The headline is misleading. According to the information in the article itself most of the complaints can be solved by properly training staff to use existing tech as it was designed.
One of main complaints of the article - that airline staff doesn't get passed enough information about a passenger's disability, so, for example, deaf people get met at the gate with a wheelchair, seems to be a direct result of using inappropriate, or non-standard, SSR codes. If a deaf/hard-of-hearing person is travelling, the appropriate code, (DEAF), should be used, not HI or MAAS, (if the systems allow for multiple codes, "DEAF MAAS" would be appropriate).
According to the article these SSR codes are industry standards and are entrenched in airline systems worldwide. If they were used properly, and if staff were properly trained to understand and act on them, this problem would largely be solved. This is a training & execution problem, not a technology problem.
A second complaint, that information is not passed to disabled customers quickly, (for example, hard-of-hearing passengers can't hear announcements at the airport or on the plane), is also mostly solvable by using the tech that is installed in airports today. For example: "Visual paging — when an audio page is posted in text form on screens — is becoming very easy, but it’s not yet ubiquitous." Why is it not ubiquitous? Haven't most airports, at least in wealthy countries, got some sort of a screen up at each gate that has the Flight #, departure time, weather at the destination, and all that? If announcements aren't going up there too that seems to be laziness or lack of training on behalf of the gate staff, or laziness or lack of concern in whoever makes decisions about how the software that runs those screens works.
For in-flight announcements it's harder, especially now that seat-back displays are being removed from aircraft in favour of handheld devices. It probably comes down to a flight attendant making sure that a disabled person gets told what's going on, (because he or she saw the appropriate SSR code on the passenger manifest).
The final complaint, in-flight entertainment, is ridiculous. Why isn't everything that's available on TV, (closed-captioning, described video, and whatever else I'm not aware of), available on in-flight entertainment? The tech exists, it looks like it just hasn't been installed, or has been installed but isn't activated, on aircraft. This should not even be a problem and I don't understand why it is.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not disabled, and haven't experienced these problems myself. This comment is based purely on the problems as described in the linked article.
> (for example, hard-of-hearing passengers can't hear announcements at the airport or on the plane)
You don't have to be hard-of-hearing to struggle with that. A PA system that actually worked would be lovely at most airports. I can't remember a time when I was waiting at a gate and could actually hear what the gate attendants were announcing; it's either completely silent, like their microphone isn't even on, or it's distorted so badly by the garbage equipment and accoustics that it just sounds like the teacher in Charlie Brown.
If I were older or less mobile, I'd be even more incensed by the way airports seem to have such a penchant for putting up blatantly false gate information more than about 45 minutes before the flight is scheduled for takeoff. The last three times I've had to connect somewhere, I've gotten off my incoming flight, looked up the gate for my next leg, power-walked a half-mile or more to the opposite end of the terminal, or had to leave and go to a different terminal - only to get there, relax for a few minutes, and notice that the gate information has changed and now the gate is two or three away from where I started, and I've got to burn tire to get back there.
>> (for example, hard-of-hearing passengers can't hear announcements at the airport or on the plane)
> You don't have to be hard-of-hearing to struggle with that.
That's the thing about accessibility improvements. They often improve the lives of everyone, or at least many more people than the improvements are meant to improve life for. For example: if you have to push a stroller, or are carrying a lot of things, through a heavy door, you can use the button meant to open the door for wheelchair users. You can probably even hit it with your hip if your hands are full.
This was my impression of the headline as well. The biggest issues had nothing to do with technology, but rather with people. I guess it's not as surprising/newsworthy to say "Airlines are letting their employees mistakes negatively impact their customers". And they seem to have made the conscious choice not to mention accessibility or PWD in the headline, perhaps because they figured the article would get fewer clicks from people who aren't interested in accessibility.
I wonder if websites have considered the impact that clickbait headlines have on people with disabilities. For example, someone who navigates a page with a chin mouse controller, or who has fine motor difficulties due to palsy, is probably even more frustrated by misleading headlines than people who can quickly open and close tabs. Not that this headline is strictly clickbait (certainly not the worst kind), but just a related thought.
> I wonder if websites have considered the impact that clickbait headlines have on people with disabilities.
My guess is they don't give a damn. They don't even think about it, because if they did, they'd realize the damage they're doing to all readers and the society at large, and they'd abandon their practice.
One of main complaints of the article - that airline staff doesn't get passed enough information about a passenger's disability, so, for example, deaf people get met at the gate with a wheelchair, seems to be a direct result of using inappropriate, or non-standard, SSR codes. If a deaf/hard-of-hearing person is travelling, the appropriate code, (DEAF), should be used, not HI or MAAS, (if the systems allow for multiple codes, "DEAF MAAS" would be appropriate).
According to the article these SSR codes are industry standards and are entrenched in airline systems worldwide. If they were used properly, and if staff were properly trained to understand and act on them, this problem would largely be solved. This is a training & execution problem, not a technology problem.
A second complaint, that information is not passed to disabled customers quickly, (for example, hard-of-hearing passengers can't hear announcements at the airport or on the plane), is also mostly solvable by using the tech that is installed in airports today. For example: "Visual paging — when an audio page is posted in text form on screens — is becoming very easy, but it’s not yet ubiquitous." Why is it not ubiquitous? Haven't most airports, at least in wealthy countries, got some sort of a screen up at each gate that has the Flight #, departure time, weather at the destination, and all that? If announcements aren't going up there too that seems to be laziness or lack of training on behalf of the gate staff, or laziness or lack of concern in whoever makes decisions about how the software that runs those screens works.
For in-flight announcements it's harder, especially now that seat-back displays are being removed from aircraft in favour of handheld devices. It probably comes down to a flight attendant making sure that a disabled person gets told what's going on, (because he or she saw the appropriate SSR code on the passenger manifest).
The final complaint, in-flight entertainment, is ridiculous. Why isn't everything that's available on TV, (closed-captioning, described video, and whatever else I'm not aware of), available on in-flight entertainment? The tech exists, it looks like it just hasn't been installed, or has been installed but isn't activated, on aircraft. This should not even be a problem and I don't understand why it is.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not disabled, and haven't experienced these problems myself. This comment is based purely on the problems as described in the linked article.