A Plan for Access and a Plan for Secrecy

The government accessibility plan 2018-21 says:

Information and Communications

1. Complete a review of communications policies, procedures and practices to improve accessibility and ensure they are not creating barriers to accessibility. This will include:

Government of Nova Scotia Communications Policy and supporting guidelines;

Government of Nova Scotia brand standards;

communications platforms including print, electronic and digital (i.e. video). Lead: [Communications Nova Scotia]

2. Implement a phased launch of more user-centric government website, beginning in 2018-2019. The website will be accessible in line with the international standards (WCAG 2.0 AA), and augmented with user experience best practices. Future phases will include transactions (e.g., Adobe PDF forms) documents and other web assets that were produced separate from the new website (e.g., video, live webcasts). Lead: [Communications Nova Scotia]

Here is a summary of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)

• Perceivable

• Provide text alternatives for non-text content.
• Provide captions and other alternatives for multimedia.
• Create content that can be presented in different ways, including by assistive technologies, without losing meaning.
• Make it easier for users to see and hear content.

• Operable

• Make all functionality available from a keyboard.
• Give users enough time to read and use content.
• Do not use content that causes seizures or physical reactions.
• Help users navigate and find content.
• Make it easier to use inputs other than keyboard.

• Understandable

• Make text readable and understandable.
• Make content appear and operate in predictable ways.
• Help users avoid and correct mistakes.

• Robust

• Maximize compatibility with current and future user tools

These guidelines provide three levels of conformance: A, AA, and AAA. The generally accepted level of conformance in many countries is Level AA. The levels reflect the comprehensiveness and detail of the implementation.

So four years into the plan, how's it going?  I used Siteimprove's Accessibility Checker on 43 semi-random websites.  The checker only does the splash page - it doesn't dig deeper into the website.

Type	AVERAGE of WCAG AA	COUNT
Judiciary	6.4	1
Crown Corp	35.1	1
Trade Association	40.3	1
Social Enterprise	47.1	4
Law Firm	53.9	1
Education	62.2	4
Association	68.4	2
Commission	73.6	1
Private Enterprise	78.6	5
Government	86.2	17
Advocacy	86.8	3
Restaurant	100	1
US Government	100	2
Grand Total	74.5	43

Sure enough, provincial government is doing pretty well - 17 entities with an average score of 86.2.  10 sites get 100.  What really ruin the record are the Human Rights Commission and the Courts - WCAG AA score 7th and 2nd worst.  

In May of 2021, I had conversations with the HRC about their unhelpful website, so I guess it's no surprise to find it doesn't meet accessibility standards.  I'd say that reflects a more pervasive indifference to people with disabilities - their biggest customers.

The 10 worst offenders are:

Organization (click for web page)	Type	WCAG A	WCAG AA	WCAG AAA	Mean
Cape Society	Social Enterprise	96.8	0	60.1	52.3
Courts of Nova Scottia	Judiciary	98.6	6.4	25	43.3
Develop Nova Scotia	Crown Corp	93.7	35.1	69.6	66.1
Doctors Nova Scotia	Association	98.7	36.7	36.2	57.2
St. FX Admissions	Education	93.2	38	69.5	66.9
Restaurant Association of Nove Scotia	Trade Association	91.6	40.3	44.2	58.7
Directions NS	Social Enterprise	94.1	40.9	21.2	52.1
Human Rights Commission	Government	93.2	49	21.4	54.5
Harvard Admissions	Education	94.7	50	72.3	72.3
McInnes Cooper	Law Firm	100	53.9	45.3	66.4

I'm not sure how the Cape Society gets a big goose egg on level AA, but I have no reason to doubt it.  Of their $492,196 total revenue, $445,487 came from the province (90.5%).  What is effectively an arm of the province is not held to account.  They don't pay minimum wage, they pay themselves generously (6 salaries $40-80k) and they stole $15,205 from their workers.

