RSAA26 Accessibility Fellowship Report - Asmaa Rashad

Introduction

This report documents accessibility observations from participation in the Research Software Asia Australia Conference (RSAA26), with a particular focus on the experience of Deaf and hard-of-hearing participants.

Accessibility is not limited to providing specific assistive technologies. It also includes the overall participant journey: accessing conference information and sessions, following presentations and discussions, participating in conversations, accessing shared resources, and engaging with other participants.

The purpose of this report is to highlight practices that supported an accessible and inclusive experience, while also identifying practical opportunities for improvement in future conferences.

About the Author

Asmaa Rashad was an Accessibility Fellow for RSAA26, participating in the conference with a focus on observing accessibility practices, identifying barriers to participation, and providing practical feedback that could support future improvements.

As a member of the Deaf and hard-of-hearing community, her observations particularly focused on access to spoken content, the effectiveness of live captions, following and participating in discussions, and the clarity and accessibility of information and digital resources.

This report reflects an accessibility perspective based on direct participation and lived experience, with the aim of providing constructive and actionable feedback.

1. Overall Accessibility Experience

Overall, my experience of RSAA26 was positive. There was clear attention to accessibility and an effort to create a welcoming environment for participants.

Several practices contributed positively to the experience, including:

• The availability of live captions during sessions.
• Active use of the chat for interaction and information sharing.
• Clear sharing of links and resources.
• Verbal descriptions of some visual content by presenters.
• Regular communication and sharing of session links.
• The use of QR codes alongside direct links where appropriate.
• A generally welcoming and inclusive atmosphere.

At the same time, the experience highlighted how small details in the design of participation can have a significant impact on accessibility, particularly for participants who rely on written information to access spoken content.

2. Live Captions and Language

Live captions were available during the sessions, which was an important accessibility feature for Deaf and hard-of-hearing participants.

At the beginning of some sessions, the captions appeared with a mixture of Arabic and English before becoming clearer and settling into English.

I also attempted to change the caption language to Arabic. Although the interface appeared to confirm that the language had been changed, the generated captions continued to appear in English.

This highlighted a potential difference between the language available as a setting and the language actually supported by the captioning service.

Recommendation

For future conferences, captioning and language settings should be tested before the programme begins, including testing whether selecting a particular language actually changes the language of the generated captions.

It would also be helpful to clearly communicate which caption languages are genuinely supported as part of the conference accessibility information.

3. Information About Sign Language Support

During the review of the information available to participants, I did not find clear information regarding the availability of sign language interpretation.

This should not be interpreted as a judgement that sign language interpretation was required or that the conference failed to provide an expected service.

Rather, it represents an opportunity to make accessibility information more explicit and easier for participants to understand before the event.

Recommendation

Future conference accessibility information could include a clear section outlining the accessibility services available, such as:

• Live captions.
• Sign language interpretation, where available.
• Accessible presentation materials.
• Recordings or transcripts, where available.
• Other accessibility arrangements that participants can request in advance.

Clear information allows participants to understand what support is available and make informed decisions about how they will participate.

4. Zoom Connectivity

The Zoom experience was generally stable during the first two days of the conference.

On the third day, however, I experienced several disconnections. Each time, I needed to reconnect to the session, which took approximately 30 seconds.

The issue did not occur during the first two days, so it does not appear to have been a continuous problem. Nevertheless, even a short interruption can affect accessibility.

For a participant relying on live captions, a disconnection may result in missing part of a conversation or presentation while reconnecting.

Recommendation

Session links should remain easily accessible so that participants can quickly rejoin following a connection problem.

A consistent and simple method for returning to a session would reduce the impact of unexpected interruptions.

5. Chat as an Accessibility and Participation Channel

The chat was one of the strongest aspects of my participation experience.

There was clear engagement, particularly during the first and second days, and it was easy to follow discussions and contribute.

For Deaf and hard-of-hearing participants, the chat can be more than an additional communication channel. It can provide an important written pathway to information that might otherwise be communicated primarily through speech.

The sharing of links and information through the chat also made it easier to access resources without having to search for them elsewhere.

Recommendation

The chat should continue to be treated as an important participation and accessibility channel, particularly for:

• Sharing important information in writing.
• Posting direct links to resources.
• Repeating key announcements or instructions in written form.
• Avoiding reliance on spoken announcements alone for essential information.

6. Managing Multiple Communication Channels

During some highly interactive sessions, spoken discussion and fast-moving chat conversations were happening simultaneously.

While this can increase engagement, it can also create an additional cognitive load for some participants.

For Deaf and hard-of-hearing participants who rely on captions to follow spoken discussion, simultaneously processing captions and a rapidly moving chat can make it difficult to follow everything, particularly when the conversation is fast-paced.

Recommendation

Session facilitators could help manage the flow of information between different communication channels by:

• Allowing dedicated moments to review questions in the chat.
• Grouping questions rather than responding to every message immediately.
• Posting important information or decisions in writing.
• Clearly signalling transitions between presentation and discussion.

This would not reduce interaction; instead, it could make participation more manageable and inclusive for a wider range of participants.

7. Describing Visual Content During Presentations

In several sessions, presenters verbally described graphs, charts, and other visual elements while presenting.

