Being inclusive for all participants is a fundamental pillar of good engagement.

The goal is always to make it easy for anyone to participate in the way that best suits them, their style and their needs.

Before the pandemic ‘shakubuku’ (colloquially known in Japanese as ‘a swift kick to the head that makes you think differently’), we all believed the only way to do this was face-to-face.

We could see and hear each other, you can ask how someone is doing in the moment, and it all made sense! But many things got turned upside down over the past three years and this has helped us see a different, sometimes better, way of doing things.

THE HABITUAL CHOICE IS TO THINK MEETING FACE-TO-FACE IS THE MOST INCLUSIVE WAY TO ENGAGE!

By assuming that face-to-face meetings are the most inclusive approach, you may very well be excluding or disadvantaging many people in the communities you are engaging with.

From 2020-2022 we had the chance to work with many different participants and finding ways to make processes inclusive took on a whole new level of learning for us. One recent project with Yarra Valley Water was a real game-changer and we learnt some valuable lessons about being inclusive.

Read the Q&A below and don’t miss key messages at the end of this post for engagement practitioners about online accessibility.

Nicole Hunter (author of this blog and MosaicLab director): I had the chance recently to reconnect with a couple of participants from this project - participants Anushka Sing, who has a visual impairment, and Mac (Robert) Adam, who is deaf; as well as two of our translators Bruce Song (Mandarin) and Mac Gordon (Auslan). Together we unpacked some of their experiences in a predominantly online process and compared these to face-to-face.

QUESTION: WHAT WAS DIFFERENT/ STOOD OUT ABOUT THIS ONLINE PROCESS RE: ACCESSIBILITY?

Anushka: Usually I have participated in these sorts of things in person, so it was unique to be participating online in the first place. What was very unique was the content was really accessible. By being online, any notes or materials could be magnified or read through my screen-reader, which made it much easier for me to access the outputs prepared during the session. In face-to-face sessions, if there are written materials, I found I would struggle with this and would need people reading it out for me to properly participate. In this setting, it meant I could go at my own pace.

Mac Adam: Thanks to Daniel Andrews we had that lockdown which forced people to learn and have new experiences i.e. online meetings/Zoom saved a lot of people a lot of money by meeting online. I feel those meetings didn’t have the same impact as when you have a face-to-face meeting – those online meetings aren’t quite as impactful. If you meet in a face-to-face circle, it is a bit better, as you are able to cover more, people are more aware/awake and you can look at people and see all their reactions at once. Whereas online, you have to just focus on one screen you can’t stare around the room. In face-to-face meetings, you can also have a little side chat but you are restricted online to focusing on whomever is in the middle of the screen – the facilitator, interpreter and myself – are the only people I can see – face-to-face would be quite different.

Bruce: A unique aspect of this project was that we had to translate simultaneously through a separate line (i.e. the phone) to the panel participant. This is what we call simultaneous interpreting. A lot of this sort of work is done online (think meetings of the UN) and you can do this sort of thing anywhere in the world with a good connection. This particular project though was more in-depth and over a long period of time, so building a strong rapport with the participant and understanding how we would work together was important.

Mac Gordon: MosaicLab took the time to work with interpreters and to work with participants to work out the best way, and we had to try different things – no one pretended they knew everything about the technology and wanted to control things. It was a collaborative approach.

WHAT WORKED REALLY WELL THAT YOU WERE SURPRISED ABOUT IN THE ONLINE SETTING?

Anushka: The rapid turnaround of content produced in-session being provided in ‘screen-reader’ form was a big surprise and incredibly helpful. At times this means some materials were rushed and therefore it was hard to read everything and then participate fully in the moment. Also, the flexibility towards the end of the process (when the majority of the group was in-person) for myself and another participant to be online, meant we had the opportunity to still participate.

Mac Adam: Online was good access during lockdown when we couldn’t go out. Now that we can and people are free to get out of their houses, it’s a different approach. I think both online and face-to-face can both be good. With online, you can have meetings from the comfort of your own home. I was lucky as I have a huge monitor which means I can see your entire face. Online was good too because it helped us keep safe, it was less hassle, and you can go and grab your cup of tea if, and when, you want.

Bruce: The pre-briefings before the workshops for the ‘support crew’ were amazing! It meant I had a comprehensive understanding of how we as interpreters were to be involved. This preparation enhanced the engagement process significantly. The whole care that was made by the project team (both YVW and the facilitators) was a huge highlight of how this project was all delivered. It provided all possible access for many people.

Mac Gordon: We had six Auslan interpreters on each time we met, having a big team like that is unusual but not unheard of. Good communication within and between the interpreters was fantastic and having one spokesperson each time worked really well. Auslan interpretation was not considered like an add-on, but rather it was considered integral to the process. An interesting ‘side effect’ of the online meetings was that because our deaf/hard of hearing participants were spotlighted throughout the process, it meant they got more of a say than they might have done in face-to-face meetings.

WHAT DIDN’T WORK IN THE ONLINE ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU KNOW WORKS MUCH BETTER IN-PERSON?

Anushka: When materials were shared during the session (i.e. group outputs from the process) it was sometimes hard to use because the screen-reader would be ‘talking to me’ and also participants would be sharing insights. Meeting online also means that I miss some of the body language and tone (the non-verbal cues) that I can capture when at an in-person session. But given that we couldn’t meet in-person due to COVID, this was a good option and something that is good to keep as an alternative. Remembering that at times after work it can be draining to travel and attend such meetings in person.

