Lawrence (Larry) Weru

Linguistic and Positionality Enforcement Rules

1. No existential or identity statements (“X is…”) Every description must identify human or collective actors performing actions. Replace all “is/are/was/were” patterns with active voice formulations that express doing, making, maintaining, deciding, resisting, or compensating. 🚫 “AccessNow is an app that maps accessibility.” ✅ “People use AccessNow to map and share accessibility information.” 🚫 “AgrAbility is a program supporting disabled farmers.” ✅ “Extension specialists under AgrAbility connect disabled farmers with adaptive tools.”

2. Always attribute agency Sentences must identify who acts and what effect follows. When the actor is ambiguous, use a placeholder such as “designers,” “advocates,” “maintainers,” or “users” to preserve agency.

3. Active voice only Never use passive formulations (“was launched,” “is provided,” “are supported”). Instead, attribute the action directly: 🚫 “Accessibility features were added.” ✅ “Developers added accessibility features after public feedback.”

4. Systems are processes, not entities Describe manifestations as activities sustained by people, not as self-contained objects. 🚫 “The policy is a framework for inclusion.” ✅ “Policy makers use the framework to set inclusion standards.”

5. Causality through verbs, not nouns Accessibility, inclusion, or neglect should emerge from verbs (acting, omitting, adjusting, relying) -- not from static nouns (frameworks, commitments, programs).

This Standard ENABLE Model Manifestation Intake Template is designed for contributors conducting field documentation. It mirrors the ethnographic–journalistic approach described in the Background, balancing structure (for comparability) and openness (for narrative richness).

1 · Administrative metadata​

2 · ENABLE Model location​

Mark all that apply.

• ☐ Builder-side Interventions → Set Requirements that Include Accessibility
• ☐ Builder-side Interventions → Create Accessible Content
• ☐ Builder-side Interventions → Design Accessible Experiences
• ☐ Builder-side Interventions → Develop Accessible Implementations
• ☐ Builder-side Interventions → Test for Accessibility
• ☐ Builder-side Interventions → Triage and Prioritize Accessibility Issues
• ☐ Builder-side Interventions → Iterate to Address Shortcomings
• ☐ Builder-side Interventions → Create stopgaps
• ☐ Navigator-side Compensations → Use Assistive Technologies
• ☐ Navigator-side Compensations → Augment with Third-Party Tools
• ☐ Navigator-side Compensations → Change System Settings
• ☐ Navigator-side Compensations → Create Workarounds
• ☐ Navigator-side Compensations → Use Humans for Assistance
• ☐ Navigator-side Compensations → Assert One's Rights
• ☐ Navigator-side Compensations → Stage a Protest
• ☐ Navigator-side Compensations → Switch to an Alternative

3 · Context and description​

• What is it? Describe the manifestation in one paragraph -- who uses it, for what purpose, and where it sits in the ecosystem.
• Who are the builders? Individuals, teams, institutions, funders, and their stated motivations.
• Who are the end-users or affected populations?
• Relevant timeline When was it launched, revised, or responded to user feedback?

4 · Observed acts of care (Builder-side)​

Record concrete evidence that accessibility was proactively designed or resourced.

5 · Observed acts of neglect (Builder-side)​

Capture systemic gaps, deferments, or rationalizations.

6 · Observed compensations (Navigator-side)​

Document end-user or third-party labor that restores access.

7 · Consequences and equity outcomes​

• Immediate effects: Who gains or loses functional access?
• Long-term effects: Does the manifestation close or widen equity gaps?
• Redistributed labor: How much extra work do compensators perform?
• Indicators of structural change: Policies updated, budgets shifted, norms altered.

8 · Cross-manifestation links​

• Similar cases: Other ENABLE pages that show related dynamics.
• Contrasting cases: Examples where the same failure was prevented or repeated elsewhere.
• Ecosystem connections: Dependencies between products, regulations, or advocacy efforts.

9 · Representative quotes​

Select one or more for each soundscape.

What care sounds like

“…”

What neglect sounds like

“…”

What compensation sounds like

“…”

10 · Contributor reflection (optional)​

• How did your own position (role, privilege, access to information) shape what you observed?
• What questions remain unanswered?
• What follow-up or verification would strengthen this record?

Submission note​

When published, a manifestation summary typically condenses these fields into:

• ENABLE Model location
• What it is
• Why it matters
• Real-world example
• What care/neglect/compensation sound like.

Background​

The ENABLE Model is ethnographic rather than purely descriptive.

Contributors are not simply cataloguing products or organizations. They are documenting accessibility as a social process. They note how people build, neglect, and compensate in real contexts.

Below is a structured guide for how a contributor would investigate a new manifestation (for example, a company, product, campaign, policy, or grassroots workaround) in alignment with the ENABLE Model’s theoretical foundations.

