Transcript Understanding And Exploiting Web 2.0: Accessibility, Usability

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/workshops/stimulate-2006/talk-accessibility/
Understanding And Exploiting
Web 2.0:
Accessibility, Usability & Interoperability
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
Bath
Email
[email protected]
About This Talk
This talk covers
• Importance of accessible and
usable of Web resources
• Let’s not forget interoperability
• A holistic approach to
embracing these challenges
Resources bookmarked using ‘stimulate-2006-benchmark' 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
• Web sites might not work!
• Spotting problems
• Automated tools
• Manual testing
•
•
•
•
Quality Assurance (QA)
Accessibility and usability
Interoperability
A holistic approach
A centre of expertise in digital information management
2
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Problems
What problems might Web site users
encounter when making use of a Web site?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
3
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Tools
Background
Problems
You've identified some problem areas for users of Web
sites:
• Functionality – it doesn't work
• Usability – it's difficult for people to use
• Accessibility – it's difficult for people with disabilities
to use
Solutions
Now let's look at some solutions to these problems
• Tools that can help
• Processes that can help
• A Quality Assurance (QA) framework
A centre of expertise in digital information management
4
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Tools
Tools: Functionality (1)
HTML, CSS, … Validation:
• Web page doesn't look right in my browser
• First thing: validate page!
Useful tools:
• W3C's HTML validator:
can spot functionality &
accessibility problems
• W3C's CSS validator
• RSS validator (if you have
an RSS newsfeed)
•…
A centre of expertise in digital information management
5
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Tools
Tools: Functionality (2)
Link Checking:
• Clear need to ensure links work
• Many tools available
Validated part of my Web area
Findings:
• 12,514 Web pages!
• Only checked internal links
• Large no. of errors – but
vast majority false errors
• Some errors found in areas
provided by others
• Others my fault – and
mostly fixed
Issues:
• We can't always rely on tools
• Why weren't errors spotted
previously?
centre
expertise
in digital
information
• WhatAto
do ofwith
large
no. of
errors?management
6
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Tools
Tools: Missing Functionality
A Web site may not be usable because:
• The features it provides can't easily be
used
• It omits features which are needed in
order to be used
Example:
• A search facility
Issues
• Does your Web site have a search facility
• How well does it work?
Note that free third party search facilities may be
useful if you have limited resources
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
7
Tools
Tools: Accessibility
Many accessibility testing tools are available
http://webxact.watchfire.com/
8
WebXact (formally known as
Bobby) is probably the best
http://www.wave.webaim.org/
known
The WAVE is one other
alternative
NOTES
• Automated tools can't detect
all (many?) accessibility
problems
• Findings from tools can be
inconsistent
• Underlying WAI guidelines
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
are open to interpretation
Tools
Tools: Usability Of The Tools (1)
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/qa-focus/
documents/briefings/,rvalidate
There can be usability barriers
to regular use of such testing
tools:
• They require going to Web
page, copying and pasting
URL, etc
• Sometimes only single
pages can be tested
Simple solution:
• On UKOLN Web site can
append ,tools to any
URL to run various tools on
Tools:
page
,validate
,rvalidate
,checklink
,rchecklink
• Simple to implement – see
QA Focus briefing
no. 59
,cssvalidate
A centre of expertise in…
digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
9
Tools
Tools: Usability Of The Tools (2)
'Bookmarklets' and Firefox extensions can make use of
tools much easier and provide additional features
Web Developer allows:
• Features disabled
• Additional information
to be provided
• Tools to be used
Checky allows:
• Validation
• Link checking
• Access to misc tools
These tools are very
useful and their use by all
is strongly encouraged
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
10
Manual Checking
Tools Aren’t Enough!
Warning:
• Tools may lead you to think you have an
accessible Web site when this isn't the case!
<img src="foo" ..> - no ALT tag: detectable by tools
<img src="foo" alt="add alt text here" …> an inappropriate ALT tag. Needs testing by humans.
