Transcript Slide 1

Transit Communications
Accessibility Gaps
Madeleine Rothberg
Trisha O'Connell
Marcia Brooks
Geoff Freed
WGBH National Center for Accessible Media
Katharine Hunter-Zaworski, Ph.D. P.E.
National Center for Accessible Transportation, Oregon State University
Context




Changing world demographics: aging population
Increase in mobility by all
Increased use of personal communication devices
Increased deployment of real-time information systems
 Funded by the US Department of Education,
National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation
Research
 Researching the chain of communication from inside a
transit agency all the way to the traveler
 Documenting the gaps that can result in inaccessible
information
© 2011 WGBH
2
Real time information
Cell phone receiving text
Laptop viewing web page
Information screen in an airport
Specialized handheld accessible train schedule
Seat-back display on a train
© 2011 WGBH
3
Standards: APTA/TCIP
 American Public Transportation Association’s
Transit Communications Interface Profiles
— Common Public Transport
— Scheduling
— Passenger Information
— Transit Signal Priority
— Control Center
— Onboard Systems
— Spatial Referencing
— Fare Collection
 Stores data in text
 Has Customer Profiles for device preferences
 Large, complex data format
© 2011 WGBH
4
Standards: Google’s GTFS
 General Transit Feed Specification
— Routes and schedules
— Integrated with Google Maps or used for other feeds
 Suitable for use in mobile apps for checking schedules
and route planning
 No real-time data
© 2011 WGBH
5
Standards: CEN’s SIRI
 Service Interface for Real Time Information
For exchanging information about the planned, current
or projected performance of real-time public
transport operations between different computer
systems
 Used in UK and Europe
 Beginning to show up in the U.S.
© 2011 WGBH
6
Standards: Nextbus
 Nextbus
— Private company which contracts with transit
systems
— Uses GPS data and proprietary prediction software
— Provides predictions for next 3 buses in XML for use
by apps and websites
— Has their own accessible Web interface
— Nearly 60 transit systems and universities
© 2011 WGBH
7
Apps for Transit Info




Many apps now available, widgets, Web pages, etc.
Many developed by freelancers or for contests
Accessibility varies
We tested some apps for iPhone with VoiceOver
— Some use maps as primary UI, don’t work with
screen readers
— Some have unlabeled buttons
— Others are somewhat accessible but can be
inefficient
— Regions that constantly update
© 2011 WGBH
8
Research
 NCAM and NCAT are creating a survey for transit
industry professionals
 Determine which standards are in use
 What accessibility policies exist for communication?
For developing or outsourcing apps?
 Are different information sources updated from the
same data source? At the same time?
— Signs in terminal/station, signs on bus/train, audio
announcements, Web site, app data, Twitter…
© 2011 WGBH
9
Research
 Do agencies monitor, test, or otherwise keep track of
the apps that use their data?
 Pluses include:
— Rapid deployment
— Little/no cost to transit agency
— 100s of apps on iTunes
 Possible problems could include:
— Data errors
— Delays in updating to new schedules
— “Orphaned" apps
— Lack of accessibility in the apps
© 2011 WGBH
10