Content area
Full Text
Mander's article comes as a timely addition to the gathering momentum of recent draft proposals and consultations by the NHS for a national "standard" in accessible information to be recognised and implemented across the UK for anyone that requires it (NHS England, 2014). In a recent commentary in this Review, Walmsley (2013) lamented the lack of empirical research into an area that was then burgeoning, specifically that of "easy read" literature. Since then, the "easy read" market continues to grow. Mander takes a wider view of accessible information, presumably including any access tools available such as "easy read" text and pictures, audio, audio-visual, sign and perhaps objects, and draws attention to the process involved in "delivering" information in a way that can be understood.
My own interactions both with learning disability researchers and local self-advocacy groups suggest that finding a way of increasing the understanding of information is often an after-thought once the "real" work of gathering information together has been completed. It seems that most people are looking for a quick and simple way of effectively passing on information before carrying on with the work in hand, be it securing ethical approval or a campaign for caring for ones' teeth. Mander's findings demonstrate that there is no easy, simple or quick fix for achieving this. It requires time and a certain level of knowledge, even "expertise". Both of these have a financial cost. Below, I outline three arguments for why there is no simple solution to closing the gap between the product for accessing information and the "process" of delivery as described by Mander. The first relates to the product and explores the notion that good design is never easy but it is important. Second, I note that the way human beings understand information and conceptualise ideas is complex. Third, the heterogeneity of the target audience for "accessible information" is vast and, therefore, over-reliance on a universal design is unrealistic and probably ineffective.
Good design is never easy
Perhaps it is artificial to divide product design from its delivery to the target audience. Good design, as professional graphic and health information designers show (Wright, 2003), starts with an analysis of the target audience, their cognitive abilities, preferences and current understandings. An analysis to ascertain...