What do we need:
• An awareness of the strengths and weaknesses of
automated testing
• An awareness of approaches to use of manual
testing
• A usable framework for a testing regime
A centre of expertise in digital information management
11
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Manual Checking
12
Role of Automated Tools
Automated Checking Tools:
• Spotting problems which can be found by software
• Detecting (then fixing) such errors to allow (scarce)
human effort to focus on problems with tools can't
detect:
• Don't tell your testers to check that links work; link
checkers are better for this*
Dangers of Automated Checking Tools:
• I use such tools; I don't bother with manual
checking because:
• I'm a techie and we like software solutions to problems
• Checkers are difficult to find; may be expensive; …
• It's time-consuming
* Is this www.ukoln.ac.uk
always true?
A centre of expertise
• .. in digital information management
Manual Checking
Approaches To Manual Checking 1
Hire a profession body:
• Organisations such as RNIB and many others
can be hired for usability & accessibility checking:
 Have a knowledge of the disable community; their
needs; the tools they use; etc.
 May use people with disabilities to provide realistic
feedback and comments
 Report can inform organisation and recommendations
applied elsewhere
 May be expensive
 Not always applicable
The Logo Issue
Should you add an accessibility logo to your Web
site?
What
are the
pros
and cons?
A centre
of expertise
in digital
information
management
13
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Manual Checking
Approaches To Manual Checking 2
In-house checking:
• Always needed, so let's get in right!
Simple approach:
• Email colleagues for comments. What happens?
What re the limitations of this approach?
Better approach:
• What do you hope to gain? Document this!
• Provide structured tasks
• Seek a variety of testers, representative of user
community
• Testing by people with disabilities is desirable but
may be difficult
• If not possible, provide similar environment for
testers (or yourself) e.g. images off, CSS off; …
A centre of expertise in digital information management
14
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance
The tools aren't sufficient by themselves. Also need:
• Documented policies: so we know what we're
expected to check for
• Systematic procedures: for checking that we are
implementing our policies
• Enhancements made to workflow processes,
and not just fixing individual problems
In addition it can be useful to have:
• Audit trails: to spot trends and identify possible
problems in workflow processes (e.g. new tools
deployed, new staff involved, …)
• Sharing experiences, so that we and others can
learn
A centre of expertise in digital information management
15
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Quality Assurance
QA Examples (1)
Example of QA policies & procedures for file formats
Policy for QA Focus Web site
Policy:
The Web site will use XHTML 1.0 and CSS 2.0
standards
Architecture:
The Web site will be based on XHTML templates and
use of SSIs
Monitoring:
New and updated pages validated using ,validate
and ,cssvalidate. Every month ,rvalidate will be
used & record kept
Exceptions:
HTML derived automatically (e.g. Save As HTML in
PowerPoint) need not comply with standards. The files
will be stored in a standard directory to enable such files
to be excluded from checks.
A centre of expertise in digital information management
16
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Quality Assurance
QA Examples (2)
Example of QA policies & procedures for links
Policy for QA Focus Web site
Policy: QA Focus will seek to ensure that links are functional.
Monitoring:
New and updated pages checked using ,checklink
and ,rchecklink. Every month ,rchecklink will be
used & record kept and quarterly Xenu will be used.
Exceptions:
Links in "publications" (e.g. papers which are formally
published) which become broken may not be fixed.
If there are large numbers of broken links which would be
time-consuming to fix we may not fix them.
We make no commitment to fix broken links once the QA
Focus funding finishes.
A centre of expertise in digital information management
17
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Conclusions – Spotting Problems
To conclude:
• Tools can help in identifying problems
areas
• However tools may be flawed,
inconsistent and difficult to use
• Tools aren’t enough in themselves –
manual checking is also need
• Systematic application of automated and
human checking as part of a QA
framework is desirable
A centre of expertise in digital information management
18
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility & usability
E
Accessibility And Usability
What is accessibility?
What is usability?
