Recommendations

Area for action: collecting new types of disability data

Recommendation 1

National statistics bodies should shift toward collecting data on functional challenges and limitations across populations, rather than solely focusing on disability identity. This approach would provide a more nuanced understanding of how people experience limitations in their day-to-day lives, allowing for better-informed policymaking.

Disability is an inherently diverse and personal experience (footnote 4). Simplified measurements of disability can end up misrepresenting more complex health statuses and have limited utility for policymaking or resource allocation. Self-identification of disability is motivated by several factors and can lead to an underreporting of disability by certain groups (eg older people who do not renegotiate their identity despite experiencing changes in functioning which would constitute disability (footnote 5) . Perceived measures of disability (where researchers categorise people as disabled based on health records) rely on the medical model of disability and can contribute to interventions which do not account for an individual’s environmental and social context and fail to meet their needs.

While both self-identification and perceived measures can have value, it is significantly limited if the overall objective for data collection is to design better policies, products and services for disabled people. To better understand people’s accessibility needs, data collection should focus on assessing specific functional challenges and limitations people may face (eg issues with seeing, hearing, walking and remembering). It is important these questions are validated and developed in consultation with disabled communities and organisations (footnote 6).

To be effective, population surveys need to capture the diversity of functional challenges people face and move away from binary classifications of ‘disabled’ or ‘non-disabled’. The functional assessment questions developed by the United Nations’ Washington Group on Disability Statistics present a method for achieving this which could be integrated into existing national data collection (footnote 7). The most widely implemented of these, the short set (WG-SS), contains six questions on difficulties related to vision; hearing; mobility; cognition; self-care; and communication. Respondents are asked to report levels of difficulty for each category from ‘no difficulty’ to ‘cannot do at all’.

This approach has already been adopted by many countries around the world. According to a 2023 review of national censuses and household surveys by the Disability Data Initiative, 125 countries have at least one dataset with functional assessment questions, including 70 with at least one dataset using the WG-SS (footnote 8) . The report, however, found geographical disparities with functional assessment surveys being a rarity in Europe and Central Asia compared with a greater availability in sub-Saharan Africa.

Combined with a disaggregation by factors such as age, gender, socioeconomic status and location, the collection of this data could strengthen the efficacy of initiatives designed to support disabled people. In the context of policymaking, this data can help support more targeted interventions specific to described needs. In the context of DigAT, this data could be used to incentivise the development of new technologies and improve the quality of existing tools. It may also help improve alternatives to big data research methods (eg small data (footnote 9) methods used for analysing relatively smaller datasets or demographic subgroups). In doing so, national statistics bodies can play a leading role in furthering research on small data and coordinating initiatives to benefit disabled people.

Area of action: recognising digital technologies as assistive

Recommendation 2

Governments should consider the smartphone as an assistive technology.

Smartphones serve as a multi-purpose DigAT for disabled people, offering various accessibility features including voice-to-text; text-to-speech; screen magnifiers; captioning; navigation; and colour correction. It is estimated that more than half the global population (4.6 billion) have access to smartphones (footnote 10) with disabled people being significantly less likely to have access compared to non-disabled people (footnote 11). This disparity is also apparent in the UK, with lower levels of smartphone ownership estimated for disabled people compared to non-disabled people (86% vs 64%) (footnote 12).

As with information communication technologies more generally (eg laptops, tablets and PCs), internet access can break down barriers to healthcare, education, employment and social connections for all. The portable nature of smartphones and their ability to integrate accessibility features with ease makes them a powerful form of DigAT. They should not be considered any less a form of assistive technology than hearing aids, manual wheelchairs, or white canes. For disabled people, smartphones can enable new methods for independence. In a social care setting, smartphones are often essential for the effective functioning of smart home devices and personalised health data collection (footnote 13).

For many disabled people, their DigAT is their smartphone (footnote 14) and major mobile operating system providers such as Google (footnote 15) and Apple (footnote 16) have made progress in making their devices more accessible. In a survey of disabled DigAT users, conducted for this report, 64% said they need DigAT to access critical services. More than half of respondents said they could not live their lives the way they do without it (footnote 17).

For policymakers, the acknowledgement of smartphones as an assistive technology should shape approaches towards the provision of DigAT to disabled people as well as the provision of essential services (eg health, social care, education, banking) which are delivered or regulated by governments. For example, the use of smartphones as DigAT should inform any proposals to ban them in schools. Reliable internet access should also be considered as a key part of supporting the use of smartphones as DigAT. It may also require the categorisation of smartphones as an assistive technology for universal health coverage initiatives.

