center I also want to emphasize that what I'm giving 00:30:45.760 --> 00:30:50.170 align:center you are best practices, and they are generally 00:30:50.170 --> 00:30:53.170 align:center what tends to work best for a lot of different people 00:30:53.170 --> 00:30:54.110 align:center with disabilities. 00:30:54.110 --> 00:30:56.790 align:center But I do want to emphasize that it's not everyone. 00:30:56.790 --> 00:31:00.230 align:center I literally just got a paper accepted from my research 00:31:00.230 --> 00:31:04.010 align:center at the University of Washington that basically argues that one 00:31:04.010 --> 00:31:07.530 align:center slide deck cannot be perfectly accessible for everyone. 00:31:07.530 --> 00:31:10.020 align:center People just have too many different conflicting needs. 00:31:10.020 --> 00:31:11.750 align:center Some people like lightmode mode slides, 00:31:11.750 --> 00:31:14.280 align:center and some people like dark mode slides, for instance. 00:31:14.280 --> 00:31:17.010 align:center So these are general best practices. 00:31:17.010 --> 00:31:20.720 align:center But if you are going to be presenting to a specific group 00:31:20.720 --> 00:31:23.450 align:center where you really care about access, or presenting to a group 00:31:23.450 --> 00:31:26.990 align:center repeatedly, like, say, you're teaching a class or something, 00:31:26.990 --> 00:31:28.820 align:center it is worth asking the people who 00:31:28.820 --> 00:31:31.430 align:center are going to be in your audience if they have specific needs 00:31:31.430 --> 00:31:33.150 align:center and catering specifically to those, 00:31:33.150 --> 00:31:35.480 align:center just because slide-related access needs 00:31:35.480 --> 00:31:37.590 align:center can be so incredibly diverse. 00:31:37.590 --> 00:31:41.380 align:center But if you don't have access to knowing your audience's access 00:31:41.380 --> 00:31:43.130 align:center needs beforehand and you just kind of want 00:31:43.130 --> 00:31:45.117 align:center to follow some best practices, that 00:31:45.117 --> 00:31:46.950 align:center is exactly what I'm going to show you today. 00:31:46.950 --> 00:31:50.510 align:center So without further ado, let's dive in and get started. 00:31:50.510 --> 00:31:55.100 align:center The changes that I'm-- or the different pieces of advice that 00:31:55.100 --> 00:31:58.610 align:center I'm giving can apply to Google Slides or PowerPoint, 00:31:58.610 --> 00:31:59.360 align:center I know for a fact. 00:31:59.360 --> 00:32:00.777 align:center And I believe Keynote as well, I'm 00:32:00.777 --> 00:32:02.900 align:center just more familiar with the other two. 00:32:02.900 --> 00:32:07.070 align:center All right, tip number 1, use unique slide titles. 00:32:07.070 --> 00:32:09.530 align:center Slide titles ideally are unique to allow 00:32:09.530 --> 00:32:11.582 align:center for easy navigation for folks. 00:32:11.582 --> 00:32:13.040 align:center It's really easy to just say, we're 00:32:13.040 --> 00:32:16.190 align:center going to go to this slide, and the slide title. 00:32:16.190 --> 00:32:18.770 align:center Now, it's very possible that your content 00:32:18.770 --> 00:32:21.510 align:center on a particular topic maybe takes up two slides, 00:32:21.510 --> 00:32:23.870 align:center and what I recommend is using this format that I'm 00:32:23.870 --> 00:32:26.760 align:center demonstrating here of 1 of 2 and 2 of 2. 00:32:26.760 --> 00:32:30.050 align:center So if I had more that I wanted to say about using unique slide 00:32:30.050 --> 00:32:32.690 align:center titles, on my second slide, I would 00:32:32.690 --> 00:32:35.270 align:center say using unique slide titles 2 of 2, 00:32:35.270 --> 00:32:37.490 align:center so people know how many there that are coming 00:32:37.490 --> 00:32:39.115 align:center and what number they are on. 00:32:41.620 --> 00:32:43.120 align:center Why are my slides not advancing? 00:32:43.120 --> 00:32:44.560 align:center There we go. 00:32:44.560 --> 00:32:45.160 align:center Whoops. 00:32:45.160 --> 00:32:46.360 align:center Avoid cluttered slides. 00:32:46.360 --> 00:32:48.610 align:center Please don't feel the need to read what's on the slide 00:32:48.610 --> 00:32:51.010 align:center right now, but oftentimes, I've been in presentations 00:32:51.010 --> 00:32:53.740 align:center where we are met with a slide like this. 00:32:53.740 --> 00:32:58.180 align:center And to describe, I have probably 10 or 12 lines 00:32:58.180 --> 00:33:01.370 align:center of pretty small text and really long sentences. 00:33:01.370 --> 00:33:03.520 align:center There's not much white space between the bullets, 00:33:03.520 --> 00:33:05.480 align:center not much blank space between the bullets, 00:33:05.480 --> 00:33:07.890 align:center and it's really hard and overwhelming to read. 00:33:07.890 --> 00:33:10.240 align:center Additionally, I like doing this in person and raise 00:33:10.240 --> 00:33:12.160 align:center how many people were actually listening to me 00:33:12.160 --> 00:33:14.330 align:center versus just reading what's on the slide. 00:33:14.330 --> 00:33:16.270 align:center It turns out it's really hard for people 00:33:16.270 --> 00:33:18.400 align:center to both read what's on the slide and listen 00:33:18.400 --> 00:33:21.220 align:center to what the presenter is saying at the same time. 00:33:21.220 --> 00:33:24.650 align:center So when possible, I recommend avoiding cluttered slides. 00:33:24.650 --> 00:33:27.190 align:center So limiting the amount of text that you have on a slide, 00:33:27.190 --> 00:33:30.070 align:center or if you do want to use a lot of text on a slide, 00:33:30.070 --> 00:33:32.740 align:center bringing it in one bullet point at a time 00:33:32.740 --> 00:33:37.030 align:center so that a person isn't just met with a wall of new information 00:33:37.030 --> 00:33:39.520 align:center that they need to consume all of a sudden. 00:33:39.520 --> 00:33:41.120 align:center I will say that I've seen exceptions 00:33:41.120 --> 00:33:43.460 align:center to this rule where it's been valuable to have 00:33:43.460 --> 00:33:45.140 align:center more text-dense slides. 00:33:45.140 --> 00:33:46.670 align:center Example, I once knew somebody who 00:33:46.670 --> 00:33:50.807 align:center had a pretty strong deaf accent, and this person was oftentimes 00:33:50.807 --> 00:33:53.390 align:center met with that people couldn't understand what they were saying 00:33:53.390 --> 00:33:55.010 align:center during their talks, and so they chose 00:33:55.010 --> 00:33:57.980 align:center to put a near transcript on the slide to make what they 00:33:57.980 --> 00:33:59.490 align:center were communicating more clear. 00:33:59.490 --> 00:34:01.440 align:center So again, these are best practices, 00:34:01.440 --> 00:34:03.440 align:center but there are certainly times where it is better 00:34:03.440 --> 00:34:08.300 align:center to violate these rules in search of meeting a different need that 00:34:08.300 --> 00:34:11.330 align:center was more important. 00:34:11.330 --> 00:34:15.900 align:center Third tip, make sure that your slides are understandable. 00:34:15.900 --> 00:34:19.040 align:center And so, in general, this means using clear and simple language 00:34:19.040 --> 00:34:22.340 align:center when possible, avoiding jargon whenever possible, 00:34:22.340 --> 00:34:25.429 align:center or if you are going to use really domain-specific jargon, 00:34:25.429 --> 00:34:27.830 align:center being sure to define it very clearly so people 00:34:27.830 --> 00:34:30.030 align:center know what you're talking about. 