The courts are a shocker.  They've issued important rulings in favor of people with disabilities, but this is a serious administrative deficiency and public relations misstep..

RANS is no surprise - they don't consider people with disabilities as members of the public.  Develop NS has done a good job elsewhere, but their website sucks

In the interest of full disclosure I confess that the website you are reading ranks 18th worst on the complete list.

Remember that the Accessibility Plan exempted PDF files?  "Future phases will include transactions (e.g., Adobe PDF forms)".

PDFs are complicated technically.  But PDF files can be created specifically to be accessible for people with disabilities. PDF file formats in use as of 2014 can include tags, text equivalents, captions, audio descriptions, and more.

You can check on the accessibility score of a pdf from Acrobat Pro (not free) and generate a report like this:

Accessibility Report

Filename:

Pages 1-1000.pdf

Report created by:

Warren Reed

Organization:

[Personal and organization information from the Preferences > Identity dialog.]

Summary

The checker found problems which may prevent the document from being fully accessible.

• Needs manual check: 2
• Passed manually: 0
• Failed manually: 0
• Skipped: 1
• Passed: 10
• Failed: 19

Some software can automatically produce tagged PDFs, but this feature is not always enabled by default. Leading screen readers, including JAWS, Window-Eyes, Hal, and Kurzweil 1000 and 3000 can read tagged PDFs. Moreover, tagged PDFs can be re-flowed and magnified for readers with visual difficulties.

Adding tags to older PDFs and those that are generated from scanned documents can present some challenges, but government is addicted to image-only PDFs for the simple purpose that they are difficult to quote and organize.  

I was involved in getting a 2500 page FOIPOP about a ruinous Dexter-owned dump in Annapolis County.  Accessibility report above.   2500 unsearchable pages, dozens of unquotable emails, hundreds of spreadsheet lines, all rendered nearly useless.  This was from Environment and Climate Change, which profits immensely by the secrecy imposed by image only PDFs.  And they have the nerve to charge for it!

My advice to anyone using government-supplied PDFs is to always demand tagged and flowable versions.

In sum:

• The courts and Human Rights Commission are an unfathomable mystery to some people with disabilities.
• The Restaurant Association continues an unblemished record of discrimination
• The province does better on websites, but relies on inaccessible PDFs to confound information seekers

And if you are tempted to try the accessibility checker on a favorite website, let me know

Gus Reed

wcreedh@gmail.com

Labels: Access, Government, Technology

You can review the full set of responses here.

Integrated Epic Fantasy

I read this new plan for tourism in Halifax.  I admit to liking some of the individuals - Jennifer Angel dealt fairly with the washroom situation at the Stubborn Goat years ago.  But the report is filled with jargon.  Lenses peering at diversity on behalf of stakeholders in world-class venues.  Not really a plan, more like fantasy.

As always, the people in charge are all white and do not represent the voices of people with disabilities.  Their list of seven plans does not reference Access by Design 2030, which is meant to be the roadmap to an accessible province.

They do mention empty nesters for disposable income and flexibility.  But you wonder what they're smoking over there.  This study says there are 859 million people with restricted ability (a new term for 'disabled') worldwide.

The tourism plan does say that we need better public washrooms, but seems focused on hinting that Halifax is only a smidgen away from becoming the next Paris, Florence or Capetown.

Three things:

The tourism accessibility guidelines are a joke if they exist at all.   The Provincial Tourism website lists 22 (of  702) (3%) accommodations as 'wheelchair accessible'.  Enough room for the 2.6 million New Englanders over 65 and a day's drive away?

In 2019 my wonderful 80-year-old sister visited, and I took her to Lunenburg.  The Bluenose was in.  Nice steps!  Welcome empty nesters!

To hell with it.  Discover Halifax would rather dream about private jets stopping by on their way to Davos than to get practical,  Wanna buy a convention centre?  Brand new, never used......

