This behavioral discussion translates well to the physical realm. In architecture, accessibility is a legal term and is about barrier-free design, to allow disabled bodies of all types to use the space as with anyone else.
The converse is inclusive design, which also translates well back to behavior. You may have thought you were accessible, but you may not necessarily have been inclusive. Design for the most disabled, and you'll have beneficially designed for all. Embrace for the least empowered and you'll have accommodated all levels of power and privilege. Jerome, architect www.BLANKSPACES.com On Jun 27, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Alex Hillman <[email protected]> wrote: >> The two go hand in hand. Being open, but not accessible does little good >> because people can't take advantage of the openness. Being accessible but >> not open is just rude. > > I think this is a very keen observation, and quite right. > > The key context for open when it was being attributed as a core value was > references from the Open Source Software world where a lot of early coworking > folks came from. Open Source software culture is informed by ideas and ideals > that, frankly, subvert a lot of the transactional nature of business. In this > context, openness leans more towards a kind of generosity that doesn't always > show up in business or business cultures. > > I recently listened to a keynote about these themes that reminded me...I > hadn't really heard these themes clearly articulated in a while. Don't be > scared off by the fact that the keynote is from a software conference, the > keynote is not technical in any way but more of a commentary on culture, > business, and the complex value of "open" as it was intended to describe > coworking. https://rework.fm/open-source-beyond-the-market/ > > In my opinion, accessibility has a lot more meaning today than it did when it > was first used to describe coworking. Early on, I think it was simply about > the removal of visible gatekeepers. Again, remember, many coworking pioneers > were corporate outcasts of sorts. Accessibility was, in many ways, about who > you were (or were not) actively trying to keep out. So in those early days, > it was more about eschewing credentials and applications in favor of "if you > show up, you're welcome." > > In hindsight, though, I don't think it accessibility as a coworking core > value really addressed the subtle, less visible gatekeepers of power and > privilege. The door was open, but we didn't always do a good job of > proactively inviting folks who weren't showing up or asking why they weren't > showing up in the first place. I'm personally guilty of this, and have done a > lot of work personally and organizationally to take a much more proactive > stance on accessibility. > > I hope this helps! I think having core values that are open to some > interpretation is why they're not "core rules." Asking what they actually > mean, and how the meaning has changed over time, is part of why they're > valuable. > > -Alex > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Coworking" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/coworking/CAELV%2BvWC9MKw%3D0_px-t5VF_aBY0yxmuFROPpEOymVPjU-oQ9dg%40mail.gmail.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Coworking" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/coworking/9A71DD39-C7A6-4DB3-BB27-205CC0302719%40blankspaces.com.
