Three years at WeFlex (and seventeen years before that in this space) told me that when most people hear the term accessible, they think of one thing.
Ramps.
Don’t get me wrong, ramps are awesome and needed, just not needed by everyone with a disability. I’ve been to one gym that was proud of their accessibility (ramp) however, when I found their accessible bathroom, it was down a hallway with furniture in it that made it too narrow for most wheelchairs to get down. Some equipment was close together cutting off parts of the gym to those wheelchair users as well.
Regardless, they promoted themselves as ‘accessible’. I remembered this is why so many wheelchairs’ users are adamant about accompanying photos and proof of accessibility before visiting places. The other thing I noticed was the blaring music inside the gym (and choice of music but that’s a seperate issue). I explained to them that the noise level was inaccessible for some people who are blind or have low vision, people who were hard of hearing and those with auditory sensory preferences.
They explained to me, that isn’t an accessibility metric. Agree to disagree!
When we think about accessibility, we too often see it as a binary. It is or it isn’t accessible, which isn’t accurate when you consider the wide range of accessibility needs for so many different people. One person’s accessible location is another person’s inaccessible location. A setting can be wheelchair friendly, but not sensory friendly – and vice versa.
The future of accessibility is unpacking it into its different types of needs. Beyond wheelchair users, there are people with walking aids, people with sensory needs, people with assistance animals, etc. This may seem like a lot of work, but it benefits everyone. Too many venues deem themselves inaccessible because they don’t have ramps but are surprisingly accessible to other needs and they didn’t know it. By moving beyond an unclear binary, we can be more accurate and therefore more helpful to everyone.
But what about the gym above? They had a ramp, but the interior wasn’t accessible. So, were they, or weren’t they?
That depends on the user. Even within these specific needs, there are levels to it. If 90% of the setting is accessible is that good enough? Again, depends on the user. For a gym setting, maybe the cardio section isn’t accessible, most people in wheelchairs may not be bothered about not being able to use the treadmill. So, once you have broken down accessibility into unique accessibility needs, you can then grade each one from some accessibility, mostly accessible and totally accessible (with photos dammit!) and the users can decide for themselves.
This may seem like more work, but it opens more opportunity for businesses and settings to meet the needs of people (customers) with disability and I’d wager these settings would be more accessible (for some things) than they realise.