00:34:30.030 --> 00:34:34.070 align:center Also, something that we found is a best practice, as well as what 00:34:34.070 --> 00:34:38.210 align:center I recently found in research, is to use white space amply 00:34:38.210 --> 00:34:39.239 align:center and appropriately. 00:34:39.239 --> 00:34:43.280 align:center So, for example, if I have three bullet points on one topic, 00:34:43.280 --> 00:34:45.290 align:center and three bullet points on another topic, 00:34:45.290 --> 00:34:47.420 align:center making sure that there's solid white, 00:34:47.420 --> 00:34:49.940 align:center like a solid amount of space between those two clusters 00:34:49.940 --> 00:34:52.880 align:center to indicate that they belong to different groups 00:34:52.880 --> 00:34:54.864 align:center was also important as well. 00:34:57.700 --> 00:35:01.510 align:center I should say readable, maybe not proper, but readable fonts. 00:35:01.510 --> 00:35:05.360 align:center Readable fonts includes thinking about your font size. 00:35:05.360 --> 00:35:08.770 align:center So for example, on this slide, I have one bullet 00:35:08.770 --> 00:35:12.760 align:center that is size 12 font, and even, I think, on a digital screen, 00:35:12.760 --> 00:35:16.060 align:center where you can get up close, it's still pretty small. 00:35:16.060 --> 00:35:18.610 align:center Versus the second bullet I have here is using a size 00:35:18.610 --> 00:35:21.880 align:center 28 font, which for a lot of people 00:35:21.880 --> 00:35:24.400 align:center is a pretty comfortable-- size 28 to 30 00:35:24.400 --> 00:35:26.947 align:center is a comfortable size to read. 00:35:26.947 --> 00:35:28.780 align:center But of course, again, if you're specifically 00:35:28.780 --> 00:35:30.310 align:center presenting to folks with low vision, 00:35:30.310 --> 00:35:33.340 align:center perhaps that lower threshold of a minimum font size 00:35:33.340 --> 00:35:35.560 align:center is even higher. 00:35:35.560 --> 00:35:38.860 align:center Also, please don't use super highly decorative fonts 00:35:38.860 --> 00:35:41.450 align:center unless there's a really specific reason to do so. 00:35:41.450 --> 00:35:44.200 align:center So for example, here, on the last bullet on this slide, 00:35:44.200 --> 00:35:47.440 align:center I have a very bold cursive font where 00:35:47.440 --> 00:35:50.530 align:center it's kind of hard to distinguish where letters start and end. 00:35:50.530 --> 00:35:53.020 align:center Oftentimes, a nice, clean, Sans Serif font 00:35:53.020 --> 00:35:56.140 align:center is generally recommended as the best practice, 00:35:56.140 --> 00:36:01.370 align:center as it's really simple and clean to read and not very decorative. 00:36:01.370 --> 00:36:04.320 align:center Tip number 5, using proper color contrast. 00:36:04.320 --> 00:36:06.770 align:center So I have on the slide here different examples 00:36:06.770 --> 00:36:09.560 align:center of what it looks like to have light text on a dark background, 00:36:09.560 --> 00:36:11.510 align:center dark text on a light background, and then, 00:36:11.510 --> 00:36:14.870 align:center the lower contrast dark text on a dark background and light 00:36:14.870 --> 00:36:17.150 align:center text on a light background. 00:36:17.150 --> 00:36:20.690 align:center If you're someone who consumes slide content with your eyes, 00:36:20.690 --> 00:36:22.550 align:center you might notice that, for a lot of people, 00:36:22.550 --> 00:36:24.230 align:center the dark on dark and light on light 00:36:24.230 --> 00:36:26.900 align:center is much harder to read than when there's a significant color 00:36:26.900 --> 00:36:30.170 align:center contrast between the foreground and background colors. 00:36:30.170 --> 00:36:32.150 align:center If you want to check to make sure 00:36:32.150 --> 00:36:34.080 align:center that your slides have enough contrast, 00:36:34.080 --> 00:36:36.830 align:center I like using WebAIM Color Contrast Checker. 00:36:36.830 --> 00:36:38.930 align:center This is a link in the slides that you can get, 00:36:38.930 --> 00:36:40.110 align:center or you can just Google it. 00:36:40.110 --> 00:36:42.360 align:center It's a really easy tool which will tell you, actually, 00:36:42.360 --> 00:36:45.200 align:center if you're meeting WCAG, the Web Content Accessibility 00:36:45.200 --> 00:36:48.240 align:center Guidelines' levels for contrast super easily. 00:36:48.240 --> 00:36:50.660 align:center So that's my favorite tool to use to check that. 00:36:50.660 --> 00:36:52.850 align:center And also, surprisingly, this is one of the errors 00:36:52.850 --> 00:36:56.150 align:center that I see the most, and I think that other accessibility 00:36:56.150 --> 00:37:00.650 align:center activists have talked about as one of the more common issues. 00:37:00.650 --> 00:37:03.760 align:center Number 6 is avoid using color to convey meaning. 00:37:03.760 --> 00:37:05.460 align:center So forgive me for one moment while I 00:37:05.460 --> 00:37:07.710 align:center present this really inaccessible to demonstrate how it 00:37:07.710 --> 00:37:09.280 align:center could be really disorienting. 00:37:09.280 --> 00:37:12.000 align:center So if I were to just present this slide and say, 00:37:12.000 --> 00:37:14.370 align:center yeah, you can see by the graph on the left, 00:37:14.370 --> 00:37:17.220 align:center our sales have increased significantly this quarter 00:37:17.220 --> 00:37:19.200 align:center based on that light purple wedge, 00:37:19.200 --> 00:37:23.020 align:center and our release rating has improved. 00:37:23.020 --> 00:37:25.060 align:center This is not great for a couple of reasons. 00:37:25.060 --> 00:37:28.090 align:center It's really relying on the use of color to convey meaning. 00:37:28.090 --> 00:37:30.600 align:center So in this case, I have two rectangles 00:37:30.600 --> 00:37:33.090 align:center on the right with hypothetical release ratings 00:37:33.090 --> 00:37:35.260 align:center where one is 5 and one is 12. 00:37:35.260 --> 00:37:37.680 align:center The 5 is highlighted in green, which is meant-- 00:37:37.680 --> 00:37:39.780 align:center and a lot of times, at least, in the US, 00:37:39.780 --> 00:37:42.450 align:center is meant to convey that this is the good thing, 00:37:42.450 --> 00:37:45.090 align:center this is the improvement, when that's not the standard that's 00:37:45.090 --> 00:37:45.880 align:center used everywhere. 00:37:45.880 --> 00:37:47.730 align:center And also, if you're red-green, colorblind, 00:37:47.730 --> 00:37:49.950 align:center that might be really hard to distinguish. 