Transcript Accessibility 2.0

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/blended-learning-mmu-2006-06/
Accessibility 2.0:
Blended Accessibility For
Blended Learning
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
Bath
UK
Email
[email protected]
About This Talk
Brian Kelly reviews the traditional
approaches taken to addressing the
accessibility of Web resources.
Although a political success, Brian
argues that the WAI model is flawed.
An alternative approach, developed by
UKOLN and TechDis, is described.
Brian concludes by arguing for a userfocused approach – “Accessibility 2.0”
UKOLN is supported by:
A centre of expertise in digital information management
This work is licensed under a AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but
www.ukoln.ac.uk
note caveat)
Contents
• Background
• WAI – The Answer To Universal Web
Accessibility?
• WAI Limitations
• An Alternative Way: A Holistic Approach To
E-Learning Accessibility
• Building On This Work: The Tangram
Metaphor
• Accessibility 2.0
• Questions
A centre of expertise in digital information management
2
www.ukoln.ac.uk
About Me
Brian Kelly:
• UK Web Focus
• Adviser on best practices and innovative uses of Web
• Funded by JISC and MLA (Museums, Libraries and
Archives Council)
• Supports Higher and Further Education and cultural
heritage communities
• Based at UKOLN, University of Bath
Related work:
• Providing advice on maximising access to networked
resources
• Working with JISC’s TechDis advisory service
• Co-author of several papers on e-learning accessibility:
CJLR paper in 2004, ALT-C and W4A paper in 2005, W4A
paper in 2006, …
A centre of expertise in digital information management
3
www.ukoln.ac.uk
About You
Are you:
• Familiar with WAI (Web Accessibility
Initiative)?
• Using WAI WCAG guidelines in your:
 Web site development?
 e-learning development work?
• Using the guidelines successfully?
• Using any other approaches to e-learning
accessibility?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
4
www.ukoln.ac.uk
WAI
WAI
WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative):
• Part of World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) since 1997
• Aims to “develop strategies, guidelines, and resources to
help make the Web accessible to people with
disabilities”
Developed guidelines for:
• Web content: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG)
• Authoring Tools: Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines
(ATAG)
• User Agents (e.g. browsers): User Agent Accessibility
Guidelines (UAAG)
WAI’s work:
• Has had high impact
• Is being embedded in legislation e.g. US Section 508,
UK
SENDA,
A centre of
expertise
in digital …
information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
5
Rreview of WAI Approach
6
Problem Solved?
Is the accessibility of e-learning solved?
• We just need to ensure WAI guidelines are
implemented
Your views:
• We should be ensuring our e-learning resources are
universally accessible
• Following WAI guidelines can help ensure we achieve
But: this
•• We
have
to,model
or wesimple
could be
sued
Is the
WAI
or simplistic?
(flawed as we
can’t do much about browsers and authoring tools)
• What about other developments in IT?
• Is the WAI approach designed for Web sites relevant
for learning services?
• Is “universal accessibility” possible – or is it more of a
an aspiration?
A centre ofrallying
expertise incall
digital/ information
management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Rreview of WAI Approach
Reviewing WAI
WAI's ambitions are clearly laudable
But does its approach work?
Let's briefly look at:
• Experiences of use of WAI
• The WAI model
• The WCAG guidelines
• The context of use
• What is accessibility?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
7
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Rreview of WAI Approach
WCAG Conformance
Page authors can only follow WCAG guidelines.
Several surveys carried out using automated tools
(which gives upper limit on accessibility)
• DRC report: 19% A, 0.6% AA conformance based
on 1,000 Web sites
• UK Museums report: 42% A, 3% AA conformance
based on 124 Web sites
• UK Universities surveys (2002, 04):
43%/58% A, 2%/6% AA based on 160+ Web sites
Implications
DRC – Disability Rights Commission, independent body
These
lowto
conformance
levels can
legislated
stop discrimination
andindicate:
promote equality of
• Public sector
organisations
opportunity
of disabled
people. don't care
• Guidelines are difficult to implement
• Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong, …
A centre of expertise in digital information management
8
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Review of WAI Approach
The WAI Model
The WAI model:
• Requires all three components to
be implemented in order for
the WAI vision to be achieved
• Is of limited use to end users
who have no control over browser
or authoring tools developments
• Is confusing – many think WCAG is WAI
A simple model developed in late 1990s, but:
• Does the evidence suggest it work?
