Transcript MS PowerPoint format

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/alt-c-2005/
Implementing A Holistic Approach
To E-Learning Accessibility
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
Bath
Lawrie Phipps
JISC TechDis Service
York
Email:
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Co-author: Caro Howell, University of Bristol
Note: Permission is granted to record or broadcast
this talk for non-commercial purposes.
UKOLN is supported by:
TechDis is supported by:
About This Paper
This paper:
• Summarises the role of W3C WAI and WAI
WCAG guidelines in helping to provide
universal access to digital resources
• Describes some of the difficulties
experienced in implementing guidelines
• Describes some of the limitations and
dangers with the guidelines
• Provides a holistic framework for e-learning
accessibility
2
BK
About The Speakers
Brian Kelly:
• Works for UKOLN – a national centre of
expertise in digital information management
• Web adviser to the UK higher & further
education and cultural heritage communities
• Funded by JISC and the MLA
Lawrie Phipps:
• Works for TechDis, an educational
advisory service, working across UK,
in the fields of accessibility and inclusion
• Senior Advisor for Higher Education
• Funded by the JISC
This paper is based on the experiences gained by TechDis and UKOLN over
several years in advising the HE/FE sector on best practices for Web accessibility
3
BK
W3C WAI and 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)
4
BK
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
 Checking mostly subjective
 It's similar to checking that a Web site is well-designed
5
BK
WAI WCAG AA and AAA
In order to achieve WAI WCAG AA compliance:
• Avoid deprecated features (e.g. FONT)
• Use W3C technologies when available and
appropriate (no Flash, MS Word or PowerPoint)
• .. use the latest versions [of W3C formats]
• Create documents that validate to published formal
grammars (i.e. HTML must be valid)
In order to achieve WAI WCAG AAA compliance:
• "Specify the expansion of each abbreviation or
acronym in a document where it first occurs" (BBC?)
• Specify document collections with the LINK element
and "rel" and "rev"
6
I think this means the format is appropriate (i.e. HTML for slides)
but others argue it means resources, expertise, … available
BK
The WAI Model
The WAI model for Web accessibility is
based on three components:
• Content
• Authoring Tools
• Browsers
Get all three right and you'll have 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?
7
WCAG and E-learning
WCAG 2.0 draft (implicitly) acknowledges that
accessibility to everyone is not possible:
“Our target is to make things as accessible to as many
people as possible given the need to have practical
techniques and criteria.”
But there are issues for learning e.g.
"Make text content readable and understandable"
Issues:
• How practical are guidelines in e-learning (rather than for
informational resources)?
• How practical are they in the HE context?
• Contextual issues
• Backwards compatibility issues
"Clearly identify who benefits from accessible content, and who
will benefit from each requirement e.g
• Impairments of intelligence, memory, or thinking
• The inability to interpret and/or formulate language symbols,
learning disabilities"
8
BK  LP
The e-learning User Experience
(in HE)
E-learning
Fieldwork
CAA
Web
resources
Labwork
Student
Lectures
Tutorials
Peer
learning
Library
Group
work
9
Viva Voce
LP
Usability
Accessibility is not a product
Creating a resource that is inclusive is a
process
The process must involve users
The experience of the JISC X4L programme
• Creating learning materials
• A tick list for accessibility
10
LP
Usability as a process
… of accessibility, objectives and needs
• You need to consider your context
• What do your community want or need to
access
• Prioritise those areas – test them with the
users
11
LP
The Holistic Approach
Accessibility is only important in achieving a
user's objective:
• This objective does not
(usually) state
“I want to read Wuthering
Heights on a Web site
that is XHTML Strict and
complies with
WCAG AAA”
• Create an ALT tag
for pathos?
• You have resources
other than the Web
12
LP
Pragmatism and Holism
You have limited resources:
• Prioritise
• Seek to implement a basic level of
accessibility – but test the important
resources with users
• Usability of material is as important as
accessibility
• Be flexible, state that you want to support
users and provide a contact
13
LP BK
TechDis – UKOLN Approach
Holistic framework for e-learning accessibility
published in CJLT:
• Focuses on the user
and recognises importance of:
• External pressures
Users
e.g. funders, QAA, …
Needs
• Technical infrastructure
• Resource implications
• Learning & teaching outcomes
and requires quality assurance
based on documented policies and
systematic checking
Remember UK legislation expects organisations to
take "reasonable measures"
14
BK
I-Map – A Case Study
http://www.tate.org.uk/imap/pages/
animated/primitive/picasso/nude_arms.htm
Independently of our
work Tate Gallery
were using a similar
approach:
• Need for an
educational
resources about
Picasso/Matisse
• Aimed at visually
impaired users
• Recognition that a
universal approach
i-Map Web site breaks WAI guidelines (e.g. it uses
was inappropriate
proprietary formats) and took a user-focused and
• Developed a
pragmatic (what expertise do we have) approach.
hybrid approach
Positive comments received from target audience
15
Further Developments
Need to develop a more formal methodology to support
holistic approach to IT development programmes
JISC-funded QA Focus project developed methodology:
• Supportive of open standards & best practices
• Recognises need for diversity (due to immaturity
of technologies, richness of usage scenarios, ...)
Recommendation that programmes allow for diversity &
experimentation:
• Argues for diversity rather than universality
• Freedom to experiment on some areas
• Tolerance of mistakes in some areas
• Opt-out mechanisms
This approach is being further developed through joint
work with UKOLN, TechDis, AHDS & CETIS
16
Conclusions
To conclude:
• WAI guidelines have been developed for a reason
– so seek to understand them and implement
them if and where appropriate.
• Be flexible if implementation is difficult or conflicts
with (for example) learning.
• Think holistically! Students don’t come to HE to
only sit in front of a screen.
• Select guidelines / standards that mean
something to the context of the resource.
• Document your processes.
17
BK
Questions
Any questions?
Acknowledgements: Many thanks to JISC for funding
UKOLN and TechDis and the QA Focus project.
18