Accessibility Measures and Supports by Dott. Mag. Arjun Pfaffstaller
Guest Article by Dott. Mag. Arjun Pfaffstaller
For this guest article, I am pleased to introduce Arjun Pfaffstaller:
Dott. Mag. Arjun Pfaffstaller
Arjun Pfaffstaller is a dedicated advocate for inclusion and accessibility, currently leading the "TravelersBook for Accessibility" project in collaboration with the Global Campus Online Project. As a project manager at the Lern- und Gedenkort Schloss Hartheim, he oversees initiatives trying to reduce access barriers to memorial sites. Fluent in German, Italian, and English, he brings a multilingual perspective to his advocacy for accessible travel and inclusive public spaces.
In A11y News, he shares his input on accessibility measures through the example of Vienna’s local public transport system.
Input Article on Accessibility Measures
Have you ever taken the wonderful Wiener Linien metros in Vienna? If so, you might have seen the different colours for each of the five lines: U1 is held in red, U2 in violet, U3 in orange, U4 in green, and U6 in brown. One might interpret this colouring as a kind of ”corporate design” for each single line. And this might not be a completely biased idea, since, presumably, the people who live in Vienna may link, for instance, the brown paint of the U6 stations with certain sayings and feelings. However, I would describe the five colours of the Viennese tube as an accessibility measure, rather than a not-so-bad attempt at ”corporate metro design”.
Colours as an Orientation Aid in the Vienna Subway
For people with specific sight impairments, recognising colours might be easier than recognising letters and numbers. When taking into account that most station signs and subway maps are placed at a certain height, this argument might hold, as letters and numbers become illegible for people with visual impairments. However, things are not as straightforward as they may seem. Colours are not a universal orientation aid for people with sight impairment. One undeniable argument for this is that under (certain) lighting conditions, some colours look the same. For example, at the subway station Wien Westbahnhof, the brown and orange markings of the brown U6 and orange U3 are, at certain spots, hardly distinguishable from one another. The same applies at Stephansplatz station, where the red U1 and orange U3 colouring may cause difficulties.
Another argument that must be considered is that the distance between a person (with sight impairment) and a sign is always a decisive factor. For some people, even colours may become indistinguishable because the distance is too far.
Furthermore, it must always be considered that visual orientation aids are not accessible to all persons with disabilities. Therefore, regarding these counterarguments, it must be said that only some people with sight impairment may benefit from colours as an orientation aid in the Vienna subways.
Who benefits from Colour as Orientation Aid?
But are there other people who may benefit from the colour marking of the five subway lines in the Austrian capital? The answer is yes! Colours, as an orientation aid, could increase accessibility for people with learning difficulties.
In particular, people who have severe difficulties distinguishing numerical information. The coloured markings of subway stations, signs, and maps could ease orientation. For people who have difficulties reading, the positive effect could also exist, but it should be assumed that it is of lesser impact. The argument behind this assumption is that people must recognise the names of the train stations and the driving directions of the metros. This problem also applies to people with sight impairments.
Actually, it seems that the colour marking of the Wiener Linien tubes is not an orientation aid for people with sight impairment or learning difficulties, since not all can benefit from it. It is indubitable that colouring metro stations, signs, and maps is not a universal orientation and navigation aid for these people.
However, should a single accessibility measure or support be evaluated for its potential to be universal to all people with a specific type of disability? In my opinion, this should not be the case.
This originates from two facts:
Firstly, when looking at a specific disability type, e.g. sight impairment or learning difficulties, disabilities differ at the group level. This holds even at a more granular level of disability types.
Secondly, people with the same type of disability have learned different ways to navigate public spaces. This heterogeneity of the groups of people within a specific type of disability calls for a diversified set of accessibility measures and supports.
A single measure will serve some individuals within a group of the same disability type, but not all. Trying to fit a single measure or support system to all individuals of one group would be excessively time-consuming, if not even impossible.
Trivially, a single accessibility measure should serve a pre-specified minimum number of people. However, that is more a matter of scarce economic resources and not of accessibility, which is the focus of this input article.
Why Evaluate Sets of Accessibility Measures?
The situation is different when a set of accessibility measures and supports is analysed. In such a case, it should be assessed whether that set of measures and support creates universal accessibility to a group of people having the same type of disability. The reason behind this is relatively clear: a set of measures and supports meant to increase accessibility for a group of people with a specific disability type must be capable of covering the hetero geneity of this specific disability type and the heterogeneity of the group’s demands.
Example: Sight Impairment and Colour Marking
Taking the group of people with sight impairment as a particular instance, the colour marking of the Viennese metro stations, signs and maps could be seen as an orientation aid. The reason for this has already been mentioned: people with sight impairment who can easily recognise colours, but cannot read small letters, or letters from a distance, could benefit from these five colours as an orientation aid. When it is necessary to read a single station name or the driving direction, for those people, the zoom of their smartphone camera or the usage of an accessibility app, such as ”Be My Eyes”, could be enough to use the metro system independently. Trivially, for people who face problems distinguishing these colours under certain lighting conditions or who cannot use the camera zoom for reading purposes, the colour marking is not the most adequate accessibility measure. Nevertheless, for people with sight impairment, colouring marking Vienna’s metro lines is an orientation aid, since for some people with sight impairment, accessibility could be increased.