• Does it reflect the diversity of Web usage?
• Does it reflect real-world technical environment and
developments?
• Does it reflect real-world political and cultural
environments?
A centre
of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
9
Rreview of WAI Approach
WCAG Difficulties
Certain Priority 2 and 3 guidelines cause concerns:
11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available
and appropriate for a task ...
• Promotes own technologies
• Appears to ignore major improvements in
accessibility of non-W3C formats
11.1 … and use the latest versions when supported
• Goes against project management guidelines
• Logical absurdity: when XHTML 1 came out WAI
AA HTML 4 compliant sites downgraded to A!
3.2 Create documents that validate to published formal
grammars
• Dodgy HTML (<br />) can be rendered by
browsers – this is an interoperability issue
A centre of expertise in digital information management
10
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Rreview of WAI Approach
11
Universal Accessibility?
Is universal accessibility:
• A legitimate aim, which can be achieved with an
appropriate set of guidelines?
• Possibly a useful political slogan, but not achievable
in reality?
Our thinking:
• How can scholarly work in HE be accessible to
people with learning disabilities?
• Underlying approach should be ‘widening
participation’
Universal approaches:
• For machine-to-machine communications (XML),
and is not suited for the diversity of individuals (e.g.
their abilities, environment, cultural environment,
requirements,
…) management
A centre of
expertise in digital information
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Holistic Model
Framework For Diversity: Accessibility
Accessibility – the Challenges
• WAI WCAG – important area and high visibility
• But the model is flawed, fails to take into account
developments e.g. can you use Podcasts?
WAI
12
Holistic (Blended) Approach
Holistic approach to e-learning
accessibility developed
• Accessibility of learning outcomes (not
necessarily digital resources) is
paramount
• WAI WCAG are guidelines
• See "Implementing A Holistic Approach To
E-Learning Accessibility" prize-winning
ALT-C 2005 paper
• Follow up paper at W4A 2005 (May 2005)
A centre of expertise in digital information management
further developed model www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility in Context
External factors: Institutional issues (funds, expertise,
policies, security…)
Digital Library Programme
Context
Purpose Sector Funding Resources Research
…
Policies
Standards Accessibility/Usability Privacy Finance …
Compliance
External Self-assessment Penalties Learning Broken
A framework has
been developed
which places
accessibility &
usability within a
wider context:
• The context
• A range of
policies
• A compliance
regime
Accessibility
guidelines should
This approach embraces relativism and context be usable in wider
rather than
the
current
absolute
approach
context
A centre
of expertise
in digital
information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
External factors: Legal issues; cultural factors; …
13
Further Work
Diversity - Content
WAI guidelines focus on informational Web sites:
• Here’s the train timetable – I want the information
and I want it now
• This is reasonable and desirable
But is this approach always
relevant to e-learning:
• Here’s something – you must
interpret it
Or culture:
• Here’s the Mona Lisa – you
decide why she is smiling
A centre of expertise in digital information management
14
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Further Work
Jordan’s Pleasure Principle
Even for informational resources, we may not always
choose to make information readily accessible
“Super Calli Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious!”
• Breaks draft WCAG 2.0 guidelines on “Content
must be understandable”
• But brings a smile to many (but not all)
Argument:
• We need: firstly (A) food and then (B) shelter.
Afterwards we want (C) soft furnishing
Can apply “Jordan’s Pleasure Principle”
C
to informational content:
B
• We want information, but we also
A
want
it
provided
in
a
pleasurable
way
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
15
Tangram Model
Articulating the Approach
The "Tangram Metaphor" developed to avoid checklist /
automated approach:
• W3C model has limitations
• Jigsaw model implies
single solution
• Tangram model seeks to
avoid such problems
This approach:
• Encourages developers to think
about a diversity of solutions
• Focus on 'pleasure' it provides
to user
• Outlined at W4A 2006, May
2006
A centre of expertise in digital information management
16
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Tangram Model
Tangram Model
Model allows us to:
• Focuses on end solution rather
than individual components
• Provided solutions tailored for
Guidelines/standards
end user
for/from:
• Doesn't limit scope (can you
• WAI
do better than WAI AAA?)