00:37:49.950 --> 00:37:51.930 align:center Similarly, on the left, I was referring 00:37:51.930 --> 00:37:56.130 align:center to a wedge of a pie chart that took up about 65% 00:37:56.130 --> 00:37:58.440 align:center of the pie chart, and I just referred to it 00:37:58.440 --> 00:38:00.710 align:center by the light purple wedge rather than 00:38:00.710 --> 00:38:02.610 align:center explaining our sales this year. 00:38:02.610 --> 00:38:06.330 align:center Our sales have improved compared to the past four years 00:38:06.330 --> 00:38:10.080 align:center by being 65% of the total, or something like that. 00:38:10.080 --> 00:38:12.510 align:center So we want to avoid color to convey meaning and want 00:38:12.510 --> 00:38:15.030 align:center to use other ways of encoding what we're trying 00:38:15.030 --> 00:38:17.772 align:center to say that aren't just color, but as well as we want to make 00:38:17.772 --> 00:38:19.980 align:center sure that we're saying everything that's on the slide 00:38:19.980 --> 00:38:23.640 align:center anyways because you might have audience members who are blind 00:38:23.640 --> 00:38:26.178 align:center or otherwise not consuming the slides with their eyes 00:38:26.178 --> 00:38:28.470 align:center who still want to understand what you're talking about, 00:38:28.470 --> 00:38:30.150 align:center even if they can't see it and don't 00:38:30.150 --> 00:38:31.800 align:center have the deck in front of them. 00:38:31.800 --> 00:38:34.830 align:center So in general, describing your visuals aloud and not 00:38:34.830 --> 00:38:36.960 align:center using color to convey meaning is a tip 00:38:36.960 --> 00:38:41.070 align:center that I always try to practice when I'm presenting. 00:38:41.070 --> 00:38:45.350 align:center 7, I want to talk about alt text making your images accessible. 00:38:45.350 --> 00:38:47.730 align:center So you might be familiar with alt text. 00:38:47.730 --> 00:38:50.300 align:center If you're not, I'm going to explain. 00:38:50.300 --> 00:38:53.870 align:center Alt text is a property that is added to images, 00:38:53.870 --> 00:38:57.510 align:center and it's a textual description of what is in the image 00:38:57.510 --> 00:38:59.690 align:center so that somebody who's not looking at the image 00:38:59.690 --> 00:39:01.760 align:center or is consuming it non-visually can understand 00:39:01.760 --> 00:39:03.440 align:center what's going on in the image. 00:39:03.440 --> 00:39:05.360 align:center Some tips for how to write your alt text 00:39:05.360 --> 00:39:08.210 align:center is to describe what's actually in the image, 00:39:08.210 --> 00:39:10.230 align:center to be concise, but complete. 00:39:10.230 --> 00:39:11.838 align:center So don't go on for forever talking 00:39:11.838 --> 00:39:13.880 align:center about details that don't really matter, but don't 00:39:13.880 --> 00:39:15.470 align:center miss any important details. 00:39:15.470 --> 00:39:18.170 align:center And you don't have to say image of. 00:39:18.170 --> 00:39:20.540 align:center That's already typically announced by the screen-- 00:39:20.540 --> 00:39:22.970 align:center by a screen reader or a technology 00:39:22.970 --> 00:39:26.300 align:center that people who consume slides non-visually use. 00:39:26.300 --> 00:39:28.490 align:center So it's just redundant to put image of actually 00:39:28.490 --> 00:39:29.700 align:center in your alt text. 00:39:29.700 --> 00:39:33.440 align:center So for example, here, I have a picture of flowers on the left, 00:39:33.440 --> 00:39:36.410 align:center and some not so great alt text for this image 00:39:36.410 --> 00:39:40.230 align:center might be, this picture was taken at the Chihuly Glass Gardens. 00:39:40.230 --> 00:39:42.030 align:center That's not actually telling me anything 00:39:42.030 --> 00:39:43.330 align:center about what's in that image. 00:39:43.330 --> 00:39:45.330 align:center It's almost a caption for the image, which is 00:39:45.330 --> 00:39:46.980 align:center adding additional information. 00:39:46.980 --> 00:39:49.170 align:center Instead, better alt text might be, 00:39:49.170 --> 00:39:51.720 align:center purple flowers with a fuzzy center 00:39:51.720 --> 00:39:54.790 align:center surrounded by green leaves. 00:39:54.790 --> 00:39:58.600 align:center All right, I'll follow up on making images accessible, 00:39:58.600 --> 00:40:00.980 align:center is making complex images accessible. 00:40:00.980 --> 00:40:05.050 align:center So even in more complex images, like scientific diagrams, 00:40:05.050 --> 00:40:07.940 align:center for example, is a really common example that I see, 00:40:07.940 --> 00:40:11.260 align:center it is still important to include detailed alt text, 00:40:11.260 --> 00:40:13.720 align:center such that people who are in your audience 00:40:13.720 --> 00:40:16.420 align:center could access all the information that you were intending 00:40:16.420 --> 00:40:19.090 align:center for people looking at the image, sighted people, 00:40:19.090 --> 00:40:20.900 align:center oftentimes, to consume. 00:40:20.900 --> 00:40:23.560 align:center So in this case, I have a diagram 00:40:23.560 --> 00:40:28.283 align:center of the simple nutrient cycle for in-field livestock systems. 00:40:28.283 --> 00:40:29.950 align:center Maybe there's a class that teaches that. 00:40:29.950 --> 00:40:31.280 align:center Somewhere, there probably is. 00:40:31.280 --> 00:40:33.140 align:center And so I would want to describe-- maybe 00:40:33.140 --> 00:40:35.140 align:center I would describe that there's different entities 00:40:35.140 --> 00:40:38.980 align:center in this diagram, like a cow, and a pond, and plants, 00:40:38.980 --> 00:40:41.322 align:center and then indicate that there's transitions between them. 00:40:41.322 --> 00:40:43.030 align:center I would go into more detail if I actually 00:40:43.030 --> 00:40:44.840 align:center wanted you to understand those transitions, 00:40:44.840 --> 00:40:46.630 align:center but for the purposes of this presentation, 00:40:46.630 --> 00:40:49.750 align:center that's probably enough. 00:40:49.750 --> 00:40:52.930 align:center Next step is to include video captions. 00:40:52.930 --> 00:40:54.940 align:center A lot of times, in these days, we 00:40:54.940 --> 00:40:57.400 align:center embed YouTube videos or other kinds of videos 00:40:57.400 --> 00:41:00.070 align:center in our presentations, and it's important to make sure 00:41:00.070 --> 00:41:04.240 align:center that you have captions, ideally, human generated captions 00:41:04.240 --> 00:41:07.450 align:center rather than automatic captions that are visible when you're 00:41:07.450 --> 00:41:09.100 align:center playing the video. 00:41:09.100 --> 00:41:11.200 align:center Also, if you know that there's going 00:41:11.200 --> 00:41:13.630 align:center to be folks who are blind or low vision in the audience, 00:41:13.630 --> 00:41:15.280 align:center it's also important to ensure that it 00:41:15.280 --> 00:41:17.800 align:center has audio descriptions, which describe 00:41:17.800 --> 00:41:20.180 align:center the non-verbal important content. 00:41:20.180 --> 00:41:23.590 align:center So maybe it's describing, like, I have a screenshot of a YouTube 00:41:23.590 --> 00:41:24.950 align:center video of a football field. 00:41:24.950 --> 00:41:26.560 align:center The audio descriptions might describe 00:41:26.560 --> 00:41:28.277 align:center that a player runs across the field 00:41:28.277 --> 00:41:30.360 align:center and kicks a ball into the field goal, for example. 00:41:33.390 --> 00:41:37.110 align:center Slide 10 or tip 10 is to avoid distracting effects 00:41:37.110 --> 00:41:38.080 align:center for your slides. 00:41:38.080 --> 00:41:40.620 align:center So I often find that 9 times out of 10, you 00:41:40.620 --> 00:41:43.680 align:center don't need sound effects, unless they're, again, serving 00:41:43.680 --> 00:41:45.160 align:center a really specific purpose. 