Mac Adam: Online is fine, but the impact of the conversations is going to be different. When online, you feel a little bit like you are on autopilot or cruise control. Whereas in person there is more energy – more confidence to actually engage. Online applies better to people who are experienced with computer technology (i.e. have good tech skills). The technology wasn’t an issue for me as I am used to it, but for others it was very hard. This is a downside for the online processes.

Bruce: What you miss online is the ability to use facial cues and body language with the person you are interpreting for. You don’t get direct eye contact which means the level of engagement with the participant is less. For people who have very low English skills (e.g. Speak less than 50% English) the face-to-face part of interpreting becomes even more important. Also generally (not just specific to online settings) some of the content can be highly technical, very Australian content and this can disengage people quickly with different reading skills. Therefore some of those materials could have been provided in another format.

Mac Gordon: One thing you can’t do online is have incidental side chats (you can’t be taken away for a short chat). The spotlighting worked ok but we had to re-spotlight everyone when we came back from breakout groups and for some time Mac and Micky didn’t know what was happening as this took time.

WE HAD A CHANCE TO COME INTO A HYBRID FORMAT WITH THIS PROJECT NEAR THE END (SOME PEOPLE ONLINE AND THE MAJORITY IN THE ROOM) - WHAT MAIN THINGS WERE YOU AWARE OF AT THIS STAGE?

Anushka: I felt I should have been there in-person but due to personal circumstances I needed to be online. It was tricky hearing what was said in the room but the online content was made really accessible. I am normally fine navigating around a room at workshops but in terms of reading the material produced, I might have been left out or it could have felt awkward as I would have needed everything to slow down. Written material gets a bit trickier in an in-person event if I am not aware of the content. The process itself was fine i.e. being moved around on the laptop as if I was in the room and people reading out what was produced.

Mac Adam: It was much easier when we came face-to-face, having the people in that big circle and be able to discuss was good. We tended to forget the people online in those little screens and the clunkiness of the them coming off mute and sharing was hard. I would say don’t mix online and face-to-face; do one or the other.

Bruce: Everybody’s face got smaller compared to their body!! As an interpreter there were more bodily cues, body language and facial cues – you can point at things which makes it easier. If you have documents and evidence that must be shown, it is much easier face-to-face. But when we work online there is the advantage of there being one line into my ear and I can talk exclusively to the client – therefore there are less distractions for the participants and people don’t easily talk over each other. In the Chinese culture people usually listen and don’t interpret a lot so being online makes this more of a norm across everyone and equalises the participants.

Mac Gordon: It was a lot easier to prompt each other as interpreters in the room by quickly talking on the side. There were limitations of the microphones for our participants online.

“ This process was definitely state-of-the-art in the multicultural sphere. Myself and my participant felt privileged being a part of this! ”

— Mandarin interpreter Bruce Song

WHAT KEY MESSAGES WOULD YOU HAVE FOR ENGAGEMENT PRACTITIONERS ABOUT ONLINE ACCESSIBILITY?

Anushka:

Slow down the process so people who use screen-readers can catch up with the content.
Let people know about the needs of the participants and (with prior consent from those participants) disclose who they are and what assistance they require so we do not need to disclose it ourselves.
Ensure the materials sent out can be read by screen-readers.
If running a hybrid workshop, make sure the audio is good.

Mac Adam:

MosaicLab were a bit distanced from the project when online – but when we got face-to-face and met people, it was very different and this made a difference.
Choose the right people – you have to know the people – so we don’t waste time.
Online for a start was good – spend time getting to know people rather than jumping right in.
Online is a very powerful tool to start conversations – you can open it up – read through materials while online.
Participants need to be computer literate.

Bruce:

Provide the materials in the language needed for the participants or alternately use a website format for reading that can then be translated through Google translate (this means all possible languages can be catered for). This is particularly important for reading materials beforehand.
During the pre-briefing stage, explain to participants that it is best to do the online processes on a laptop rather than a phone/tablet and let them know to have an extra tablet or screen so they can read and participate in online tools.
We need to see more of us doing this sort of this thing. This process was definitely state-of-the-art in the multicultural sphere. Myself and my participant felt privileged being a part of this! It was amazing to see the process unfold!

Mac Gordon:

Don’t assume you know the best way to use a platform or tool. There are always reasons to try something a new way; and ask participants and practitioners what they need.
Set time for practice. Practice the transitions, practice trouble shooting issues and don’t assume you know what is going to happen.
Build collaboration between all the players – interpreters, facilitators and participants.

We’d love to hear comments about how you have worked with accessibility for different people and what differences you are seeing between online and in-person.

FREE WEBINAR IN NOVEMBER: ENGAGING DIVERSE VOICES

Our free Lunch and Learn webinar in November is all about making your engagement processes accessible.

Join us on Friday 25 November, 12.30pm - 1.30pm and hear from people who have participated in a deep and complex conversation online over almost five months. This is a unique opportunity to listen to first-hand accounts from people who speak languages other than English, who are deaf or hard of hearing, or are blind or have low vision about their engagement experience.