Adding a Digital Layer: POPTIS
When evaluating the universality of accessibility for people with sight impairment, another orientation aid should be included in order to obtain a set of accessibility measures and supports. For this particular group, another Wiener Linien accessibility measure is POPTIS.
POPTIS is a navigation and orientation aid for the Vienna metro system. This internet application provides granular information for all metro stations in Vienna. Taking the Längenfeldgasse metro station as an example, with POPTIS users can obtain granular orientation information on how to navigate to the U3 line towards Heiligenstadt when arriving via the U6 line from the Westbahnhof.
For most stations, an alternative way from one specific point to the others is also available. Without a doubt, POPTIS is intended to be an orientation and navigation aid for people with sight impairment. Instead, the five metro colours are presumably not intended as a direct orientation aid for visually impaired people.
If the Wiener Linien’s colour marking and the ”POPTIS” application are interpreted as a set of orientation and navigation aids for people with sight impairment, the evaluation of whether universal accessibility is achieved for this particular group could be made.
The practical and theoretical definition of ‘universal accessibility’ differs. The practical definition should be ambitious but achievable within a specific time frame. Whereas the theoretical definition encompasses such complexity and comprehensiveness, it heavily focuses on each single person with sight impairment, which could never be accomplished.
Scope Limitations of this Input Article
Since this is an input article on how to view accessibility measures and supports through the lens of universal accessibility, the discussion does not dive into the assessment of whether the set of orientation aids (colour marking and POPTIS) can provide universal accessibility to the group of people with vision impairment. This decision stems from the fact that discussing this comprehensive evaluation would go far beyond the scope of such an article. Furthermore, another problem is that I did not have data on the users’ (or potential users’) perspective on and perception of these two aids.
A theoretical analysis could be conducted by solely assessing the functions of the colour marking and ”POPTIS”. However, this might not reflect the practical and perceived universality of accessibility for this particular group. Therefore, neglecting the assessment of the universality of accessibility could be seen as justifiable.
The Missing Piece: Intersectionality
Now, one might say that another crucial aspect is not covered in this article. And that is correct! The aspect of intersectionality is left out of this input discussion. The reason for this is that considering intersectionality would excessively extend the article.
Even within a group of people having the same type of disability, the concept of intersectionality complicates the accessibility terms.
How Intersectionality Changes the Evaluation of Single Measures
If intersectionality were to be included in this discussion, the argument that a single accessibility measure - designed for a particular group of people with a specific disability type - should not be evaluated for its potential to create universal accessibility for that group, no longer holds.
Without intersectionality, for each person, it is assumed that they have one disability and not multiple. Therefore, the homogeneity of the disability type is assumed to exist only at the group level. Only the set of accessibility aids must achieve, in a theoretical definition, the universality of accessibility for this group. The concept of intersectionality brings the heterogeneity from the group level to the individual level.
Obviously, we cannot know if an individual has one or more disabilities belonging to the same disability type. However, when evaluating single accessibility measures, it must be considered that one person could have multiple disabilities of the same type.
If this possibility is not considered, a single measure could not increase accessibility. In practice, this possibility could be aggregated to a subgroup, rather than remaining at a personal level. This aggregation might increase the evaluated effectiveness of a single accessibility measure or support. In a subgroup, a single accessibility aid could be beneficial to multiple people.
Practical Implications for Policy‑Makers and Designers
The heterogeneity of disability could be seen as higher than at the group level in this case, without intersectionality. Theoretically speaking, a clustered heterogeneity of disability could be seen as a mechanism that forces policy makers to evaluate single accessibility measures and supports at a more granular level.
It is important to note that the presence of intersectionality, even if it is only viewed within a group of people having the same type of disability, escalates the heterogeneity of that disability type.
A single accessibility aid or support must be able to face this heterogeneity, which means nothing less than providing universal accessibility to a particular group.
Let’s continue this thought in the contrary way: If intersectionality is present and if a single accessibility measure or support, designed for a particular group, does not provide universal accessibility for that group, then, theoretically speaking, this single accessibility measure or support would have a low beneficial effect for one or a few individuals. In the real world, the situation might not be that extreme. However, accessibility measures and support might be significantly less effective.
Take‑away Summary
When the intersectionality of disability (within the same disability type) is not present, then the heterogeneity of disability remains at the group level. Therefore, the evaluation of a single accessibility measure must not place its focus on this heterogeneity, since accessibility will be increased for some people within the group.
The heterogeneity of any disability type plays an important role when it comes to the selection of a few or all accessibility measures, designed for a particular disability type. The universality of accessibility for the concerned group becomes the basis of evaluation.
However, when intersectionality within a group of people having the same disability type is present, the heterogeneity of that disability type falls to a granular level.
When it comes to the evaluation of a single accessibility aid, the possibility that one person could have more than one disability (of the same type) must be considered. If not, a single aid or measure could fail to increase accessibility for individuals.
Trivially, when it comes to the evaluation of the set of accessibility measures, designed for a particular disability group, the universality of accessibility for that group is a key evaluation criterion. This argument stems from the fact that a set of accessibility measures and supports, designed for a particular group of persons having the same type of disability, must face the heterogeneity of that disability type and the heterogeneity of that group’s demands.
This Input Article on Accessibility Measures and Supports, and How to View Them through the Lens of Universal Accessibility and Theoretical Group Heterogeneity was written by Dott. Mag. Arjun Pfaffstaller.
For questions, you can reach him on LinkedIn.