00:41:45.160 --> 00:41:46.420 align:center They're just distracting. 00:41:46.420 --> 00:41:49.590 align:center And same with what I call movement-based slide 00:41:49.590 --> 00:41:50.500 align:center transitions. 00:41:50.500 --> 00:41:52.320 align:center So I don't know if you ever played around 00:41:52.320 --> 00:41:54.820 align:center with these when you were a kid, but like, in PowerPoint, you 00:41:54.820 --> 00:41:57.600 align:center can make the letters spin in the words and things, which 00:41:57.600 --> 00:42:00.710 align:center is really fun when you're a kid and playing with the slides, 00:42:00.710 --> 00:42:03.810 align:center but can be really distracting if it's a more professional setting 00:42:03.810 --> 00:42:06.160 align:center and people are trying to consume the information. 00:42:06.160 --> 00:42:09.900 align:center So if you do want to include animations on your slides 00:42:09.900 --> 00:42:11.910 align:center or slide transitions, I recommend 00:42:11.910 --> 00:42:13.620 align:center using appear and disappear, which 00:42:13.620 --> 00:42:15.330 align:center just makes the text appear or disappear 00:42:15.330 --> 00:42:19.430 align:center without any distracting visual effect. 00:42:19.430 --> 00:42:25.010 align:center Tip number 11 is to make sure that you check your slide tab 00:42:25.010 --> 00:42:28.700 align:center order, which is basically, if somebody is consuming 00:42:28.700 --> 00:42:30.290 align:center your slides with a screen reader, 00:42:30.290 --> 00:42:32.150 align:center like, typically, someone who is blind or low vision, 00:42:32.150 --> 00:42:33.942 align:center but also, some other folks find them useful 00:42:33.942 --> 00:42:36.920 align:center as well, this is the order that if you're 00:42:36.920 --> 00:42:39.328 align:center accessing the elements of a slide with a screen 00:42:39.328 --> 00:42:41.120 align:center reader, the order that the screen reader is 00:42:41.120 --> 00:42:42.380 align:center going to hit the elements. 00:42:42.380 --> 00:42:45.450 align:center And you want to make sure that this is a logical order. 00:42:45.450 --> 00:42:48.530 align:center So if I were consuming this slide with a screen reader, 00:42:48.530 --> 00:42:51.110 align:center I might expect that the first thing it should read off to me 00:42:51.110 --> 00:42:52.620 align:center is the title of the slide. 00:42:52.620 --> 00:42:55.550 align:center And then the second thing might be any text associated 00:42:55.550 --> 00:42:57.530 align:center on the slide, and then, the third thing 00:42:57.530 --> 00:42:59.510 align:center that I'd want the person to consume 00:42:59.510 --> 00:43:01.290 align:center is the image on the slide. 00:43:01.290 --> 00:43:03.710 align:center And there's a couple-- 00:43:03.710 --> 00:43:06.140 align:center the way that you set the order actually 00:43:06.140 --> 00:43:07.940 align:center varies from tool to tool. 00:43:07.940 --> 00:43:10.890 align:center In PowerPoint, there's an Arrange pane. 00:43:10.890 --> 00:43:14.720 align:center So if you go to your menu bar, there's usually 00:43:14.720 --> 00:43:17.030 align:center an arrange icon, and then Selection pane, 00:43:17.030 --> 00:43:19.590 align:center and you can drag around your different slide elements 00:43:19.590 --> 00:43:21.970 align:center to make sure that they will appear in the right order 00:43:21.970 --> 00:43:23.970 align:center to someone tabbing through with a screen reader. 00:43:23.970 --> 00:43:26.070 align:center In Google slides, I'll actually demonstrate 00:43:26.070 --> 00:43:29.080 align:center how to do it, since I'm actually presenting in Google Slides 00:43:29.080 --> 00:43:29.580 align:center right now. 00:43:29.580 --> 00:43:33.340 align:center So I'm going to stop presenting. 00:43:33.340 --> 00:43:36.145 align:center And so now, you can just see, I believe-- 00:43:36.145 --> 00:43:37.770 align:center and Emma, if you could give me a thumbs 00:43:37.770 --> 00:43:40.440 align:center up-- you can see my Google Slides pane? 00:43:40.440 --> 00:43:42.680 align:center Great. 00:43:42.680 --> 00:43:46.160 align:center If I want to see the order that a screen reader would encounter 00:43:46.160 --> 00:43:48.320 align:center these different elements, I can just actually start 00:43:48.320 --> 00:43:50.480 align:center hitting Tab on the slide, and you'll 00:43:50.480 --> 00:43:54.200 align:center see that a blue bounding box now surrounds the element that's 00:43:54.200 --> 00:43:55.790 align:center going to get focused first. 00:43:55.790 --> 00:43:58.430 align:center Which, in this case, because I purposely went through and made 00:43:58.430 --> 00:44:00.890 align:center this deck accessible, the first thing it encounters 00:44:00.890 --> 00:44:01.790 align:center is the title. 00:44:01.790 --> 00:44:04.710 align:center The second thing it encounters is the text on the slide. 00:44:04.710 --> 00:44:06.890 align:center And the third thing that encounters it encounters 00:44:06.890 --> 00:44:09.020 align:center is the image, which is a screenshot 00:44:09.020 --> 00:44:13.550 align:center of how to get to that Arrange Selection pane in PowerPoint. 00:44:13.550 --> 00:44:15.170 align:center And if I just keep tabbing, it'll 00:44:15.170 --> 00:44:16.447 align:center just keep rotating through. 00:44:16.447 --> 00:44:18.530 align:center But if I were to start tabbing and the first thing 00:44:18.530 --> 00:44:24.320 align:center it focused on was the image, I could adjust what order the-- 00:44:24.320 --> 00:44:27.590 align:center what order my tabs traverse through 00:44:27.590 --> 00:44:31.470 align:center by moving the object forwards or backwards. 00:44:31.470 --> 00:44:35.690 align:center So, for example, if I took this image and I changed the order, 00:44:35.690 --> 00:44:38.060 align:center and I sent it to back, you'll notice 00:44:38.060 --> 00:44:41.910 align:center now the first thing that my tab focuses on 00:44:41.910 --> 00:44:44.000 align:center is now the image rather than the title. 00:44:44.000 --> 00:44:46.950 align:center So by using that arrange send to front and back, 00:44:46.950 --> 00:44:49.110 align:center I can change what the screen reader 00:44:49.110 --> 00:44:50.680 align:center is going to focus on first. 00:44:50.680 --> 00:44:52.150 align:center So now, I've brought it forwards. 00:44:52.150 --> 00:44:55.380 align:center And so now, it goes to my title first, like it did before. 00:44:55.380 --> 00:44:59.040 align:center All right, moving on from that, I'm going to restart presenting, 00:44:59.040 --> 00:45:01.890 align:center and it's going to go great. 00:45:01.890 --> 00:45:02.640 align:center Probably. 00:45:02.640 --> 00:45:03.280 align:center Hooray. 00:45:03.280 --> 00:45:04.752 align:center OK, awesome. 00:45:04.752 --> 00:45:05.460 align:center Almost done here. 00:45:05.460 --> 00:45:07.020 align:center I think just a couple more tips. 00:45:07.020 --> 00:45:09.933 align:center Tip 12 is making links accessible. 00:45:09.933 --> 00:45:11.850 align:center I'm sorry for the weird spacing on this slide. 00:45:11.850 --> 00:45:14.010 align:center But link text should be meaningful 00:45:14.010 --> 00:45:16.020 align:center and should indicate if a download action is 00:45:16.020 --> 00:45:17.490 align:center going to be triggered. 