This was a useful practice because it provided additional context and helped make important visual information accessible through speech.

Providing concise descriptions of visual content is valuable as part of inclusive presentation practice and should be encouraged more consistently.

Recommendation

Presenters should be encouraged to briefly describe important visual information, particularly:

• Graphs and charts.
• Images containing essential information.
• Diagrams.
• Visual changes that are important to understanding the presentation.

Presenters should avoid assuming that all participants access visual information in the same way.

8. Links and Access to Information

The way information is presented can significantly affect how easily participants can access it.

Descriptive links were easier to understand and use than raw URLs alone.

Using QR codes together with direct links in the chat also provided participants with more than one way to access the same resource.

This was particularly useful when accessing surveys or other resources quickly from a mobile device.

Recommendation

Where appropriate, future conferences should:

• Use descriptive link text rather than raw URLs.
• Share direct links in the chat.
• Use QR codes as an additional access method.
• Avoid relying on QR codes as the only way to access a resource.
• Provide a clear text-based alternative.

Providing multiple access routes improves flexibility and reduces unnecessary barriers.

9. Accessing Zoom Session Links

In some cases, accessing a Zoom session required several steps:

Email → Google Doc → Housekeeping → Zoom link

Although the information was available, the number of steps could make access more difficult, particularly when participants needed to join a session quickly.

Recommendation

Future conferences could simplify session access by:

• Adding the Zoom link directly to Google Calendar invitations.
• Providing a single page containing session links.
• Including session links in daily reminder emails.
• Using a consistent access method across all sessions.

Reducing the number of steps required to reach a session supports easier and more independent participation.

10. Access to Surveys and Session Resources

Providing a QR code on screen together with a direct survey link in the chat was an effective approach.

Offering more than one way to access the same resource reduces the likelihood that a participant will be excluded because one particular access method does not work for them.

Recommendation

For important surveys and resources, consider providing:

QR code + direct link + descriptive link text.

This simple combination offers flexibility and supports different access needs.

11. Breakout Rooms and Inclusive Participation

Breakout rooms can present additional participation challenges, particularly when someone joins after a discussion has already started or enters a room where they do not know the other participants.

From an accessibility perspective, helping participants quickly understand the context of a discussion can make it easier for everyone to participate, rather than requiring someone who joins late to reconstruct what has already been discussed.

Recommendation

Breakout rooms could begin with a simple welcoming prompt or short activity that helps participants:

• Introduce themselves.
• Understand the discussion topic.
• Establish the context of the conversation.
• Participate more easily, including those who join late.

This could make breakout rooms more welcoming and inclusive while also supporting community building.

12. Key Strengths

The main strengths of the RSAA26 accessibility experience can be summarised as follows:

Live Captions

The availability of live captions provided an important means of accessing spoken content.

Chat

The chat provided an effective channel for interaction, participation, and access to written information.

Multiple Ways to Access Information

Direct links, descriptive links, and QR codes provided flexible ways to reach resources.

Visual Description

Verbal descriptions of visual content by presenters were a valuable accessibility practice.

Regular Communication

Regular sharing of session information and links reduced the need to search through previous messages.

Welcoming Environment

Overall, the conference felt welcoming, and accessibility was considered across several aspects of the participant experience.

13. Key Recommendations for Future Conferences

Based on the observations above, the following areas could be prioritised for future conferences:

1. Test captioning before the conference

   Ensure that caption language settings function as expected and that the languages presented as available are actually supported.

2. Make accessibility information explicit

   Provide a clear accessibility section explaining available services and how participants can request support.

3. Treat chat as part of the accessibility experience

   Use the chat not only for discussion but also to provide essential information in written form.

4. Manage information flow

   Consider the additional cognitive load created when spoken discussion, captions, and fast-moving chat are happening simultaneously.

5. Encourage visual description

   Encourage presenters to describe important visual information during their presentations.

6. Simplify session access

   Reduce the number of steps required to reach Zoom sessions and related resources.

7. Provide multiple access methods

   Where possible, provide QR codes, direct links, and descriptive text together.

8. Make breakout rooms more welcoming

   Use short prompts or activities to help participants enter discussions more easily, particularly when joining late or meeting unfamiliar participants.

Conclusion

Overall, participating in RSAA26 was a positive experience, and the conference demonstrated clear attention to accessibility and inclusion.

The experience also highlighted that effective accessibility is not dependent on a single tool such as live captions. It is the result of designing the entire participant journey in a way that reduces barriers and provides multiple ways to access information and participate.

For Deaf and hard-of-hearing participants, the quality of captions, access to written information, ease of joining sessions, clear sharing of resources, and management of different communication channels are interconnected parts of the overall accessibility experience.

One of the key lessons from RSAA26 is that small details can make a significant difference to accessibility. A clearly labelled link, a brief description of a visual, an important announcement repeated in the chat, or a simpler way to join a session can all contribute to a more independent and inclusive experience.

The purpose of this feedback is therefore not only to identify challenges, but also to document practices that worked well and can be maintained and strengthened in future conferences.

Continuing to document accessibility observations from one conference to the next can help preserve institutional knowledge, build on successful practices, and ensure that accessibility remains an integral part of conference planning from the beginning.