• Usability
• Make use of automated
• Real world
checking – but ensures
• Organisational
emphasis is on user
• Dyslexic
satisfaction
A centre of expertise in digital information management
17
• Learning difficulties
• Legal
• Management
(resources, …)
• Interoperability
• Accessibility metadata
• …
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Tangram Model
Tangram Model & Testability
"WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable
statements …" (nb. automated & human testing )
Issues:
• What about WCAG principles that don't have defined success
criteria (e.g. "content must be understandable")?
• What about 'baselines' – context only known locally
• What about differing models or / definitions of 'accessibility'?
Note vendors of accessibility testing services will market
WCAG tools e.g. see posting on BSI PAS 78
Tangram model can be used within WCAG
• Distinguish between testable (ALT tags)
and subjective (content understandable)
• Supports baselines
A centre of expertise in digital information management
18
Testable
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Baseline 1
The Cathedral & The Bazaar
WAI Approach:
•
•
•
•
•
Large-scale and ambitious –but slow-moving
External dependencies (e.g. on legal systems)
Based on single approach ("you must …")
Web-centric approach
Cathedral approach to development
Holistic Approach:
• Modular & can be more rapid-moving & responsive
• Based on diversity of approaches - "seek to …"
"I don't claim people should do 100% of what I say“ J Neilson
• Covers Web, other IT and real-world accessibility
• Bazaar approach to development
WCAG 2.0’s ‘baseline’ seems to recognise a contextual view 
isoflimited
Webinformation
technologies

A but
centre
expertiseto
in digital
management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
19
The Legal Framework
This approach is well-suited for the UK legal
framework:
SENDA/DDA legislation requires "organisations to take
reasonable measures to ensure people with disabilities
are not discriminated against unfairly"
Note that the legislation is:
• Technologically neutral
• Backwards and forwards compatible
• Avoids version control complexities
• …
The legislation also covers usability, as well as
accessibility
A centre of expertise in digital information management
20
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Blended Accessibility
Background
• Talk on best practices for public library Web sites
• Example given of Flash game:
 Aimed at children
 Simple to develop
 They love it
• Question: What about accessibility?
• Response: (defensive) Err, we'll have to remove it.
Blended solution
What's the purpose of the game?
To amuse kids, while parents are browsing for books.
Would building blocks provide an equivalent alternative?
Note this treats kids as users with different learning styles,
not
asof'something
the blind,
…
A
centre
expertise in digitalfor
information
management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
21
Accessibility 2.0
Accessibility 2.0
Can the term “Accessibility 2.0” help in
articulating a blended approach (similar to Web
2.0, e-Learning 2.0, Library 2.0, …)?
Characteristics:
• User-focus
• Diversity
• Blended
• Widening participation
• Avoidance of dogma
• …
A centre of expertise in digital information management
22
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility 2.0
Are You A Believer? (1)
You want to make your PowerPoint slides available in
your VLE. Do you:
A Acknowledge that you can’t as PPT is a proprietary
format and so breaks WCAG 1.0
B Think about making PPT and HTML versions
available, but realise that MS HTML is invalid, and
so this breaks WCAG
C Make PPT (and HTML) versions available as this is
more accessible than having no file available
D Ensure images in PTT file have ALT tags – as PPT
files can be accessible
A centre of expertise in digital information management
23
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility 2.0
Are You A Believer? (2)
You want to make your PowerPoint presentations more
accessible. Do you:
A Make use of Eric Meyer’s S5 software, as this is
compliant with XHTML, makes use of CSS and is
fashionable amongst the Web development
community (and isn’t produced by Microsoft)
B Realise that S5 (a) produces poor quality
printouts (which your student use for note-taking)
and (b) is difficult to produce visual effects which
you use to make your presentations more
interesting
A centre of expertise in digital information management
24
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility 2.0
Are You A Believer? (3)
You want to make a recording of a paper on
"Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit
of Accessibility Guidelines" you gave at the W4A 2006
workshop available as Podcasts. Do you:
A Acknowledge that you can’t as you don’t have the
resources available to provide transcripts of your talks
available, as required to conform with WCAG
B Create the Podcast as a recording of your talks makes the
talk more accessible than having no recording available
C Provide the Podcast alongside the MS Word, PDF and
XHTML versions of the paper and the PowerPoint slides,
which provide variants of the real world idea (as opposed to
the resources)
Accessibility
for Web
A centre of expertise
in digital information2.0
management
25
2.0
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility 2.0
Are You A Believer? (4)
You have a PC cluster with multimedia PCs. It is
pointed out that deaf students can’t benefit from this.