00:45:17.490 --> 00:45:20.400 align:center So there are ways of navigating with a screen reader where 00:45:20.400 --> 00:45:22.320 align:center you can jump to the links on a page, 00:45:22.320 --> 00:45:25.170 align:center and it's really unhelpful if you're jumping from link to link 00:45:25.170 --> 00:45:27.180 align:center on a page and all of the link text, 00:45:27.180 --> 00:45:30.360 align:center which is like, what you actually hyperlinked and is underlined, 00:45:30.360 --> 00:45:33.510 align:center is just here, and you're just navigating across the page 00:45:33.510 --> 00:45:36.100 align:center and you just hear, here, here, here. 00:45:36.100 --> 00:45:39.810 align:center That's not the most helpful, not the best user experience. 00:45:39.810 --> 00:45:42.720 align:center And so it's better practice to make sure 00:45:42.720 --> 00:45:45.690 align:center that your link text includes the title of the page 00:45:45.690 --> 00:45:47.160 align:center you'd be taken to. 00:45:47.160 --> 00:45:49.290 align:center And if it's going to trigger, for example, 00:45:49.290 --> 00:45:51.510 align:center a large download on your computer, 00:45:51.510 --> 00:45:53.430 align:center to make sure that the link text includes 00:45:53.430 --> 00:45:57.030 align:center the word 'automatic download', or something like that in it. 00:45:57.030 --> 00:45:58.920 align:center So for example, on this slide, I have 00:45:58.920 --> 00:46:01.600 align:center a link to the A11y Project, which 00:46:01.600 --> 00:46:04.090 align:center offers some useful information about accessibility, 00:46:04.090 --> 00:46:06.880 align:center and the hyperlink text is actually a A11y Project 00:46:06.880 --> 00:46:09.360 align:center rather than saying like, Click Here to Learn More. 00:46:12.000 --> 00:46:14.100 align:center One of the final suggestions I have 00:46:14.100 --> 00:46:16.950 align:center is to use tools that are available to help 00:46:16.950 --> 00:46:19.350 align:center you check the accessibility of your slides. 00:46:19.350 --> 00:46:23.100 align:center So, for example, Microsoft has an accessibility checker, which 00:46:23.100 --> 00:46:25.030 align:center is located in the Review pane. 00:46:25.030 --> 00:46:27.390 align:center It's usually something like Check Accessibility. 00:46:27.390 --> 00:46:29.640 align:center And it will do things go through your slides 00:46:29.640 --> 00:46:32.890 align:center and let you know if any of your images are missing alt text. 00:46:32.890 --> 00:46:34.920 align:center So these are really cool tools built 00:46:34.920 --> 00:46:38.610 align:center straight into these platforms for you that can be useful. 00:46:38.610 --> 00:46:41.040 align:center Google Slides, last I checked, doesn't 00:46:41.040 --> 00:46:44.730 align:center have an accessibility checker, but people have made plug-ins 00:46:44.730 --> 00:46:47.430 align:center to Google Slides that will do accessibility checking, 00:46:47.430 --> 00:46:50.640 align:center like GrackleDocs, for example, does some accessibility checking 00:46:50.640 --> 00:46:52.440 align:center for Google Slides. 00:46:52.440 --> 00:46:53.650 align:center So use these tools. 00:46:53.650 --> 00:46:54.690 align:center They're great. 00:46:54.690 --> 00:46:57.000 align:center And then, finally, it's great if you 00:46:57.000 --> 00:46:59.580 align:center can to send out slides beforehand, or at least 00:46:59.580 --> 00:47:01.560 align:center at the start of the presentation. 00:47:01.560 --> 00:47:03.960 align:center Something that was reaffirmed in the research that I did 00:47:03.960 --> 00:47:06.390 align:center is that a lot of people like to follow along 00:47:06.390 --> 00:47:09.150 align:center with slides in a presentation, and so it's useful for them 00:47:09.150 --> 00:47:10.960 align:center to have a link to them. 00:47:10.960 --> 00:47:14.430 align:center And if you give people a downloadable copy of the slides, 00:47:14.430 --> 00:47:16.260 align:center they can then adjust things to make it 00:47:16.260 --> 00:47:17.710 align:center more accessible for themselves. 00:47:17.710 --> 00:47:19.920 align:center So if someone really needs to see slides 00:47:19.920 --> 00:47:21.840 align:center with a black background with white text 00:47:21.840 --> 00:47:23.940 align:center because it otherwise hurts their eyes, 00:47:23.940 --> 00:47:25.740 align:center giving people a copy of the slides 00:47:25.740 --> 00:47:28.230 align:center lets them make those changes if they want ahead of time 00:47:28.230 --> 00:47:32.850 align:center to follow along with less pain during the presentation. 00:47:32.850 --> 00:47:35.400 align:center Again, like I mentioned at the start of this presentation, 00:47:35.400 --> 00:47:36.725 align:center these are just guidelines. 00:47:36.725 --> 00:47:38.100 align:center You should talk to people who are 00:47:38.100 --> 00:47:39.460 align:center going to be in your audience. 00:47:39.460 --> 00:47:41.190 align:center You could send out a survey and ask 00:47:41.190 --> 00:47:43.530 align:center if people have accessibility needs related to the slides 00:47:43.530 --> 00:47:46.860 align:center and then try to make those on your slides. 00:47:46.860 --> 00:47:50.490 align:center I also want to note that a lot of the tips that I suggested 00:47:50.490 --> 00:47:55.320 align:center today also apply to things like other types of documents, 00:47:55.320 --> 00:47:57.990 align:center like emails or Word documents. 00:47:57.990 --> 00:48:01.780 align:center For example, the link text, the hyperlink text that I suggested, 00:48:01.780 --> 00:48:05.760 align:center that's a best practice across email, across text documents, 00:48:05.760 --> 00:48:07.090 align:center across slides. 00:48:07.090 --> 00:48:10.020 align:center So some of these have added benefits in other contexts 00:48:10.020 --> 00:48:11.705 align:center as well. 00:48:11.705 --> 00:48:13.830 align:center At the end, I also have a list of resources for you 00:48:13.830 --> 00:48:14.650 align:center that I won't read out. 00:48:14.650 --> 00:48:16.740 align:center But if you want to learn more about these types of things, 00:48:16.740 --> 00:48:18.823 align:center feel free to take a look at the end of the slides. 00:48:18.823 --> 00:48:22.500 align:center So with that, I didn't put a question slide, 00:48:22.500 --> 00:48:25.590 align:center so I'm going to go cheat and scroll up to Emma's question 00:48:25.590 --> 00:48:28.848 align:center slides and use that. 00:48:28.848 --> 00:48:29.390 align:center Just kidding. 00:48:29.390 --> 00:48:30.340 align:center We just don't have a question slide. 00:48:30.340 --> 00:48:32.757 align:center So with that, I'm going to stop sharing and invite you all 00:48:32.757 --> 00:48:36.490 align:center to ask any questions that you have for either myself or Emma. 00:48:36.490 --> 00:48:36.990 align:center Yeah. 00:48:36.990 --> 00:48:40.960 align:center Thank you so much for listening. 00:48:40.960 --> 00:48:43.520 align:center EMMA MCDONNELL: And maybe for questions, Eric, 00:48:43.520 --> 00:48:45.150 align:center you're welcome to moderate them. 00:48:45.150 --> 00:48:47.110 align:center I saw you just came unmuted. 00:48:47.110 --> 00:48:49.690 align:center Or use the Raise Hand feature in Google Slides, 00:48:49.690 --> 00:48:51.910 align:center or ask questions in the chat. 00:48:51.910 --> 00:48:53.890 align:center Eric, are there any other AccessComputing 00:48:53.890 --> 00:48:55.672 align:center best practices questions? 