Designs on the Games
Tuesday 7th October 2008
Savoy Place, London
Organised by PhoneAbility and the IET
Bringing it all together
by Tony Shipley
JOHN GILL: Thank you for coming back so promptly from tea. We are now going to have the all important session led by Tony Shipley. We have heard about the sorts of technologies, we have heard about the desirability of accessibility. But we haven't heard how we actually get that into practice, how is that going to happen, who is going to make it happen, how are you going to check that it's happened.
So Tony. Tony's background, he is not an engineer, he is a chartered physicist. Whether that makes him a different animal, I don't know. In his spare time he is the vice-Chairman of PhoneAbility. Tony?
TONY SHIPLEY: Thank you, John.
I am going to start by attempting a summary of the main points from the preceding papers, and I will make this as brief as possible but I think there is going to be quite a lot of repetition in what I've got to say.
Lord Erroll spoke of complex systems where it's impossible to produce rules for every eventuality. We have to find a balance between the majority and the minority interests.
Stephen Duckworth emphasised that those interests were exemplified in the mix of customers attending the Games and in the legacy uses afterwards.
We need to encourage those with low expectations to engage with the enabling technologies that we have been hearing about.
Mike McDonald told us that we have systems for assembling and delivering traffic information and that their value hinges upon their accuracy. Wide based data collection is expensive. There is the familiar problem of who is going to foot the bill.
The system capacity must be fully adequate and that means that inbuilt spare capacity is necessary to cope with any problems that arise.
Geoff Doggett explained that ticketing systems are getting quite clever, using contactless smartcards particularly, like Oyster, but these tend to be restricted to particular regions and operators.
Near-field communication applications can be hosted on mobile phones but there is, as yet, no standard. Venue ticketing could be built in to this with due attention to the interfacing, and also to personalisation of the interface, but the state of the art would still demand some special-needs approaches.
Clive de la Fuente told us about GPS systems and how these can be built into mobile terminals. Accuracy in operation can be now down to one metre although much greater than that in buildings, and deep in buildings could be as long as 100 metres, but there will be new technologies online probably just in time to miss the Games!
Powerful enablers for way-finding and for guidance is offered by these GPS and location systems with location based information, information specific to the locality on the venue, superimposed upon it.
And then Jim Slater told us about watching the Games on mobiles, which may or may not be something that people will want to do, but it will add greatly to the ubiquity of the mobile phone, the mobile terminal as a multipurpose instrument which can offer both information and guidance.
He suggested that Ofcom should write accessibility requirements NOW, but as yet manufacturers will be looking for a business case before the technology takes off.
And then we heard about security systems from Julian Jones, and I won't attempt to describe that because a lot of what he said will be reflected in the details I am going to add in a moment.
Today's papers have given us a glimpse of what technology is offering us in terms of guidance, way-finding systems, access control, information and barrier-free routes.
Clearly, we have the technology to provide improved safety and accessibility for people of all descriptions, not only for those with disabilities, but how are we to bring it to fruition? And significant events such as the London Olympic Games provide us with a great opportunity, and a challenge.
Now, any major international event, sporting or otherwise, places enormous logistical demands upon the designated host nation. If we want to see our concepts implemented, we have to look at these issues from the organisers' viewpoint, because they are the people who are going to make it happen.
What are they looking for? Will they take notice of our ideas, and how do we attract their attention? They've got a very great deal to think about and to manage.
What have we got to offer them which will grab that attention, bearing in mind that much planning has already been done for London 2012, and some contracts already awarded, so they are well down the route.
We also know that money is limited, so what can we do from now on which is both timely and effective?
It may seem strange, but sport is not at the top of the organisers' list. I can remember the 1948 Olympics at Wembley, and they took as their byline the phrase "the glory of sport". But now it's glory of a different kind. It might be national, it might be civic, it might even be personal.
The scarcely concealed objective is to outdo Beijing, to deliver a memorable event that will impress the whole world - at least until the next time, the next Olympic Games - and to do that the organisers must ensure that all the preparations are completed on time, within budgets which have already been increased massively, and done to exceptionally high standards. Nothing must get in the way of that.
Above all, they must ensure that all the events proceed with impeccable smoothness and without mishaps. Contestants and spectators need to be enabled to move smoothly, safely, speedily, with dignity, between events and other attractions, and to and from their places of residence.