Do you:
A Remove the multimedia PCs in order to provide a
level playing field?
B Ensure that captioning tools are available in order
to allow students with hearing difficulties can still
access the learning resources?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
26
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility 2.0
Are You A Believer? (5)
You are organising a Geology field trip to Snowdonia.
However it is pointed out that Snowdonia is not
wheelchair friendly. Do you:
• Cancel the field trip as it is not universally
accessible?
• Call for a wheelchair ramp to be installed and
boycott Wales until this happens?
• Seek to ensure that the learning outcomes of the
field trip are accessible and make use of
alternative technologies e.g. mobile
phones/MMS/3G to allow student at base camp
to engage in discussions and go to wheelchairfriendly pub for social activities?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
27
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility 2.0
Are You A Believer? (6)
You have deployed Blogs for students to reflect on
their learning experiences
On reviewing the Blogs you discover that your students
aren't using ALT tags or images or expanding
abbreviations, in breach of WCAG
Do you:
• Withdraw the Blogging service?
• Point out issues, but leave it to students to decide
what to do?
Accessibility 2.0 for Web 2.0
A centre of expertise in digital information management
28
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility 2.0
Application To Communications
Skype, Instant Messaging, …
• Banned at some institutions for various reasons
(ideological, performance, accessibility, …)
But:
• Can be used to allow geographically-challenged
students to listen to talks
• Use in lectures when no induction loop available
• Skype IM / IM can be used for mentoring support,
feedback, …
Accessibility barrier or accessibility benefit?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
29
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility 2.0
Challenges For Accessibility 2.0
Moving away from a simplistic checklist approach has
benefits:
• Ability to address the diversity to be found
• Ability to do more than may be required in checklist
But also leads to challenges:
• What are the appropriate ‘reasonable measures’?
• How do I advise / evaluate / monitor?
No simple answers (as with evaluation of learning) but
some suggestions:
• Documented policies are essentially
• Sharing and discussion of approaches taken
• Talking to your users!
A centre of expertise in digital information management
30
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Next Steps
31
Building On This Work
TechDis Perspective
"As .. awareness of accessibility has matured .. shift in
e-learning communities from a standards based
paradigm to a more holistic approach that discriminates
between delivery mechanisms, content and context – …
approach focuses more on the learner’s experience
than the intrinsic nature of the resource, and … brings
responsibility for accessibility to a wider audience."
Other points:
• Discrimination by compliance; real world resources
are less accessible than digital ones – don't ban
digital resources needlessly
• Need to distinguish between:
 Content delivery vehicle
A centre of expertise in digital information management
 Context of use
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Next Steps
Accessibility & Usability
Possible (probable) danger:
• We must address accessibility (legal fears)
• We follow WCAG guidelines
• We run automated tools
• We feel happy – and stop there
But:
• Our Web sites & e-learning systems aren't usable
• We'd failed to give enough attention to usability
Note:
• SENDA legislation covers access and use of digital resources.
• .."relationship between accessibility & usability has long been a
source of discussion, .. no definitive model exists."
• Further work needed – but usability needs to be addressed
A centre of expertise in digital information management
32
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Next Steps
Personalisation
Traditional view:
• Digital resources must all be fully accessible
• People with disabilities have rights to access all
resources
• Personalising views based on (disabled) user
profiles is therefore wrong
Current thinking:
• Digital resources can't be fully accessible
• Personalisation (e.g. PLEs) is felt to be valuable
• Disabled users have equals rights in avoiding
unnecessary information!
Standards are being developed for support
personalised access to (e-)learning resources, including
IMS
AccessForAll
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
33
Next Steps
Next Steps
What next?
• Is there a broad acceptance of the
approaches described?
• Dealing with the backlash – we want a
simple set of rules we can implement
• A roadmap for the future:
 Sharing experiences
 Observing patterns of best practices – and
(importantly) mistakes
 Engagement with others
 Further development of the approach
A centre of expertise in digital information management
34
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Conclusions
Web accessibility:
• Should be a goal
• But accessibility is a more important goal
• Blended accessibility has strong parallels
with blended learning – the focus is on the
learning
A centre of expertise in digital information management
35
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Questions
Any questions?
Note resources cited are bookmarked in del.icio.us
'blended-learning-mmu-2006'
Ausing
centre of tag
expertise
in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
36