Area of action: prioritising inclusive design in technology development

Recommendation 3

Disabled people should be meaningfully involved in the design and development of new digital products and services from the outset.

Ensuring the inclusion of disabled people throughout the design process of digital products and services is important to improving their accessibility. This principle should apply both to specialised DigAT as well as mainstream technologies used by all. It should also apply for the entire lifecycle of a product, from conception, to design and deployment and to end-of-life. Accounting for the views and needs of disabled people in this way will help ensure that new technologies can be truly accessible and can lead to a better overall user experience for disabled and non-disabled people alike (footnote 18 and footnote 19).

There are many good examples of companies carefully considering accessibility needs in the development of new digital products and services. These include efforts from major technology companies such as Google footnote 20, Apple footnote 21 and Microsoft footnote 22, as well as smaller companies such as those highlighted across the case studies within this report. Despite this, the need to better include disabled people across the broad range of current and future DigAT applications was emphasised repeatedly across many of the research activities conducted.

Meaningfully involving disabled people will require investment in accessible recruitment processes, financial compensation and clear processes for engagement. A failure to do this carefully and effectively can lead to disabled people being excluded from user experience (UX) design or negatively impact their involvement footnote 23. Examples of poor practice highlighted in the Research Institute for Disabled Consumers (RiDC) research, conducted for this report, include a non-disclosure agreement sent in an inaccessible digital format and a survey with inaccessible checkboxes.

With altruism being a motivating factor for disabled people involving themselves in UX exercises footnote 24, meaningful involvement will also require developers providing feedback to participants on what will change, if anything, as a result of their contributions. This may also require moderated engagement and evaluation, in which developers are able to engage directly (remote or in-person) with participants to fully understand UX challenges.

Continuing the involvement of disabled people in the design of updates to products and services, post-deployment, is another important factor of inclusive design. This is easier with software and online services as feedback can be gauged in real-time (eg through social media platforms) with new versions designed and installed. An example of this being done well was highlighted during the Royal Society and Sony PlayStation roundtable with some developers using Discord as a platform to receive real-time feedback from disabled gamers, prior to making amendments to the gameplay in version updates footnote 25.

Given the integration of technologies across daily activities and people’s reliance on them, the end-of-life for a product should also be considered throughout the design process. When DigAT become obsolete, due to products no longer being maintained by their providers or due to companies closing, the disruption to people’s lives can be severe and immediate footnote 26. This may involve the consideration of releasing the source code of obsolete DigAT devices (under an open-source license), patent pools and escrow provisions. It may also require initiatives related to the repair of a device, particularly in the event of product discontinuation. For policymakers, it could require legislative action (eg strengthening right to repair laws and regulations).

The principle of meaningful involvement should extend to the development of the product or service as a designer. This means that it should be possible for disabled people to pursue careers in software and hardware design. If achieved, this will help embed the lived experience of disability into the teams developing these products. This aspiration will require investment in skills and training for disabled people and potential employers, as well as investment in the development of accessible design software and hardware. This could involve the redesign of existing design platforms and hardware. It may also require the introduction of new design modules in colleges and universities which are accessible, inclusive and attractive for disabled students.

Area for action: creating affordable digital assistive technologies

Recommendation 4

Governments, technology companies and research funders should explore initiatives to promote low-cost, interoperable and sustainable digital assistive technologies.

Disabled people, across the world, are less likely to be in work and more likely to earn lower wages, when compared with non-disabled peoplefootnote 27. In the UK, disabled people are almost twice as likely as non-disabled people to be unemployed footnote 28 and the average disabled household faces over £1,000 a month in extra costs in order to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households footnote 29. The affordability of DigAT should be seen as a key priority for all interested in their development and adoption. It is a challenge which was repeatedly highlighted across many of the research activities conducted for this report.

There are, broadly, five approaches which can help address this. The first is to focus on addressing market failures in the provision of DigAT which emanate from a disparate and diverse disabled population with low levels of disposable income. Creating products for disabled people, therefore, may not be the most profitable or financially sustainable business proposition for private companies and their shareholders. Solving this (eg by subsidising purchases of DigAT, establishing DigAT accelerators, or by improving data collection on disabled populations) could help create a more competitive DigAT environment and lower consumer costs for DigAT products.

