Transcript MS PowerPoint

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/nadp-2008/
Web Accessibility 2.0: Revisiting Our
Approaches To Web Accessibility
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
Bath, UK
Acceptable Use Policy
Recording/broadcasting of this talk, taking
photographs, discussing the content using
email, instant messaging, blogs, etc. is
permitted providing distractions to others is
minimised.
Email:
[email protected]
Blog:
http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/
Resources bookmarked using ‘nadp-2008' tag
UKOLN is supported by:
This work is licensed under a
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
2.0 licence (but note caveat)
About Me
Brian Kelly:
• National Web adviser to HE/FE and
cultural heritage sectors
• Based at UKOLN, University of Bath
• Interests include:
 Standards
 Web 2.0
 Web preservation
 Web accessibility
• Blog covering these topics discussed at
<http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/>
2
About You
What is your interest in Web accessibility?
What do you hope to gain from this session?
3
My Web Accessibility Work
Several papers written with various accessibility
researchers / practitioners including:
• Paper on a Holistic Approach to e-Learning
Accessibility (CJLT 2004)
• Limitations of WAI approach to Web applicability
(W4A 2005)
• Application of holistic approach for e-learning
accessibility in WAI context (W4A 2006)
• Application of work to new ‘edge case’ of culture
on the Web and stakeholder model (W4A 2007)
• Application of work to a Web 2.0 environment
(W4A 2008)
4
The WAI Approach
Chisholm & Henry, 2005
W3C WAI developed a threecomponent model for “universal
access to Web resources”:
• Content guidelines (WCAG)
• Guidelines for browsers/
user agents (UAAG)
• Guidelines for authoring tools (ATAG)
Impact:
• Tremendous political success internationally
• Expectations that public sector bodies will conform
with WCAG guidelines
• Provide an understandable approach for developers
But …
5
Limitations of the WAI Approach
WCAG
Content guidelines naive
Content guidelines outdated
Content guidelines difficult to
implement due to lack of decent
authoring tools
Content guidelines too theoretical
UAAG
ATAG
Marketplace failed to deliver
compliant browsers
Marketplace failed to deliver
compliant authoring tools
Institutions failed to upgrade browsers
Institutions failed to install compliant
authoring tools
Users weren’t motivated to
change their authoring tools
6
Users not necessarily
motivated to use
accessibility features
Users weren’t motivated/have skills to
upgrade their browsers
WAI guidelines are flawed; WAI model is
broken and approach fails to take into
account context, personalisation, resource
implications, blended approaches, …
Universal Accessibility?
Normal
Cancer
The Duck-Rabbit
CRAFT BREWERY
The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929)
7
Man against snow, Austrian
Tirol 1974, reproduced with
permission of the
photographer: Professor Paul
Hill
Holistic Approach
Holistic Approach
Kelly, Phipps & Swift developed
a blended approach to
e-learning accessibility
This approach:
• Focusses on the needs
of the learner
• Requires accessible
learning outcomes,
not necessarily e-learning
resources
This approach reflects emphasis in
UK on blended learning (rather than e-learning)
8
Follow-up work awarded prize for Best Research Paper at ALT-C
2005 E-learning conference
Articulating the Approach
The "Tangram Metaphor“ (Sloan et al, W4A 2006)
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
9
Tangram Model
Model allows us to:
• Focuses on end solution rather
than individual components
• Provided solutions tailored for
end user
• Doesn't limit scope (can you
do better than WAI AAA?)
• Use automated checking – but
ensures emphasis is on user
satisfaction
Note that similar moves to modularity
are the norm in many W3C standards
10
Guidelines/standards
for/from:
• WAI
• Usability
• Organisational
• Dyslexic
• Learning difficulties
• Legal
• Management
(resources, …)
• Interoperability (e.g.
HTML validity)
• Accessibility metadata
• Mobile Web
• …
Stakeholder Model
Common approach:
• Focus on Web author
• Sometimes user involved
• Sometimes led by policy-makers
This approach:
• Often results in lack of
sustainability
• Web accessibility regarded as
‘techie’
• Not integrated with wider
accessibility issues
• Not integrated with training,
development, …
There’s a real need to integrate
approaches to accessibility more
closely with (diversity of) service
providers
11
Jane Seale
Accessibility 2.0
Need to build on WAI’s successes, whilst articulating a
more sophisticated approach. Accessibility 2.0:
• User-focussed: It’s about satisfying user’s needs
• Rich set of stakeholders: More than the author
and the user
• Always beta: Accessibility is hard, so we’re
continually learning
• Flexibility: There’s not a single solution for all use
cases
• Diversity: There’s also diversity in society’s views
on accessibility (e.g. widening participation, not
universal accessibility)
• Blended solutions: Focus on ‘accessibility’ and
not just ‘Web accessibility’
12
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
Other country’s legislation also talks about ‘reasonable
measures’
13
How?
Approaches to Web accessibility:
• Holistic
• User-focussed, not primarily about technologies
• About enrichment, not about dumbing down or
control
How?
• Decide on purposes of services first, then seek to
make solution accessible
• Seek to implement established (and usable)
guidelines .. but be prepared to ignore if their use
would be unreasonable
• Share best practices and experiences … this can
help to establish what is reasonable
14
Conclusions
To conclude:
• WAI has provided a valuable starting point
• Need to develop a richer underlying model
• Need for Web accessibility to be placed in wider
content
• There's a need to an evidence-based approach
and less ideology
• Contextual approach & tangram metaphor aim to
help inform such developments
• Accessibility 2.0 term can articulate a renewed
approach
• Organisation need to take responsibility for
decision-making, and not just rely on compliance
with a simple check-list
15
Criticisms
But what do I do?
WCAG gives me something I can use to
commission development work
It may not be perfect, but its raised awareness
and allowed legislation/guidelines to be
implemented
…
What do you think?
16
Questions
Questions and general discussion
17