If there should be any lack of information, significant lengthy queues, misdirections or other chaotic situations, involving large crowds of people, it will prove just as disastrous to the reputation of London 2012 as would a major terrorist incident. In fact it is clear that any of these adverse factors that I have just mentioned would actually help potential terrorists in their objective and in the process turn a minor incident into a major disaster.
The athletes can be expected to deliver the glory of sport, and their performances will be entered in the record books and remembered for decades. The organisers of the Games have to deliver a safe and immaculate environment in which the competitors can do this. Their efforts will not be remembered for very long - certainly not beyond the next Games - except in the locations where there is a lasting memento such as a new sports stadium.
That is, unless there is some sort of disaster which gains a place in history, as in the Munich Olympics in 1972. No organisers want to witness such a happening or to have their Games remembered on account of it. Preventing disaster will be at the very forefront of their thinking, so we are talking about risk management.
What are these risks? Well, you heard them enumerated in the previous paper so I will go through this very briefly.
How can the subject matter of today's seminar help to minimise these risks? Breaches of security that enable acts of terrorism and other forms of malevolence to occur will be at the top of the list of high risks, but tens of thousands of spectators have to be moved to and from, and in and out, of the various venues without delays through security checks.
Crowds of people in the wrong places or at the wrong times are a nightmare for the organisers, as well as being accidents waiting to happen.
180,000 spectators are expected daily at the Olympic Park, we are told. In comparison, 23,000 people converging on Greenwich Park for the equestrian events seems quite modest, but then we have the competitors, their support crews, and of course rather a lot of horse boxes.
That exercise is a logistical challenge in itself, and a few spectators might choose to travel by water, but all the transport links in south-east London will be put under enormous pressure and that's just for one venue. That challenge will be repeated at a dozen or more venues throughout the country, and just think of Manchester with its 76,000-seater stadium for football.
Even a small proportion of the visitors getting lost is a problem that gets magnified by repetition. There is an anecdote which has passed into London's folklore. It concerns a group of tourists who were overheard speaking on an eastbound Central line train. " When we get to Stratford, we must find a map. We want to see the theatre, then Anne Hathaway's cottage and Shakespeare's birth place."
We are not very good, as a nation, at prescise descriptions. The recipient is expected to have intuitive knowledge. Theatre folk refer to Joan Littlewood's Theatre Royal as being in Stratford East to avoid confusion with that other one on the Warwickshire Avon.
But the reply to the question, "Where are the 2012 Olympics being held?" can hardly be, "Oh, they will be mostly in Stratford East." That would be rather like saying that Heathrow Airport is in Hounslow West, and not at all consistent with the dignity of the occasion.
The Olympics are going to attract many hundreds of thousands of visitors to this country, who will take the opportunity to visit popular locations not connected with the Games, as well as those who are visiting the Games themselves, and most of them will need some guidance on how to get to their chosen destinations.
Systems of the kind we are discussing today are capable of offering way-finding and route guidance that is tailored to the needs of the individual.
By making use of ambient intelligence technology, they can operate in both macro and micro environments, that is to say, they function at a country-wide level, just like sat nav systems, and also at a very local level, to steer the user to a particular building, a doorway, a room.
Because the portable devices, the terminals, interact with fixed intelligent agents, they can navigate through a space and at the same time deliver information relevant to the space.
They are potentially equally useful to the visually impaired person who wants to be guided around a museum, for example, and also to the visitor who can see the exhibits but wants to have the audio commentary in a different language.
Possibly 300 or more different languages!
On leaving, each one can find out where to catch the bus for the next destination, and how long before it arrives. With a pre-pay facility as on an Oyster card, the terminal will pay their fare as they board.
From the point of view of a disabled person, this very great advantage of such systems is that they are mainstream, meaning they are designed for use by anybody, and personalised by, or for, the user to suit individual needs.
Now, that's important because it means that the problems of high-cost, dependency upon one manufacturer, and eventual obsolescence that are so often associated with the specialist niche market offerings, are avoided. And also avoided is the implied stigma of dependency upon adaptations, special equipment or special services for special needs.
The influx of visitors for an event such as the Olympic Games makes availability of such systems highly desirable. When combined with smart ticketing facilities and a detailed information database about the venues, including topical news about programme changes or transport hold-ups, they can greatly facilitate the movement of thousands of people across a very busy capital city.
There are three essential requirements, however. The systems must be reliable, sufficiently intuitive in use to be acceptable to untrained users and, vitally, not too expensive as to deter take-up of them.