00:48:55.672 --> 00:48:56.380 align:center ERIC TREKELL: No. 00:48:56.380 --> 00:48:58.330 align:center No, we're all good. 00:48:58.330 --> 00:49:02.860 align:center If you have questions, post in the chat, raise your hand. 00:49:02.860 --> 00:49:03.790 align:center Absolutely. 00:49:07.900 --> 00:49:09.880 align:center Thank you, Kate, for that comment. 00:49:09.880 --> 00:49:12.740 align:center Both presentations have been really helpful, Kate says. 00:49:12.740 --> 00:49:17.050 align:center So question, is there a standard preference 00:49:17.050 --> 00:49:19.720 align:center between having multiple text boxes 00:49:19.720 --> 00:49:22.160 align:center on a slide versus a single text box, 00:49:22.160 --> 00:49:23.535 align:center with white space separating them? 00:49:26.592 --> 00:49:27.300 align:center AVERY MACK: Yeah. 00:49:27.300 --> 00:49:29.440 align:center I'm going to assume that's a question for me. 00:49:29.440 --> 00:49:29.940 align:center Yeah. 00:49:29.940 --> 00:49:31.025 align:center Thank you for asking. 00:49:31.025 --> 00:49:31.900 align:center No, no, no, for sure. 00:49:31.900 --> 00:49:33.570 align:center Thank you so much, Mia. 00:49:33.570 --> 00:49:37.410 align:center I think that, honestly, that's one 00:49:37.410 --> 00:49:39.140 align:center where I would probably go and talk 00:49:39.140 --> 00:49:40.390 align:center to folks using screen readers. 00:49:40.390 --> 00:49:42.570 align:center And if anybody on this call is using a screen reader 00:49:42.570 --> 00:49:45.780 align:center and wants to chime in if they know best practices, great. 00:49:45.780 --> 00:49:48.420 align:center I think, honestly, both are probably fine, 00:49:48.420 --> 00:49:51.330 align:center so long as, if you're using multiple text boxes, 00:49:51.330 --> 00:49:52.992 align:center you have the reading order set properly 00:49:52.992 --> 00:49:55.200 align:center so that if somebody was traversing through the slide, 00:49:55.200 --> 00:49:58.110 align:center it actually goes in a sensible reading order. 00:49:58.110 --> 00:49:58.750 align:center Yeah. 00:49:58.750 --> 00:50:01.590 align:center But, again, feel free to, other people, 00:50:01.590 --> 00:50:04.440 align:center let me know if there's a best practice that I'm not aware of. 00:50:04.440 --> 00:50:06.270 align:center ERIC TREKELL: So I have a question for me, 00:50:06.270 --> 00:50:08.440 align:center but I also see Jess has their hand raised. 00:50:08.440 --> 00:50:11.230 align:center So a question sent to me. 00:50:11.230 --> 00:50:14.478 align:center Jess, go ahead and ask your question, then I'll follow up. 00:50:14.478 --> 00:50:15.020 align:center JESS: Thanks. 00:50:15.020 --> 00:50:18.820 align:center I actually think Brianna Blaser had their hand up, 00:50:18.820 --> 00:50:21.498 align:center or she had her hand up before you. 00:50:21.498 --> 00:50:22.790 align:center ERIC TREKELL: Did you, Brianna? 00:50:22.790 --> 00:50:23.428 align:center Oh, sorry. 00:50:23.428 --> 00:50:24.220 align:center I'm sorry, Brianna. 00:50:24.220 --> 00:50:25.150 align:center I can't see it. 00:50:25.150 --> 00:50:26.050 align:center All that artwork. 00:50:26.050 --> 00:50:26.290 align:center BRIANNA BLASER: I know. 00:50:26.290 --> 00:50:29.020 align:center It doesn't contrast high enough on my background, speaking 00:50:29.020 --> 00:50:30.830 align:center of problems with contrast. 00:50:30.830 --> 00:50:32.980 align:center But this was-- thank you, Avery and Emma, 00:50:32.980 --> 00:50:34.180 align:center for doing this presentation. 00:50:34.180 --> 00:50:37.870 align:center And it is always good to hear and learn from both of you. 00:50:37.870 --> 00:50:40.750 align:center I didn't realize that changing the order 00:50:40.750 --> 00:50:43.150 align:center changed the order of things read, because I also 00:50:43.150 --> 00:50:46.060 align:center think about using that when things overlap on the screen 00:50:46.060 --> 00:50:49.820 align:center and changing what is overlapping on top of one. 00:50:49.820 --> 00:50:52.300 align:center So I don't know if you have any good thoughts on how 00:50:52.300 --> 00:50:54.610 align:center to get around that, or if we can just all kind of laugh 00:50:54.610 --> 00:50:58.000 align:center about how these things are not built to be accessible. 00:50:58.000 --> 00:51:01.510 align:center AVERY MACK: You know, in short, that's one-- like, I agree, 00:51:01.510 --> 00:51:05.320 align:center it's a little bit silly to me that the tab order that somebody 00:51:05.320 --> 00:51:07.540 align:center who's using keyboard access or screen reader 00:51:07.540 --> 00:51:11.050 align:center were to encounter the items is the same control for how 00:51:11.050 --> 00:51:12.940 align:center far forwards and backwards things are. 00:51:12.940 --> 00:51:14.997 align:center I have gotten frustrated with it before. 00:51:14.997 --> 00:51:16.580 align:center It's just something that I've learned, 00:51:16.580 --> 00:51:18.840 align:center and I've learned how to design my slides, 00:51:18.840 --> 00:51:21.620 align:center such that there's not a conflict between the front 00:51:21.620 --> 00:51:23.840 align:center and the back in the screen reader order. 00:51:23.840 --> 00:51:25.760 align:center But yeah, no, I think-- 00:51:25.760 --> 00:51:28.370 align:center and again, these are-- this is just the best of my knowledge. 00:51:28.370 --> 00:51:29.690 align:center But, yeah, to the best of my knowledge, 00:51:29.690 --> 00:51:31.107 align:center that is just something you kind of 00:51:31.107 --> 00:51:33.720 align:center need to keep in mind with slide design. 00:51:33.720 --> 00:51:34.385 align:center Good question. 00:51:37.712 --> 00:51:38.920 align:center ERIC TREKELL: Jess, go ahead. 00:51:38.920 --> 00:51:42.088 align:center And then I will follow up with a question that came to me. 00:51:42.088 --> 00:51:42.630 align:center JESS: Thanks. 00:51:42.630 --> 00:51:47.370 align:center Mine actually piggybacks nicely off of that last one. 00:51:47.370 --> 00:51:51.750 align:center So we have found a massive struggle, not just with 00:51:51.750 --> 00:51:57.900 align:center the front to back, but getting the notification 00:51:57.900 --> 00:52:02.430 align:center to check reading order when we have repeatedly checked it, made 00:52:02.430 --> 00:52:07.020 align:center sure it's absolutely correct in screen reader land, 00:52:07.020 --> 00:52:12.120 align:center and it still won't allow it-- like, it doesn't show it 00:52:12.120 --> 00:52:16.650 align:center as compliant as an accessible document. 00:52:16.650 --> 00:52:20.040 align:center So just wondering if you have any suggestions 00:52:20.040 --> 00:52:24.660 align:center how to get through that so that we're not getting zinged. 00:52:24.660 --> 00:52:28.980 align:center I'm with the state, and I'm not sure everybody here 00:52:28.980 --> 00:52:32.220 align:center is, but, yeah, that's going to become really 00:52:32.220 --> 00:52:37.330 align:center problematic with the new federal regulations really soon here. 00:52:37.330 --> 00:52:38.080 align:center AVERY MACK: Right. 00:52:38.080 --> 00:52:39.497 align:center Thank you, Jess, for the question. 