Resources search

Here you can find all documents in one zipfile that relate to the disability-confident employers’ toolkit: a unique portfolio of practical guides, checklists, case studies and resources that make it easier for any business to be disability confident.

This accessibility standards and audit pack is a toolkit designed to improve the accessibility of buildings in low and middle income settings.
 

Th is document provides a ready to use form for businesses to sign to join the disability champions network creating an agenda for action.

This report documents the human-centred design process used in a project conducted in 2020 in Nairobi, Kenya. It includes research tools that can be used in other contexts, as well as the adaptations that were made to research tools to ensure they were inclusive. These tools are followed by the main lessons learned, and recommendations for others who want to implement a similar process.

The goal of this project was to better understand how people living with disabilities in humanitarian contexts use mobile technology, the barriers they face in accessing mobile services, and the opportunities that mobile might present to increase access to basic services in their daily lives. The target population for this project was urban refugees living with visual or hearing impairments in Nairobi, Kenya. 

The human-centred design tools used included: Location Mapping, User Journeys, Communication Mapping, Future Me and Daily Diaries. 

Background: Individuals with disabilities experience difficulty in using various everyday technologies such as computers and smartphones.

Objectives: To propose a conceptual framework that will lead to the development of practical and user friendly assistive technology.

Method: A literature review of challenges faced by individuals with physical disabilities was carried out. Interviews with adults with physical disabilities in Kampala, Uganda, and Port Elizabeth, South Africa, identified three main challenges with regard to using technology: using a mobile phone, controlling an electronic environment and using a computer.

Results: The challenges identified can be solved by taking into consideration the needs of individuals with disabilities. However, the design of new technologies and interaction techniques, such as natural hand gestures and voice, as input mechanisms has able-bodied individuals in mind. Individuals with disabilities are considered as an afterthought. The main reason for this is that individuals with a disability are a minority and hence it may not make economic sense for technology innovators to cater for their unique needs. A lack of practical guidelines on how to design for individuals with disabilities is another reason why designing for individuals with disabilities is often an afterthought.

Conclusion: This article proposes a conceptual framework that can be used by researchers and technology designers in order to design products that could cater for the unique needs of individuals with disabilities. The article also emphasises the importance of exploring alternative interaction techniques, as they could enable individuals with disabilities to fully utilise technologies such as smart phones, computers and smart home electronics.

African Journal of Disability, Vol 8, 2019

The area of assistive technology has a long history of technological ingenuity and innovation. In order to ensure that the benefits of assistive technology are equitably distributed across the population and life course, it is necessary to adopt a systemic approach to the area. We describe examples of systems thinking and non-systems thinking across 10 Ps. These Ps are People (or users, as the primary beneficiaries of assistive technology), Policy, Products, Personnel, Provision (as key strategic drivers at systems level); and Procurement, Place, Pace, Promotion and Partnership (as key situational factors for systems). Together these Ps should constitute a framework for an “open” system that can evolve and adapt, that empowers users, inter-connects key components and locates these in the reality of differing contexts. The adoption of a stronger systems thinking perspective within the assistive technology field should allow for more equitable, more resilient and more sustainable assistive technology across high, middle- and low-income contexts and countries.

Background: South Africa’s Constitution guarantees everyone, including persons with disabilities, the right to education. A variety of laws are in place obliging higher education institutions to provide appropriate physical access to education sites for all. In practice, however, many buildings remain inaccessible to people with physical disabilities.

Objectives: To describe what measures South African universities are taking to make their built environments more accessible to students with diverse types of disabilities, and to assess the adequacy of such measures.

Method: We conducted semi-structured in-depth face-to-face interviews with disability unit staff members (DUSMs) based at 10 different public universities in South Africa.

Results: Challenges with promoting higher education accessibility for wheelchair users include the preservation and heritage justification for failing to modify older buildings, ad hoc approaches to creating accessible environments and failure to address access to toilets, libraries and transport facilities for wheelchair users.

Conclusion: South African universities are still not places where all students are equally able to integrate socially. DUSMs know what ought to be done to make campuses more accessible and welcoming to students with disabilities and should be empowered to play a leading role in sensitising non-disabled members of universities, to create greater awareness of, and appreciation for, the multiple ways in which wheelchair user students continue to be excluded from full participation in university life. South African universities need to adopt a systemic approach to inclusion, which fosters an understanding of inclusion as a fundamental right rather than as a luxury.

Purpose: Environmental factors restrict the extent to which people with disabilities can participate in society. The reduction of environmental barriers will increase their participation in the social, educational and vocational spheres of life. With the use of a valid and reliable tool - the Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors (CHIEF) questionnaire - this study aimed to evaluate the environmental barriers faced by wheelchair users in Bangalore city, India.

Method: A convenience sample of 100 wheelchair users, between 16 and 40 years of age, and working in different institutions in Bangalore, participated in the study. The CHIEF questionnaire was administered to each participant. It consisted of multiple questions pertaining to the 5 components of environmental barriers faced by wheelchair users: Accessibility, Accommodation, Resource availability, Social support and Equality. Percentage values for the responses in each component were calculated.

Results: The results showed that 52% of wheelchair users faced problems in Accessibility on a daily basis, and 77% of them felt the problem was big. With respect to Accommodation, 41% faced problems once a month and 50% of them felt that this was a big problem. The maximum percentage of participants did not face problems in Resource availability (43%), Social support (50%) and Equality (59%), and therefore these aspects were not felt to be a big problem.

Conclusion: An understanding of the environmental barriers faced by wheelchair users can provide guidance in mapping policies and strengthening laws which would help to improve their quality of life.