Security is a further issue to be contemplated. The smart terminal could serve as a security pass to restricted areas, but if they are very special restrictions, such as with the Olympic village, there has to be a facility to ensure that it is used by, and only by, the person to whom it was issued, who presumably has been checked. Password or code protection is not likely to be sufficient, and the biometric parameters that we heard about pose problems for some users, especially if they are disabled.
There may be other possibilities, such as photo identity secured within the device. Otherwise a separate security check is going to be needed, and that causes delays.
The extent of coverage of such systems also requires careful examination because, even near to the Olympic Park, access and guidance systems cannot be totally site-specific. The facility must allow for events which take place not just at Stratford, East London, and at several other venues around London, preferably further around the country as well.
But there is a more general security measure where these smart systems could be invaluable: We tend to think that access and guidance systems are a means of facilitating entrance, but the converse role of assisting exit is even more important.
The dangers of having a large number of people in a confined space have been understood for over 100 years. In the 19th century, theatre fires were pretty common, because candles and gas jets were used for lighting and fires were therefore frequent.
These fires claimed lives, notoriously in the Theatre Royal, Exeter, in September 1887, where 186 people died. It wasn't flames or smoke which directly caused their deaths, for they died through the crushing injuries caused as people rushed for the exits in panic.
That, and similar disasters, led to the introduction of legislation, and from that time the avoidance of panic has been the essential feature of the management of many premises, where there are closely packed spectators in large numbers.
Now, admittedly, it seems to have taken most of that hundred years for the message to be adopted by sports venues. You saw the list of disasters that occurred in the 1980s, a hundred years after Theatre Royal Exeter. It took a long, long time for people apparently to become aware of the vital importance of ensuring that people can leave premises safely in large numbers, in circumstances where a panic might ensue.
It is not difficult to start a panic. It doesn't need a fire; it doesn't need a bomb; it doesn't need a gunman to get spectators making for the doors.
The very threat of any such may be quite enough. The design and management of exit ways is now meticulously regulated, to ensure that there are no obstacles to a steady and ordered movement to a place of safety.
That can be negated by many factors. Someone moving slowly on sticks or crutches can present a sufficient obstacle to cause tension in the people pressing behind.
I didn't mention wheelchairs there. It was pointed out earlier that very often people in wheelchairs can move faster than people on foot. However, the presumption of most people on foot is that a person in a wheelchair is going to be an obstacle, and in situations that we are talking about like that, it's the presumption rather than the reality which is rather more important.
Anyone in the exit stream turning back for a lost relative or forgotten belongings will present a very, very serious hazard. The normal expectation of spectators is to leave by the way they came in, but that may not be a safe procedure.
The stewards will be trained to handle all these eventualities, but they may not succeed where there are large numbers of people who may not all hear or understand the stewards' instructions.
A crucial part of any personal guidance system will therefore be to direct the user out of the premises, using the information sent by the intelligent agents that form part of the venue's ambient assistance system.
So there is one very crucial and potentially life-saving aspect where a system of the kind we have been discussing can be invaluable.
So far, I have mentioned people with disabilities only in passing. This is because the systems we are discussing can be used by anyone; disabled people will be important users of this, but not exclusively so. These are mainstream offerings.
The Olympic Delivery Authority has published an Inclusive Design Strategy, which you may well have seen. It was published just this last month.
That describes the Authority's approach to accessibility and inclusivity. But with apologies to Dr Stephen Duckworth, I do suggest that many people will be disappointed with this document. It takes a very limited view of the scope of accessibility, because its emphasis is on physical barriers and their avoidance. But we cannot seriously talk of accessibility or inclusivity without considering the needs of the millions of people with sensory or cognitive impairments. But this document uses terms such as "accessible", and "inclusive" as though they were absolute, which they can never be.
Inclusive design is a process by which the characteristics of a product or service are progressively extended so as to bring a greater proportion of the population within the target user groups, and it's a continuing process.
We can never achieve the ultimate. Design for All is an absolute misnomer. Design for More would be less contentious.
It seems clear to me that the kinds of systems we have been examining today would, if they are ready in time for London 2012, would make the quest for accessibility much more successful.
The technologies that we have heard about today have the capability to deliver that kind of accessibility, but it has yet to be proven. They are still in their separate bundles and need to be joined together.