00:52:39.497 --> 00:52:41.620 align:center And just to clarify, are you specifically talking 00:52:41.620 --> 00:52:47.900 align:center about reading order in slides or in PDF documents? 00:52:47.900 --> 00:52:50.390 align:center JESS: We have it come up in both, sometimes, 00:52:50.390 --> 00:52:54.380 align:center because they were slide decks that were saved as PDFs 00:52:54.380 --> 00:52:56.110 align:center and distributed as PDFs. 00:52:56.110 --> 00:52:59.090 align:center It just gets all sorts of problematic. 00:52:59.090 --> 00:53:00.230 align:center AVERY MACK: Absolutely. 00:53:00.230 --> 00:53:03.710 align:center This is definitely something I've run into with PDFs. 00:53:03.710 --> 00:53:07.910 align:center In short, PDF accessibility is a finicky art form 00:53:07.910 --> 00:53:10.310 align:center where even after I know that Emma and I have both 00:53:10.310 --> 00:53:13.910 align:center had instances where we check, followed all the best practices 00:53:13.910 --> 00:53:16.320 align:center and tested it ourselves, and it seems to work, 00:53:16.320 --> 00:53:19.100 align:center and then we send it to someone, and it does not work. 00:53:19.100 --> 00:53:22.340 align:center So in short, know that sometimes, you 00:53:22.340 --> 00:53:24.590 align:center do all that you can, and sometimes, these systems 00:53:24.590 --> 00:53:29.690 align:center are just finicky and it still ends up being a little off. 00:53:29.690 --> 00:53:32.360 align:center But, yes, in PDF documents, generally, 00:53:32.360 --> 00:53:35.540 align:center checking the reading order in Adobe Acrobat Pro 00:53:35.540 --> 00:53:39.470 align:center is the best that I know how, and not trusting that when 00:53:39.470 --> 00:53:43.280 align:center you export something from a Word document or from Google Slides 00:53:43.280 --> 00:53:45.950 align:center that it will maintain the reading order that you set. 00:53:45.950 --> 00:53:49.760 align:center That conversion to PDF process, sometimes things 00:53:49.760 --> 00:53:51.470 align:center go great and everything makes sense, 00:53:51.470 --> 00:53:53.330 align:center and sometimes things go horribly wrong 00:53:53.330 --> 00:53:55.490 align:center and the reading order makes no sense. 00:53:55.490 --> 00:53:57.620 align:center So sorry I don't have a better answer for you 00:53:57.620 --> 00:54:00.367 align:center other than to just check and check again, 00:54:00.367 --> 00:54:02.700 align:center but that is the state that we're at, especially with PDF 00:54:02.700 --> 00:54:04.762 align:center accessibility right now. 00:54:04.762 --> 00:54:06.720 align:center EMMA MCDONNELL: I also want to jump in and say, 00:54:06.720 --> 00:54:08.387 align:center I hear part of your question being like, 00:54:08.387 --> 00:54:11.280 align:center these federal regulations are coming, 00:54:11.280 --> 00:54:14.200 align:center and we don't have perfect tools. 00:54:14.200 --> 00:54:20.100 align:center We have Adobe Acrobat Pro, which is paid, and is 00:54:20.100 --> 00:54:21.660 align:center deeply inconsistent. 00:54:21.660 --> 00:54:23.970 align:center So I would make a small pitch for that's 00:54:23.970 --> 00:54:26.970 align:center another area for why it is so important that technologists 00:54:26.970 --> 00:54:29.220 align:center also become policy experts. 00:54:29.220 --> 00:54:32.520 align:center Or not necessarily experts, but are at least aware of policy 00:54:32.520 --> 00:54:35.970 align:center and able to talk to policy folks. 00:54:35.970 --> 00:54:39.030 align:center One of my priorities, I would love to see more of the experts 00:54:39.030 --> 00:54:42.150 align:center on these kinds of things being part of that decision-making. 00:54:42.150 --> 00:54:43.740 align:center Because it seems reasonable to say 00:54:43.740 --> 00:54:46.470 align:center that you should be able to get your documents to pass 00:54:46.470 --> 00:54:49.330 align:center accessibility checks to create accessible resources. 00:54:49.330 --> 00:54:52.140 align:center But when those tools aren't actually available, 00:54:52.140 --> 00:54:53.170 align:center everyone gets stuck. 00:54:53.170 --> 00:54:56.850 align:center So I think that'd be a really productive area 00:54:56.850 --> 00:54:58.478 align:center of advocacy, policy, and research 00:54:58.478 --> 00:54:59.645 align:center in the next couple of years. 00:55:02.820 --> 00:55:03.870 align:center ERIC TREKELL: OK. 00:55:03.870 --> 00:55:05.910 align:center Cecilia, I see your hand up, but I'm 00:55:05.910 --> 00:55:08.700 align:center going to ask the question first that came to me, 00:55:08.700 --> 00:55:09.760 align:center and it was from Amy. 00:55:09.760 --> 00:55:12.690 align:center And it was more of an observation with a question, 00:55:12.690 --> 00:55:13.950 align:center sort of. 00:55:13.950 --> 00:55:17.790 align:center Because, Avery, you commented on sound, and Amy says, 00:55:17.790 --> 00:55:21.510 align:center I was suggested that sound to note change of a slide 00:55:21.510 --> 00:55:23.640 align:center was good for people who are blind or have 00:55:23.640 --> 00:55:26.250 align:center visual limitations. 00:55:26.250 --> 00:55:29.803 align:center So I think that's affirmative. 00:55:29.803 --> 00:55:30.470 align:center AVERY MACK: Yes. 00:55:30.470 --> 00:55:31.500 align:center This is Avery. 00:55:31.500 --> 00:55:33.180 align:center Absolutely. 00:55:33.180 --> 00:55:34.030 align:center Yeah. 00:55:34.030 --> 00:55:35.910 align:center Sounds are just like, I'm just going 00:55:35.910 --> 00:55:38.220 align:center to put one in because it sounds fun and it's engaging. 00:55:38.220 --> 00:55:40.270 align:center Can be distracting for a lot of folks, 00:55:40.270 --> 00:55:42.880 align:center but something that I have heard in my research, 00:55:42.880 --> 00:55:46.110 align:center especially, is that somehow denoting slide transitions 00:55:46.110 --> 00:55:49.080 align:center to folks who are not watching the slides 00:55:49.080 --> 00:55:52.680 align:center is super, super helpful, be that an automatic ding that happens 00:55:52.680 --> 00:55:55.620 align:center at the end of your slides, or you just saying, moving on 00:55:55.620 --> 00:55:57.850 align:center to slide 11, can be really helpful. 00:55:57.850 --> 00:56:00.302 align:center Thank you for sharing that. 00:56:00.302 --> 00:56:01.010 align:center ERIC TREKELL: OK. 00:56:01.010 --> 00:56:02.370 align:center I apologize. 00:56:02.370 --> 00:56:05.540 align:center Person had their hand up is not there. 00:56:05.540 --> 00:56:08.100 align:center Cecilia. 00:56:08.100 --> 00:56:10.780 align:center EMMA MCDONNELL: Yeah, I think Cecilia asked in the chat. 00:56:10.780 --> 00:56:11.280 align:center I noticed-- 00:56:11.280 --> 00:56:12.600 align:center ERIC TREKELL: In the chat, I see it here. 00:56:12.600 --> 00:56:14.183 align:center EMMA MCDONNELL: --using Google Slides. 00:56:14.183 --> 00:56:16.298 align:center Is that a choice made for easier file sharing, 00:56:16.298 --> 00:56:18.840 align:center or do y'all generally prefer to offer slides in Google Slides 00:56:18.840 --> 00:56:21.300 align:center as opposed to PowerPoint that has a built-in accessibility 00:56:21.300 --> 00:56:22.590 align:center checker? 00:56:22.590 --> 00:56:24.450 align:center I can answer for myself, that I tend 00:56:24.450 --> 00:56:26.610 align:center to be a Google Slides user, in large part, 00:56:26.610 --> 00:56:28.600 align:center because I'm collaborating with a lot of people. 