The Disability Discrimination Act requires services to be accessible to the disabled in the UK; but generally it does not affect the design of products. So a shop or web site needs to be accessible to a person with mobility, cognitive or visual impairments; but it can lawfully sell a gadget with buttons too small and too close together for most users, sealed in a blister pack that will fight a bloody battle with any purchaser to resist being opened, and it can come with instructions that don't make sense.
The gadget maker was under no obligation to think through the problems that its design or packaging might present for end users – and it is this omission that the BSI hopes to address.
"The true accessibility of products is determined by the accessibility of their weakest component whether packaging, instructions, interface, after sales service and so on," says the new British Standard. "Concentrating attention on one component while neglecting others is likely to result in a product that is weak overall."
If companies get accessibility right, the BSI believes that they stand to benefit from increased sales, customer satisfaction and loyalty. Brands will strengthen, profits will grow. That is the tenor of BS 7000-6:2005, the sixth British Standard in a series on design management systems.
The Standard is intended as a framework to help all organisations ensure that disabled people's needs are considered throughout the lifecycle of a product or service. "The goal," says the BSI, "is to meet the needs of consumers of diverse age and capability in a wide range of contexts because appropriate access to information, products, services and facilities is a fundamental human right."
The 55-page guidelines attempt to influence an organisation's approach to inclusive design for products and services, spreading responsibility for diversity across top, middle and junior executives. But the Standard notes that "ultimate responsibility" for the design quality lies with the Chairman or CEO.
The guidelines summarise the steps that should form part of a new product's project plan. They do not address technical details. Even in describing project plan stages, the guidelines are high level – suggesting, for example, that the essence of inclusive design can be spread throughout a company by team briefings and intranet reporting; that external experts can help with design accessibility and usability; that vigilance is required to keep up-to-date with changing interpretations of relevant legislation; and that companies should act on customer feedback.
The biggest contribution of the guidelines, perhaps, is to challenge an organisation's mindset. They represent a lengthy checklist for achieving what some will consider good corporate social responsibility, others will see as a business advantage.
Struan Robertson, an IT lawyer and editor of OUT-LAW.COM, said:
"These are useful guidelines from the BSI, but they need to be applied responsibly. There is a risk that an organisation will approach published standards with a checklist mentality, which in this case may not be the same thing as achieving a genuinely inclusive culture. This is a reason why, in the field of accessibility, the Disability Rights Commission has been loathe to endorse standards in the past: it doesn't want organisations just to tick boxes."
The guidelines were drafted by representatives from, among others, the RNID, DTI funding to set up a Centre for Inclusive Technology and Design (CITD). Over a two-month pilot period, CITD will work with eight blue chip companies, auditing their key products and developing training packages for senior management. It then aims to raise awareness and skills amongst corporations throughout the UK through consultation, research and training.
The guide costs £61 for BSI members, £122 for non-members.