Can these ideas be honed to deliver seamless, effective, economical and secure movements for the crowds of visitors, spectators, competitors, officials, and so on? How much can be put into a single package that will be tried and tested, effective and deliverable, within four years?
Now, if it should prove too much to expect that tried and tested systems can be rolled out for the London Olympics, there will be another opportunity in 2016, and that would still fit with a challenging vision of Designs on the Games.
But John has challenged me to try to suggest how we can move things forward, particularly in terms of accessibility, in time for 2012.
Not easy. I have laid a great deal of stress on the fact that the process of delivering the Olympics is well advanced. We have seen photographs of structures rising out of the ground. We have heard reports of progress being made and systems being developed for ticketing and security, based largely on technologies which are in use today but needing to be tweaked and improved in performance.
It takes a brave and bold step to opt for a new system now, when it might be a disaster because it's not ready for 2012. That is a risk which I am quite sure the ODA cannot afford to take.
So how do we move it ahead? And I think at this point it has to become part of the general discussion, because honestly I don't know the answers. But testing and assessing a new system is a part of the proper process within new technology application. It's time consuming and expensive, and the people who would have to pay for it, usually the manufacturers and developers, will not be prepared to put that amount of work in unless there is evidence that their systems are wanted.
So how do we bridge that divide? A great deal of time and trouble could be spent with 2012 as the target - it could be spent quite fruitlessly, although the solutions might be available for use thereafter in the legacy systems - but it still needs a trigger, and I wonder perhaps if the right approach is to persuade the Olympic Delivery Authority to produce an extended version of their strategy document, on inclusivity and accessibility, which would challenge people offering their systems - people who might offer the systems - to put plans together and cost them with the accessibility features, perhaps not tested at the outset - that would be too much to hope - but at least with the critical path for that development including very careful testing and evaluation of accessibility and usability.
I don't know. I must leave that as a proposal, and you might wish to comment on it. As I said, it does seem to me that the whole process has gone too far down the line for any fundamental changes to be introduced, but perhaps with trail-blazing - which even if it didn't produce results in time for 2012 - would still be valuable. As I say, there will be another Games in 2016! Thank you. (applause)
JOHN GILL: Any questions, comments
FROM THE FLOOR: Having been a test engineer for 2 years one of the things I have seen in large everywhere I have worked is a lack of testing, we have emphasised how important testing will be, I think one of the things that can be done here is to set testing requirements to include requirements for disabled, so when systems are tested passing the test will help make sure they are functional for everybody who needs them.
TONY SHIPLEY: Yes I think that's a very sensible approach, it needs to be targeted somewhat because as I was emphasising, it really is a nonsense to say that it must work for everybody. So, some guidance is needed to the developers to the people who are going to do the testing as to what range of the population they should be attempting to reach. If they can do better than that that's terrific. But at the very least, using the kinds of statistics that John started today's session with, we can pick out important user groups within the disabled community, either or perhaps both on the basis of numbers - in which case the hard-of-hearing will perhaps show up as the most important - or on the question of severity, I am not going to be drawn on what I mean by that.
But, some guidance is needed. If that could be put into a not so much specification but at least a wish list, then I think it might be helpful to anybody attempting development and testing.
JOHN GILL: Lady under the balcony.
FROM THE FLOOR: I just wanted to clarify a point I think that the challenge and all that you were saying in your speech, sorry but with this microphone not working I have lost my train of thought as to how I was going to present to it you. Put a challenge to the ODA and the inclusive design strategy that is more well spent with LOCOG because my understanding is that LOCOG are doing all the ticketing, they are putting on the Games and all the security and coverage of the Games will be LOCOG's responsibility not the ODA's responsibility. That's it. Thank you.
TONY SHIPLEY: I bow to your comment on that one. I certainly am no expert on the way the Games will be delivered. What is vital is that there's got to be an integrated system. I think you have to start with the venues because there will be facilities and facility requirements within the venues that will make these systems work. Even if its only facilities for cabling, for wi-fi, or bluetooth connections but they are physically within the building structure. And if somebody doesn't leave space in ducts tomorrow, it won't happen in 2012. But yes I quite agree that the people who will actually be doing the organizing of the delivery of the events, LOCOG, will pick up that facility and make use of it I hope powerfully persuaded to do it.
JOHN GILL: Thank you very much Tony. I think we have to bring that session to a close and move on to my own concluding remarks.
| Previous |
Last updated: 20.11.2009 © Copyright reserved Website design: Digital Accessibility Team