00:56:28.600 --> 00:56:32.550 align:center I often need advisors to weigh in on things. 00:56:32.550 --> 00:56:34.710 align:center It's easy for Avery and I to meld things 00:56:34.710 --> 00:56:37.080 align:center without having to pass the file back and forth. 00:56:37.080 --> 00:56:41.280 align:center And Google Slides has reached a level of traversable 00:56:41.280 --> 00:56:45.810 align:center by a screen reader that it is usable with most collaborators. 00:56:45.810 --> 00:56:47.790 align:center The accessibility checking features 00:56:47.790 --> 00:56:50.640 align:center make it harder to not be able to use, 00:56:50.640 --> 00:56:53.430 align:center but I'm also, as a result, not as well versed 00:56:53.430 --> 00:56:56.790 align:center in PowerPoint's checker as I would 00:56:56.790 --> 00:56:59.560 align:center be if I was in a workflow that was primarily PowerPoint. 00:56:59.560 --> 00:57:02.760 align:center We are also in a Google Drive workplace, 00:57:02.760 --> 00:57:06.875 align:center so I think sometimes you work with the tools you have. 00:57:06.875 --> 00:57:07.750 align:center ERIC TREKELL: Thanks. 00:57:07.750 --> 00:57:09.430 align:center Stacey-- oh, sorry. 00:57:09.430 --> 00:57:11.030 align:center AVERY MACK: Totally agree. 00:57:11.030 --> 00:57:12.488 align:center ERIC TREKELL: I just want to make-- 00:57:12.488 --> 00:57:15.170 align:center Stacey asked some questions as well. 00:57:15.170 --> 00:57:18.380 align:center Does anyone know of a BLV accessible stats analysis 00:57:18.380 --> 00:57:20.100 align:center program? 00:57:20.100 --> 00:57:21.810 align:center Not necessarily a presentation question. 00:57:28.150 --> 00:57:30.430 align:center BRIANNA BLASER: I can answer that if nobody 00:57:30.430 --> 00:57:31.830 align:center has a good answer. 00:57:31.830 --> 00:57:33.640 align:center One suggestion I'd make-- and, Stacey, this 00:57:33.640 --> 00:57:35.350 align:center is Brianna Blaser from UW. 00:57:35.350 --> 00:57:36.640 align:center I'm happy to connect on this. 00:57:39.490 --> 00:57:41.680 align:center Andreas Stefik at University of Nevada, 00:57:41.680 --> 00:57:44.290 align:center Las Vegas, who is the developer of the Quorum tool, 00:57:44.290 --> 00:57:46.660 align:center has been working on some of this, 00:57:46.660 --> 00:57:49.467 align:center and the answer is that a lot of this stuff 00:57:49.467 --> 00:57:51.800 align:center is not great, particularly because of the output issues. 00:57:51.800 --> 00:57:54.250 align:center But I'm happy to chat more about that. 00:57:54.250 --> 00:57:56.920 align:center I thought Stacey had a different question, too. 00:57:56.920 --> 00:57:58.080 align:center Sorry, go ahead, Stacey. 00:57:58.080 --> 00:57:59.997 align:center STACEY: It's the same question I actually sent 00:57:59.997 --> 00:58:01.310 align:center to Brianna a couple months ago. 00:58:01.310 --> 00:58:04.510 align:center And so I had a bigger audience to ask, 00:58:04.510 --> 00:58:07.100 align:center which is why I asked it today. 00:58:07.100 --> 00:58:09.100 align:center But if anybody has any resources, 00:58:09.100 --> 00:58:15.080 align:center this doctoral student didn't have programming background, 00:58:15.080 --> 00:58:18.730 align:center and so she couldn't just use a programming tool 00:58:18.730 --> 00:58:22.010 align:center that Stefik had developed. 00:58:22.010 --> 00:58:24.940 align:center So I was just looking for something 00:58:24.940 --> 00:58:28.660 align:center that was more user friendly for people 00:58:28.660 --> 00:58:30.590 align:center who don't do any programming. 00:58:34.893 --> 00:58:37.310 align:center ERIC TREKELL: Yes, that was the other question you posted, 00:58:37.310 --> 00:58:39.200 align:center correct, Stacey? 00:58:39.200 --> 00:58:46.870 align:center About screen readers, programming code, or math 00:58:46.870 --> 00:58:49.298 align:center equations accessible in screen readers? 00:58:49.298 --> 00:58:49.840 align:center STACEY: Yeah. 00:58:49.840 --> 00:58:53.140 align:center Well, that was actually more for my own benefit. 00:58:53.140 --> 00:58:57.520 align:center I teach programming, and most of the time, this isn't an issue, 00:58:57.520 --> 00:58:59.950 align:center but I always want to make my presentations accessible 00:58:59.950 --> 00:59:02.120 align:center whether I know that somebody needs it or not. 00:59:02.120 --> 00:59:07.120 align:center And so finding ways to make sure that the presentation slides 00:59:07.120 --> 00:59:10.750 align:center are accessible for things other than text or images 00:59:10.750 --> 00:59:12.760 align:center are pretty important to me. 00:59:12.760 --> 00:59:19.000 align:center So the suggestions of MathML or LaTeX are good, 00:59:19.000 --> 00:59:21.370 align:center and I will definitely start working 00:59:21.370 --> 00:59:22.930 align:center those into my presentation, as well 00:59:22.930 --> 00:59:26.592 align:center as the special font for code. 00:59:26.592 --> 00:59:27.300 align:center ERIC TREKELL: OK. 00:59:27.300 --> 00:59:28.090 align:center Thank you. 00:59:28.090 --> 00:59:31.620 align:center We are at 2 o'clock, and so we do 00:59:31.620 --> 00:59:33.420 align:center need to close down a little bit. 00:59:33.420 --> 00:59:36.780 align:center I'd like to thank Dr. McDonnell and Dr. Mack 00:59:36.780 --> 00:59:40.890 align:center for spending time and sharing their insights with us. 00:59:40.890 --> 00:59:42.540 align:center Accessible presentation is grounded 00:59:42.540 --> 00:59:46.590 align:center in an understanding of disability identity and history. 00:59:46.590 --> 00:59:49.740 align:center Also, our Thanks to the Alliance for Identity 00:59:49.740 --> 00:59:52.690 align:center Inclusive Computing Education for supporting us. 00:59:52.690 --> 00:59:55.410 align:center And thanks to our interpreters, CART providers, 00:59:55.410 --> 00:59:58.500 align:center and to all of you for taking what I know 00:59:58.500 --> 01:00:00.120 align:center is valuable time as we're heading 01:00:00.120 --> 01:00:04.530 align:center into the fall academic terms to join us today. 01:00:04.530 --> 01:00:07.620 align:center We do have an evaluation form, and we 01:00:07.620 --> 01:00:10.680 align:center would ask people to do that. 01:00:10.680 --> 01:00:14.560 align:center For that evaluation form, I put the link in the chat. 01:00:14.560 --> 01:00:15.810 align:center I'll also be sending it out. 01:00:15.810 --> 01:00:18.480 align:center Once the video and transcript have been processed, 01:00:18.480 --> 01:00:22.710 align:center we'll also send those out to everyone who registered, 01:00:22.710 --> 01:00:26.740 align:center plus post it widely in other resources. 01:00:26.740 --> 01:00:32.870 align:center So Avery, Emma, we've had a wonderful time with you all 01:00:32.870 --> 01:00:36.020 align:center and look forward to the wonderful things 01:00:36.020 --> 01:00:37.640 align:center you'll do in the future. 01:00:37.640 --> 01:00:40.790 align:center So thank you, everyone, and have a good afternoon 01:00:40.790 --> 01:00:43.560 align:center for the rest of your day. 01:00:43.560 --> 01:00:45.150 align:center AVERY MACK: Thank you for having us. 01:00:45.150 --> 01:00:47.210 align:center EMMA MCDONNELL: Thank you so much.