Transcript MS PowerPoint 97/2000 format

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/meetings/accessibility-summit-2006-11/
Web Accessibility: Limitations
Of Conventional Approaches
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
Bath
Acceptable Use Policy
Recording/broadcasting of this talk,
taking photographs, discussing the
content using email, instant
messaging, Blogs, SMS, etc. is
Email
[email protected] permitted providing distractions to
others is minimised.
Resources bookmarked with 'accessibility-summit-2006-11' tag
UKOLN is supported by:
A centre of expertise in digital information management
This work is licensed under a AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence
(but note caveat) www.ukoln.ac.uk
Contents
Strengths of WAI Approach
• High profile
• Internationally recognised
Limitations
• WAI Model
• WCAG
• Universal or contextual solutions
• Accessibility, usability, interoperability
• WCAG can limits what we can do
• Uncertain future
A centre of expertise in digital information management
2
www.ukoln.ac.uk
WAI Approach
Background: W3C WAI & WCAG
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium):
• Body responsible for coordinating development of
Web standards
WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative):
• W3C group responsible for developing guidelines
which will ensure Web resources are widely
accessible
WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines):
• One of three sets of WAI guidelines. WCAG
provides advice of accessibility on Web content
(e.g. HTML pages)
• Other two WAI guidelines cover accessible user
agents (UAAG) and accessible authoring tools
(ATAG)
A centre of expertise in digital information management
3
www.ukoln.ac.uk
WAI Approach
WAI Strengths
WAI work:
• Provides valuable guidelines for helping to
make Web sites more accessible
• Widely recognised
• Widely adopted
Support by various tools:
• WebXact (Bobby)
• Cynthia Says
• …
A centre of expertise in digital information management
4
www.ukoln.ac.uk
WAI Approach
The WAI Model
The WAI model for Web accessibility is
based on three components:
• Content
• Authoring Tools
• Browsers
Assumption: do three right  universal accessibility
But:
• We have no control over browsers & authoring tools
• The browsers and authoring tools aren't great
• The content guidelines are flawed
• Is universal accessibility really possible?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
5
www.ukoln.ac.uk
WAI Approach
Interpretation of WAI WCAG
How do you interpret WAI WCAG (must use ALT tags for images;
HTML must be valid; must use style sheets for presentation; …):
• Mandatory, with following characteristics:
 Clearly defined rules
 Objective
 Checking mostly objective
 Penalties for non-compliance
 Similar to checking that HTML complies with the
standard
Which reflects your views most closely?
• Advisory, with following characteristics:
 Useful guidelines, to be interpreted in context
 It's about providing useful, usable resources
 It's contextual
 Checking mostly subjective
 It's similar to checking that a Web site is well-designed
A centre of expertise in digital information management
6
www.ukoln.ac.uk
BK
Limitations
Limitations of the WAI Model
WAI approach has shortcomings:
• WAI model relies on conformant Web sites,
conformant authoring tools, conformant user agents
• …and conformant users!
• WCAG guidelines have flaws ("must use W3C
formats; must use latest versions; …")
• Has a Web-only view of the world:
 What about other IT solutions?
 What about blended (real world) solutions?
• Has a belief in a single universal solution:
 But isn't accessibility a very complex issue
 Is it reasonable to expect an ideal solution to
be developed at the first attempt?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
7
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Alternatives
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 (and being wrong can
be part of the learning process)
Or culture:
• Here’s the Mona Lisa – you
decide why she is smiling
A centre of expertise in digital information management
8
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Alternatives
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
9
Usability & Interoperability
What about:
• Usability
• Interoperability
http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/code/InternetHome.hcsp
Example:
• Long, application-specific URLs can cause
accessibility/usability and interoperability problems
Addition Problems:
• We’ve got WCAG AA (and checked with users)
 We don’t need to do anymore (it’s costly)
 We don’t need to address usability
The focus on priority levels can limit what’s done
A centre of expertise in digital information management
10
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Reflection On The Past
WAI:
• Political success, but lack of rigourous
examination of its shortcomings
Usage:
• WAI can be used as a control mechanism (you
can’t use x) even if can provide valuable user
benefits
Context:
• Assumption about universal solutions (therefore
no debate) which doesn’t reflect reality
A centre of expertise in digital information management
11
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Reflection On The Present
BSI PAS 78:
• Provides a context to use of WAI
• Acknowledges there may be solutions
which break WAI guidelines:
 Flash & PDF can provide useful services and
accessibility issues can be addressed
 Neutral on technologies
• Need to:
 Determine the underlying principles
 Look to build on this for the future
A centre of expertise in digital information management
12
www.ukoln.ac.uk
The Future – WCAG 2.0?
WCAG 2.0:
• Long time in development
• Joe Clarke’s “To Hell With WCAG 2.0”
posting unleashed much debate
• Useful summaries from The Pickards
and @Media 2006 session
• Issues:
•
•
•
•
It’s confusing
It’s too liberal
It’s too tech--centric
..
A centre of expertise in digital information management
13
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Steven Downes’ Blog
Posting, May 2006
• Well known for his writing on accessibility, Joe Clark slams
WCAG 2.0. … "The process is stacked in favour of
multinationals with expense accounts who can afford to talk
on the phone for two hours a week and jet to world capitals
for meetings." And the result, writes Clark, is predictable: a
confused, convoluted and dysfunctional set of standards.
Response (former WAI WG member):
• Oh, I think it's worse than Joe writes. As I see it, the WCAG
2.0 accomplishes two things. First, it makes it less likely
that sites will ever really be accessible to persons with
disabilities. Second, it makes the price of admission for an
ostensibly accessible site (i.e. one that "meets" the
guidelines) quite high.
A centre of expertise in digital information management
14
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Conclusions
Conclusions
To conclude:
• WAI has been a political success
• But the future seems uncertain
• Need to:
 Be open about limitations and our experiences
 Be user-focussed (?)
 Build an underlying model
 Seek consensus
 A roadmap for the future
Any Questions?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
15
www.ukoln.ac.uk