Investigator’s stance​

• Positionally: The observer writes from the perspective of people using or building the thing -- not as the voice of the thing itself.
• Goal: To reveal how accessibility happens (or fails to happen) through lived practices, organizational routines, and material constraints.
• Tone: Descriptive and analytic, not judgmental; evidence-based like field notes or investigative reporting.

Core guiding questions​

1. Stage and location in the model​

• Which phase of the accessibility lifecycle does this manifestation occupy?
  • Builder-side interventions?
  • Navigator-side compensations?
• Where in the system or ecosystem is it situated (institution, product, community, government, etc)?

2. Actors and motivations​

• Who are the builders, decision-makers, funders, and implementers?
• Who are the end-users, and how are they situated (students, employees, consumers, patients, etc)?
• What motivates participation -- compliance, care, profit, moral duty, survival, community solidarity?

3. Observed acts of care​

(anthropology of practice + disability studies)

• What actions demonstrate intentional inclusion or accessibility built in early?
• How do builders incorporate disabled expertise or lived experience?
• How is feedback integrated before launch?
• What language signals care (meeting notes, emails, public posts, training materials, etc)?
• What invisible or emotional labor of care is visible among builders?

4. Observed acts of neglect​

(structural violence lens)

• What accessibility obligations are deferred, ignored, or left unfunded?
• What structural incentives or time pressures lead to neglect?
• How is neglect rationalized (“we’ll fix it later,” “our users don’t need that,” “we have no budget,” etc)?
• How does neglect redistribute burden -- who ends up doing extra work or facing exclusion?

5. Observed compensations​

(maintenance and labor studies)

• What do end-users, advocates, or intermediaries do to restore access?
• What tools, extensions, community scripts, or human networks are mobilized?
• How much time, emotion, and expertise do these compensations demand?
• What is gained (autonomy, immediate access) and what remains unequal (extra effort, isolation)?
• How are these compensations shared or taught (forums, TikTok tutorials, classroom tips, etc)?

6. Material evidence and documentation​

(journalism + ethnography)

• Collect quotes that illustrate care, neglect, or compensation (from interviews, public statements, documentation, user reviews, etc).
• Capture screenshots, photos, or field notes showing accessibility features, barriers, or workarounds in action.
• Identify policies, change logs, or release notes that reflect when accessibility was prioritized or deferred.
• Document timelines: when interventions occurred, when neglect became visible, when compensations emerged.

7. Consequences and equity outcomes​

(social medicine + critical design)

• Who benefits most and who bears the costs of inaccessibility?
• How does this manifestation alter the distribution of labor, agency, or dignity among users?
• Does it reduce or reinforce structural inequities (economic, racial, disability-based)?
• Are compensations being normalized instead of fixed?

8. Comparative and relational insights​

(anthropology + systems thinking)

• How does this manifestation relate to others already documented in the ENABLE Model?

  • Is it similar to other interventions in the same stage?
  • Does it fill a gap or repeat a known pattern?

• What tensions or synergies exist between this and other manifestations (e.g., a platform vs. a user-built workaround)?

9. Narrative framing​

(journalistic craft + public ethnography)

• What single sentence captures the essence of the finding -- what others should be able to say after reading it? (e.g., “This shows what happens when accessibility is built in from the start,” or “This reveals the extra labor users perform to make a system work for them.”)
• Which three quotes best embody care, neglect, and compensation in this case?
• How does the story help readers recognize themselves as potential builders or compensators?

Information to collect​

A contributor to the ENABLE Model investigates accessibility like a field reporter of equity:

• Asking when, by whom, and at what cost access happens.
• Observing how care, neglect, and compensation manifest in real systems.
• Collecting not just claims, but evidence and voices that show the lived process of accessibility in action.

The ENABLE Model serves as a comprehensive field guide for understanding accessibility failures and, more importantly, for fostering a more equitable and accessible world by mapping the gap between intended care and the burden placed on disabled individuals. It is designed for a wide range of "stakeholders" including builders, caretakers, activists, educators, researchers, leaders, and anyone who believes accessibility is a necessary form of care.

The ENABLE Model is more than just a framework for understanding accessibility; it's a "field guide for making accessibility happen -- and for understanding what happens when it doesn't". A critical component of this model is its "Manifestations" section, which offers a comprehensive list of real-world organizations, tools, and actions that exemplify both proactive care and reactive compensations. These manifestations aren't just static examples; they form a dynamic network.

People with disabilities are more likely to be entrepreneurs. The ENABLE model provides a framework for understanding accessibility breakdowns and the resulting burden placed on disabled individuals¹. The ENABLE model explains how systemic inaccessibility cultivates skills and conditions that can lead to entrepreneurial endeavors as a form of response and survival.

What if the story of accessibility isn't about disability, but about neglect?