What are the differences between usability and
accessibility?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
19
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility & usability
The Debate
No clear consensus:
“Increasingly, the issue of the relationship between
accessibility and usability in web design is being
discussed; at conferences, on mailing lists and
websites, and in meetings and discussions
between those who work in these fields. However,
despite a growing interest in the issue, much of the
discussion has suffered from a distinct lack of
clarity and depth. This leaves our understanding of
the relationship unclear, and practitioners and
advocates of either approach unsure about how
this could or should impact on our work. ”
What is the relationship between usability and
what
shouldmanagement
it be? Dex Alexander
Aaccessibility,
centre of expertiseand
in digital
information
20
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility & usability
The Dangers
There are dangers will too much focus on accessibility:
• We use accessibility checking tools
• We text with disabled users
• We fix the problems which are found
But:
• The site may not be usable!
Note that:
• UK legislation covers usability and accessibility
issues (this may not be the case elsewhere)
There us a clear need to consider both usability and
accessibility issues.
Institutional policies should address both areas
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
21
Accessibility & usability
Addressing Usability
Much literature available:
• Jacob Neilson
• QA Focus briefing documents on:
 “Usability and the Web” (no. 86)
 “Introduction to Cognitive Walkthrough” (no. 87)
 “Task Analysis and Usability”, (no. 88)
 “Heuristic Evaluation”, (no. 89)
 “Developing User Personas”, (no. 90)
Unfortunately no time to go into usability issues in
any depth.
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
22
Interoperability
Background
Where Are We?
So far we have:
• Identified the potential and limitations of tools
• Recognised the importance of user testing to
ensure usable & accessible Web site
Is this sufficient? What about:
• Supporting new devices e.g. mobile devices in an
environment with pervasive WiFi networks?
• Access by robots, etc. (e.g. search engines,
transformation engines, …)
• Repurposing resources
• Preserving digital resources
In addition to usability and accessibility we should also
be
addressing interoperability
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
23
Supporting New Devices
Greater use is being made of devices other than PCs:
• PDAs
 Mobile phones
• Digital TVs
 …
Example of a Web site
viewed on a Palm PDA
Note:
• Images switched off
(small memory)
• No mouse
Example of a Web page
viewed on a Netgem i-Player
digital TV
Note:
• Text size increased as TVs
viewed from further away
• No mouse – so tabbing
needed
A centre of expertise in digital information management
24
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Interoperability
25
Repurposing Resources
Lessons from the past:
• We use a great technology (e.g. BBC micro, PC,
…) and develop materials for it
• Something better comes along – and our
resources are trapped in an obsolete technology
• We develop a great resource – but others only
want to make use of part of the resources
What is needed?
• Device and application independence
• Ability to:
 Make use of resources 'chunks'
 Integrate chunks from disparate resources
 Find relevant chunks (e.g. relevant content, appropriate
A centre of expertise
in digital information
management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
technologies,
appropriate
rights permissions,
…)
Preserving Resources
Will our Web sites be able to be preserved:
• To enrich future generations
• To ensure support for FoI, etc.
http://www.archive.org/
Internet Archive's Wayback
Machine:
• Can show what Web site
looked like previously
• Can help spot problems:
 Can images be captured?
 Are technologies being used
which may cause problems
for preservation?
 Are obsolete file formats
used?
…
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
26
Interoperability
Addressing Interoperability
How can we address such interoperability challenges?
• Use of open standards can help to:
 Provide application & device independence
 Future-proof resources and services
• Use of open standards can help to minimise
migration costs
• But need to consider such issues from the start
However there may be conflicts with other requirements:
• Proprietary formats (e.g. Flash, PDF) may be easy
to use and satisfy user needs
• There may be cost and resource implications
• Open standards may fail to take off
• The future may not be as expected!
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
27
Case Study
http://www.weetwood.co.uk/weetwood.html
Do I want this?
