Finally, a Zoom meeting where I didn’t have to have my camera on. One where my black box and name could exist without being rude to the presenters. An invitation to use the Zoom space in any manner that is most comfortable to the participant, with open access to the chat, StreamText captions, and written descriptions of visual elements.
We often don’t think about accessibility until it becomes our problem. The effectiveness and information of a presentation is usually the priority instead of ensuring comfort and accessibility to all participants. The virtual conversation “Crip Mentoring: Creating Accessible Conferences,” hosted by DISCO Network and Digital Accessible Futures Lab (DAF Lab) on October 23, 2024, dove deeper into this topic of how we can create accommodating conference environments.
DAF Lab is a research and co-mentoring collective that focuses on crip wisdom, neuroqueer futures, and disability liberation in the digital world. To help accomplish DAF Lab’s goal of dismantling ableist infrastructures, they brought in featured panelists Michele Friedner, Ruth Osorio, and Victor Zhuang to each share their experiences as disability activists.
For medical anthropologist Michele Friedner, there’s a constant battle of asking “when do I make demands and when do I not?” Because Friedner is deaf, many conferences become impossible to understand if interpreters or closed captioning aren’t provided. She’s always left fighting for inclusion, wondering when it’s even worth putting in extra effort.
Whenever I see an ASL interpreter at an event, I become very excited that the event is taking steps toward accessibility. However, as disabilities scholar Victor Zhuang explained, “Accessibility shouldn’t be the goal we aspire to; it should be the baseline we start from.” If the goal of conferences is to share knowledge, then surely we want to allow as many people as possible to access that knowledge. Having closed captions or interpreters shouldn’t be a rarity—it should be the norm.
Ensuring accessibility doesn’t stop at the deaf population either; the broad term factors in all outside aspects. The cost and effort of travel is one such barrier for events that are only offered in person. Then there’s the question of food and if all dietary restrictions are met. Sights, smells, and sounds are all factors to consider when hosting a space that is comfortable for everyone.
Yes, a lot of this background labor is easier said than done, but that’s not an excuse to neglect the necessary extra work. Creating a space of belonging is something that everyone should consider, but the majority of the time, this extra labor is put on disabled people to organize.
The only bright note is that “when the institution fails, community prevails.” Feminist rhetorician Ruth Osorio expressed that the support of fellow disabled scholars has been life-changing. To constantly fight for accessibility is exhausting, but leaning on one another for support is what gets them through conferences.
Ensuring a space where all needs are accounted for is no simple feat; yet, there is still something that can be done. Asking for participant feedback should be a standard practice because every conference space can be improved. This discussion opened my eyes to the extensive umbrella the term “accessibility” covers and the work that remains. At U-M, there are many different organizations and workshops that strive to make campus as welcoming as possible, but there are always other considerations that can, and must be made. Looking to the efforts of DAF Lab, ensuring a virtual option and providing closed captioning are just two examples of how to make conference spaces more accessible. Disabled scholars shouldn’t be the only ones who put up a fight. It’s time for all of us to become a community of disability activists.
To learn more about the DAF Lab mission and research goals, check out our website: https://accessiblefutures.net/. To view a recording of this event, visit the DISCO YouTube channel: https://myumi.ch/A1d4d.
