Accessibility vs Inclusion
Prefer to listen to this post?
I recently attended an event at Fenway Park in Boston, which inspired this month’s newsletter. There were so many examples of accessibility and inclusion - my brain was buzzing!
One of the most important parts of making spaces more inclusive for disabled and neurodivergent people is understanding the relationship between accessibility and inclusion.
Knowing how they’re connected lets us identify which of our actions fit in which bucket and more importantly, helps us explore the potential impact of our actions on the people we want to include in our spaces.
For example, if you offer mocktails at a social event does that improve accessibility for people with substance use disorders? Is it inclusion? Both? Is choosing an ADA-compliant shuttle bus simply accessibility or can it also be inclusive?
There are a lot of metaphors for accessibility and inclusion (seats at a table, invitations to dance, etc), but do they help us understand or move forward?
Instead, let’s try commonsense definitions and practical examples.
What’s the difference between accessibility and inclusion?
If something is accessible, it means that everyone can access the same thing.
Accessibility is practical and specific. Ramps and captions are examples of accessibility. Once we choose to meet specific access needs (e.g. mobility, learning, vision, hearing), the next step is usually an implementation checklist.
As an example, here is one of my favorite checklists for social media accessibility.
If a space is inclusive, that means everyone in it is valued, respected, and can participate as their full and authentic selves.
Inclusion is values and mindset, supported by action. Using inclusive language is an example of an inclusive act, as explained in this BBC article about ableist language.
Can a space be accessible but not inclusive? Yes, but it’s less common.
Here’s a somewhat contrived example to illustrate the point. As someone with a mobility impairment, I might be able to physically enter a lecture hall to hear a presentation about the inferiority of disabled people.
That space is accessible (to me) but not inclusive. I can physically access the space, but my life as a disabled person is not valued or respected.
Accessibility without inclusion isn’t common. Making a space accessible usually goes along with believing that disabled or neurodivergent people are worth including.
Of course, there are many kinds of access needs, some of which may not be addressed. In the above example, the space wouldn’t be fully accessible unless it also had sign language interpretation, audio descriptions, mask-wearing, no fragrances, etc.
Ideally, everyone can fully access the same space. Practically, we’re aiming for as much accessibility as possible in the widest range of situations.
Can a space be inclusive but not accessible? No.
True inclusion can’t happen without accessibility. If we haven’t even made the effort to ensure people can get in the metaphorical door (accessibility), it’s hard to believe that we respect them (inclusion).
Inclusion is a gradual process. Most spaces are a blend of partially accessible and partially inclusive. We can build on that.
Can an action improve both accessibility and inclusion? Yes!
Happily, we can work on accessibility and inclusion at the same time - sometimes improving both with the same action.
Accessibility is often the easier place for people to start because it feels more straightforward. That’s great! Small actions add up.
Choosing to improve accessibility also says that you believe it’s important for disabled and/or neurodivergent people to be in your spaces. In itself, that’s a step toward greater inclusion.
Blog posts start their journey as part of my monthly newsletter, It All Adds Up.
To receive these insights and resources first, sign up below.