What's in a name?

I came across a list of Which Canadian Registered Charities Received the Most Money from Provincial Governments in 2012?  I know it's eight years old, but it's interesting.  

In Nova Scotia, 115 charities made the list.  Totaling $3.5 billion dollars in provincial funding.

Surprising to me was the inclusion of 

• Capital District Health Authority (I checked - still a charity in 2020)
• Halifax Regional School Board
• Cape Breton District Health Authority

to the tune of 1.3 billion dollars.

Those entities, I assumed, are simply taxpayer funded - part of the Department of Health and Wellness or Education.  For those three, the charitable receipted donations represent 0.03% of their revenue. Three HUNDRETHS of one percent.  Like finding $8.64 outside the McDonalds where you flip burgers for a living.

Why are they charities?  Does it matter?  Here's the summary:

And by category (my categories):

	Provincial Funding	Federal Funding	Municipal Funding	Receipted Donations	Total Revenue
HEALTH	$1,916,837,849	$41,465,791	$12,082	$1,281,613	$2,123,200,357
EDUCATION	$749,514,421	$11,765,202	$55,744,706	$981,123	$994,595,982
POST SECONDARY	$504,837,252	$68,961,042	$309,793	$31,199,957	$1,294,643,714
SENIORS	$186,968,785	$1,426,644		$442,451	$234,548,124
RESIDENT SERVICES	$57,541,424	$250,080		$20,512	$59,594,857
COMMUNITY HOUSING	$53,152,198	$56,635		$91,121	$56,212,476
HOME FOR SPECIAL CARE	$19,671,666	$320,578		$46,691	$24,962,322
LIBRARY	$14,230,402	$387,854	$18,251,184	$132,942	$34,278,694
SHELTERED WORKSHOP	$12,306,665	$378,408	$545,837	$19,104	$17,225,619
SOCIAL SERVICE	$10,984,507	$19,412,304	$85,514	$36,903	$31,855,811
YOUTH	$9,653,517	$252,652		$26,780	$10,631,459
HOMEMAKER	$8,064,606	$2,877		$20	$8,295,111
RESEARCH	$7,986,628	$2,779		$3,250,193	$15,184,327
EMPLOYMENT	$4,932,322	$412,958	$63,563	$9,066	$6,270,605
YMCA	$4,561,085	$2,441,795	$243,859	$523,173	$16,121,025
L'ARCHE	$3,460,788	$2,947		$90,499	$3,647,882
SHELTER	$2,334,739	$1,248,800		$192,692	$4,034,413
MUSEUM	$1,578,283	$10,256		$3,767	$2,318,222
Grand Total	$3,568,617,137	$148,799,602	$75,256,538	$38,348,607	$4,937,621,000

Receipted donations are .78% of all revenue for these 105 charities, and  postsecondary education accounts for 80% of that.

Why bother to set up charities when you could just have separate pigeonholes in the provincial budget?  There's a category for 'Lands and Forestry' and they pay their bills just fine.

You can argue that Dalhousie makes quite good use of its charitable status ($8.5 million) but 34 of these charities had no receipted donations.  

I don't really know what this is about, but it seems oddly complicated.  36 of these charities are what I would call disability focused, and they are funded by the province for over $150 million.

They collectively receipted under half a million dollars.

I don't like the idea that people with disabilities get their entitlements indirectly.  If you are unemployed, you get a check paid to you.  If you have a disability, your entitlement goes directly to a third party as an act of charity.  Some of the third parties are good. but on the whole the message is harmful.  This arrangement just hasn't worked in housing, employment and community inclusion.

Here's what makes sense to me:

• Part of a government department with some autonomy
• Health Regions
• Public Education Boards
• Not for profit with active charitable wing
• Universities
• Hospitals 
• For profit with associated charity
• Senior facilities
• Government Entitlements
• Paid to individuals

I'd love to know what you think.

Gus Reed