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

2. 2 © 2011 WGBH 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

3. 3 © 2011 WGBH Cell phone receiving text Laptop viewing web page Information screen in an airport Specialized handheld accessible train schedule Seat-back display on a train Real time information

4. 4 © 2011 WGBH 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

5. 5 © 2011 WGBH 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

6. 6 © 2011 WGBH 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.

7. 7 © 2011 WGBH 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

8. 8 © 2011 WGBH Apps for Transit Info 8  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

9. 9 © 2011 WGBH 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…

10. 10 © 2011 WGBH 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