(it's an advert for venue)
Weetwood Hall:
• Web site for good
conference venue
• Web site is attractive and
easy to use
But:
• Requires Flash plugin
• Can't bookmark pages
<body onLoad="showPopup()">
• Not HTML text to index
<div id="page"> <object classid="clsid:D27C…" ..>
<param name="quality" value="high"> <param name="bgcolor"
• One Flash file – so
value="#FFFFFF"> <embed src="loader.swf">
individual
resources can't be
<p><a id="subscribe" href="javascript:showDialog();">Subscribe
to
newsletter</a>
reused
<a id="subscribe"">Latest news</a></p></div>
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
• Text
not resizable
</body>
No useful text for Google
to index
28
Need For Clean URLs
http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/code/InternetHome.hcsp
http://www.mla.gov.uk/webdav/harmonise?Page/@id=82&Section%5B
@stateId_eq_left_hand_root%5D/@id=4289&Document/@id=24343
What are the problems with these URLs?
Usability Problems:
• Difficult to type
• May be difficult to find (can Google index it?)
Accessibility Problems:
• Difficult to remember;
• Difficult to use if have problems with keyboard
Interoperability Problems:
• Dependent on specific CMS
• Difficult to annotate
Guidelines
URI
Naming
Policies,
ASee
centre
of expertise inFor
digital
information
management
29
B. Kelly, Ariadne
31
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Conclusions
To conclude:
• We need to consider interoperability issues
• Such issues can help:
 Service providers
 Users of new devices
 Users of assistive technologies
…
But:
• There may be cost implications
• Planning will be important
• End users may seem happy with an noninteroperable site
A centre of expertise in digital information management
30
www.ukoln.ac.uk
WAI Approach
W3C WAI and WCAG
Traditional
Approach
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
31
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
32
www.ukoln.ac.uk
BK
WAI Approach
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?
A centre of expertise in digital information management
33
www.ukoln.ac.uk
WAI Approach
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
34
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
35
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
36
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
37
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
38
• 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
39
Testable
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Baseline 1
Tangram Model
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
40
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
41
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Holistic Approach
Tangram Model & Stakeholders
The tangram model can be
extended to embrace the
challenges of working with &
dealing with the diversity of
priorities, perceptions and
cultures of your stakeholder
communities
Challenges, legal issues,
cultural issues, etc. from
various stakeholder
communities:
• Target user community
• Other user
communities
• Web developer
• Content provider
• Staff developers
• Institution
• Funder
• Sector
• …
A centre of expertise in digital information management
42
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Holistic Approach
Accessibility 2.0: A Holistic
Approach
The holistic approach we have developed:
• Focuses on the needs of the user
• Acknowledges the value of guidelines:
 WAI WCAG Guidelines
 …
 Jakob Neilson's guidelines
• But recognises that:
 These are guidelines and not universal standards
 Such guidelines can limit what you do
• Also recognises that:
 Usability, accessibility & interoperability are important
 The will be constraints on what you can do
 What you should do will be influenced by the area you're
involved in, the resources you have, the wider cultural
context, …
A centre of expertise in digital information management
43
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Accessibility 2.0 & Web 2.0
The are tensions between aspects of Web 2.0 and
accessibility guidelines:
• AJAX & JavaScript
• Podcasting, etc.
If Podcasts are valuable for
many (including visuallyimpaired users) but can’t be
heard by deaf users, should
be provide them?
If AJAX provides better usability
and helps users with motor skills
difficulties, but may not work with
some screen readers, should we
use it?
Try to support:
• All users
• Target users
• Ask your users
Be
sensible,
dogmatic!
A centre
of expertise not
in digital
information management
44
www.ukoln.ac.uk
Challenges For You
The holistic approach has been developed based on
experiences in supporting the UK Higher and Further
Education and cultural heritage sectors
There are still issues to be addressed:
• How to apply the approach in a range of different
contexts
• What is a reasonable approach?
• How to I embed this approach within my
organisation?
• …
A centre of expertise in digital information management
45
www.ukoln.ac.uk
What Next?
Questions?
Any questions
Note resources cited in the talk are bookmarked in
del.icio.us using tag '‘stimulate-2006"
A centre of expertise in digital information management
www.ukoln.ac.uk
46