Editing for accessible and inclusive language

By Julie Ganner AE

The third edition of the IPEd Standards for Editing Practice states that editors “should edit consciously and promote the principles of inclusive language … [and be] aware of discriminatory or biased terms” (D3).

Language has the power to include or exclude, depending on how it is used. It is our job to make sure the language in our publications is neither hurtful nor physically prevents readers with disability from participating in the reading experience.

Ableist language is an ongoing problem. Human rights activist Graham Innes AM spoke about this issue at the 10th IPEd National Editors Conference, “Editing on the edges”, in June 2021. Eliminating ableist language involves removing terms that can reinforce negative stereotypes, such as being “wheelchair bound” rather than “a wheelchair user” or “suffering from” rather than “living with” a medical condition. In addition, it requires awareness of other common expressions that can also be demeaning and offensive, such as someone being “blind” to an issue or information “falling on deaf ears”. (More information on the use of appropriate language can be found in a free Language Guide on the People With Disability website.)

But there is another way in which language can exclude. If words are not used consciously, they can also directly disable people from accessing information and ideas.

Accessibility is an attribute or quality of a product or service that allows everyone an equitable chance to use it. Inclusion is what a person experiences when their needs are accommodated at the same level as everyone else’s. When the choice of language enables a reader to access information and meaning irrespective of the format in which they read it, the reader is given an opportunity to be included in the reading experience. On the other hand, when meaning is made unavailable because the language used does not support everyone’s needs, some people are effectively excluded from engaging with the text. In other words, it is not their medical condition that disables them from reading, but the nature of the reading material itself.

“As you can see in the image on the right …” – except, what if you can’t, in fact, see the illustration the writer is referring to?

This is the kind of frustrating and unnecessary barrier a reader may experience if language is not used carefully. Anyone listening to an audiobook, for example, or using a screen reader or braille to read, may miss out on key information if the author relies on words and phrases that are meaningless or unhelpful to those who can’t see the text (“as the picture shows”; “the green line in the diagram”; “in the paragraphs below”; “in the foreground”).

It is the editor’s job to ensure such barriers are avoided. This applies to every type of material we edit. We should be checking continually: Does this language still make sense if the reader can’t see the text? If the answer is no, then the text needs to be amended.

This isn’t to say we should edit out all visual details. It’s fine to talk about elements such as colour. However, we should make sure other details are provided too, so people who can’t see the text can still understand what is being referred to. For instance, my earlier (not “above”) examples can be improved by adding clearer information, such as changing “the green line in the diagram” to “the green dotted line A in Figure 3.4” and “in the paragraphs below” to “in the following paragraphs”.

Improving visual cross-references helps all readers understand the text better, of course, not just those with print disability. Nowadays, texts are often published in more than one format, so the placement of an illustration or piece of text on the page may differ between the ebook and print versions. Elements may also move around in digital publications that feature reflowable text, so a purely visual cross-reference can be confusing. Visual instructions can also be meaningless to users of the audiobook edition.

As I hope is clear by now, editing for accessibility is not a niche activity. It is a basic skill that should be expected of any competent editor.

Checking for clarity is a fundamental aspect of what we do. And editing for accessibility does just that. We are simply making sure the author’s message can be delivered intact, irrespective of how the text is published or the sense a reader uses to access it.