The second approach is to focus on improving the utility and lifespan of DigAT. Ensuring that products can be used to a high standard for many years (eg through hardware repairability or software updates) could help improve the appeal of expenditure on DigAT for disabled people. Furthermore, if these products are interoperable with other technologies (assistive or otherwise), this can also improve their appeal. For example, an accessibility controller which only works with one device (eg a gaming console) may be less appealing than one which also works with many other devices (eg televisions, personal computers). Addressing the lifespan and utility challenges could also have a positive environmental impact by reducing waste. This approach, however, will need to be balanced against commercial interests which may require products to have limited lifespans in order to generate profit and incentivise innovation.

The third approach is to consider lending models for DigAT as part of existing public libraries. This approach would enable disabled people to borrow DigAT that they would otherwise be unable to access or purchase. This could help with testing the suitability of products prior to purchasing them or to help with specific use cases (eg job interviews, playing games, or learning an instrument). Libraries, themselves, could also receive funding to be equipped with DigAT to help disabled people more easily access books and the internet.

The fourth approach involves raising awareness of existing DigAT to help disabled people review different products and obtain better value for money. Awareness of DigAT products was a challenge raised throughout the activities conducted for this report. Barriers to awareness include information on DigAT being decentralised footnote 30, inconsistent information on accessibility descriptors footnote 31 and lack of incentives for companies footnote 32. As highlighted in the RiDC research, DigAT is discovered through a wide variety of sources including social media; disability groups; friends or family; and medical staff.

Amongst non-users of DigAT, 58% of respondents said they would use DigAT more if they knew what types were on the market. This was the most popular response to a question asking what would help participants to use DigAT footnote 33.

Finally, initiatives to lower the costs of producing DigAT can be explored. This could include the creation of open datasets to be used for the creation of DigAT (eg new audio datasets for training AI systems); the release of existing datasets (eg public sector datasets or navigation data generated by private companies); and further research into small data approaches for DigAT development. Beyond this, traditional methods of achieving lower costs (eg through tax incentives or by investment in training and skills of the workforce) could be explored.

Area for action: safeguarding against digital exclusion

Recommendation 5

Service providers should consider the social impact of replacing analogue services with digital alternatives.

For many people, analogue services will always be the preferred option. Solving digital exclusion will take time and for some disabled people, DigAT of any form may not help them to live independent, fulfilled lives. As more services move online, organisations must ensure that analogue alternatives as well as live human interaction remain available and of high quality. If this is not possible, they should ensure users have adequate support to make the transition from analogue to digital.

The transition from analogue to digital can exclude disabled people by introducing digital systems that are difficult or impossible to use given certain types of disability. When considering these transitions, there should be a comprehensive assessment of which groups may end up excluded and how this may occur. For example, a transition from keypad card readers to touchscreen card readers may not be understood to be a transition from analogue to digital, however this is a transition which can easily exclude people with vision impairments footnote 34.

The transition to digital services can also leave behind those who are digitally excluded (ie individuals without access to reliable internet, devices, or the skills necessary to navigate new technologies). This exclusion can exacerbate feelings of loneliness and isolation, particularly for those who may rely on face-to-face or phone-based services for social interaction and essential services. A 2024 report by the UK-based disability charity, Sense, found that nearly half of people with complex disabilities face exclusion as they struggle to access and engage with services online footnote 35. This includes accessing health support (eg booking a medical appointment online).

As outlined in recommendation 3, to ensure products and services are accessible, it is important to meaningfully involve disabled people throughout the entire design lifecycle. Doing so can help identify potential risks that could lead to the exclusion of disabled people.

Recommendation 6

Governments should ensure disabled people and carers, of all ages, are equipped with the skills required to most effectively utilise current and future DigAT.

The development and promotion of DigAT, alone, will not be sufficient to ensure disabled people are able to benefit from these tools. There will need to be skills training initiatives to ensure that disabled people are able to understand how mainstream technologies (including popular AI assistants) and other DigAT can be best applied for their individual requirements. These initiatives will also need to be easily accessed by paid and unpaid carers who may want to adopt DigAT in both formal social care settings and more generally.

These trainings may be delivered through formal educational settings, as part of ensuring young people with diverse needs understand the opportunities and risks presented by digital technologies, or via other settings such as libraries, community organisations and charities. They may also be delivered by private companies (eg social care providers and technology developers).

These initiatives should cover information on existing accessibility features within mainstream technologies, advice on where to find, compare and purchase DigAT and guidance on how to set up or maintain DigAT. Beyond this, there should be an ongoing focus on general digital literacy skills, to ensure that participants are able to more easily adapt to new technological innovations.