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