Transcript MS PowerPoint 97/2000 format

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/cultural-heritage/events/designing-for-disability-2008/
Holistic 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]
Twitter:
http://twitter.com/briankelly/
Blog:
http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/
Tag for del.icio.us ‘designing-for-disability-2008'
UKOLN is supported by:
This work is licensed under a
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
2.0 licence (but note caveat)
Introduction
2
About Me
Brian Kelly:
• UK Web Focus: a national advisory post
• Long-standing Web evangelist (since Jan 1993)
• Based at UKOLN, University of Bath, with remit to
advise HE/FE and cultural heritage sectors
• Interests include Web 2.0, standards, accessibility
and deployment strategies
• Awarded the IWR Information Professional of the
Year in December 2007
• Winner of Best Research Paper on
“Implementing A Holistic Approach To ELearning Accessibility” at ALT-C 2005
• Papers presented at International CrossDisciplinary Workshop on Web Accessibility
(W4A) in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008
A Fairy Tale for the C21st
Benevolent emperor
• Wants to do good for all his
subjects
• Told of a secret formulae which
allowed all of his edicts to be
read by everyone in his
domain
• The justice minister was told to
implement the magic formulae
– he did (even if he didn’t
understand it)
• The head of the police force
was told to ensure everyone
One little boy pointed out
used it
the truth. The magic
• The subjects agreed that it was
doesn’t work. Today you
good (even through they too,
will hear what the boy had
didn’t understand it)
to say!
3
WAI Approach
The Magic Formulae
The WAI Model
WAI has been tremendously successful in raising
awareness of Web accessibility and providing
guidelines to achieve this.
WAI guidelines are
based on:
• WCAG (Web Content …)
• ATAG (Authoring Tools ..)
• UAAG (User Agents …)
The model is simple to grasp. But is this model
appropriate for the future? Does the model:
•
•
•
•
4
Reflect the diversity of users & user environments
Reflect the diversity of Web usage
Reflect real-world technical environment and developments
Reflect real-world political and cultural environments
WAI Approach
5
Limitations Of The Model
This 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 – as many think WCAG is WAI
How does this model address:
• Delays in full conformance? (We're still waiting for
"until user agents …" clause to be resolved)
• Real-world reluctance to deploy new software
(issues of inertia, testing, costs, …)
• Real world complexities
Is there a plan B in case this model fails to ever take off?
Is it desirable to base legal requirements on an unproven
theoretical framework?
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 (UKOLN, 2002, 2004):
43%/58% A, 2%/6% AA based on 160+ Web sites
Note that these figures aren’t of accessible Web site,
only conformance with automated tests
6
Implications
These low conformance levels can indicate:
• Organisations don't care
• Guidelines are difficult to implement
• Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong, …
WAI Approach
7
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
WAI Approach
8
Proprietary Formats
WCAG P2 requires use of W3C formats
Thoughts:
• Reflects the idealism of the Web community in
late 1990s
• The conveyor belt of great W3C formats has
slowed down (anyone use SMIL, SVG, …)
• Software vendors are responding to WAI’s
initiatives (formats, OS developments, …)
• Developments in non-Web areas (mobile phones,
…) & integration with real-world (e.g. blended
learning, …)
• Users care about the outcomes, not the way in
which the outcomes are provided
WAI Approach
Usability Issues (1)
"WCAG provides the highway code for accessibility on
the information superhighway"
"Fine – but what if the accelerator and brake pedals
differ on every car. I'll still crash!"
DRC survey also carried out usability testing:
• Exemplar accessible Web sites did not comply with
WCAG guidelines (WCAG A)
• WCAG compliant sites (according to tools) were not
accessible or usable
DDA requires users to be able to access & use services
The subjectivity of
"I don't claim people should
DDAguidelines
– UK's Disability Discrimination
ActI say"
usability
do 100% of what
seems to be recognised
Jakob Neilson
9
WAI Approach
Usability Issues (2)
What is the relationship between usability &
accessibility?
Accessibility
Usability
Usability
Usability
Accessibility
Usability
Accessibility
Accessibility
Usability
10
Accessibility
WAI Approach
Confusion
SiteMorse’s automated accessibility survey of UK
disability organisations’ Web sites generated heated
debate
• SiteMorse: Low WCAG conformance found:
• Response: doesn’t matter, manual testing gives
OK results
What do such comments say about disability
organisations’ views of WCAG ?
Note that the RNIB actively promote WCAG
guidelines – and also promote use of accessible
Flash, without flagging any inconsistencies.
Organisations may publicly support WCAG whilst
rejecting (parts of) it.
11
WAI Approach
Nitpicking?
“This is just nit-picking! WCAG is valuable – don’t
knock it!”
WCAG is valuable, but we need to:
• Build a robust framework for the future
• Ensure clarity and avoid ambiguities to avoid
different interpretations
• Reflect on experiences gained since 1999
• Avoid dangers of inappropriate case law being set
Nightmare Scenario
Case taken to court in UK.
Defence lawyers point out ambiguities & inconsistencies.
Case lost, resulting in WCAG’s relevance being
diminished.
12
An Alternative Approach
Holistic Approach
Kelly, Phipps & Swift1 have argued
for a holistic framework for
e-learning accessibility
This framework:
• Focusses on the needs
of the learner
• Requires accessible
learning outcomes,
not necessarily e-learning
resources
This approach reflects current UK emphasis on
blended learning (rather than e-learning)
1 Developing A Holistic Approach For E-Learning Accessibility,
Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 2004, Vol. 30, Issue 3
13
Previous Work (1)
Following on from
first paper, a
framework for
applying WCAG in
the real world (of
flawed browsers,
limited resources,
etc) was described at
W4A 2005.
Forcing Standardization or Accommodating Diversity?
A Framework for Applying the WCAG in the Real World,
Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Phipps, L., Petrie, H. and Hamilton, F.
W4A 2005
14
Previous Work (2)
The need to address the
context of use and the
potential of AccessForAll
metadata described at W4A
2005.
Tangram metaphor
introduced to visualise a
diversity of approaches
Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the
Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines. Sloan, D, Kelly,
B., Heath, A., Petrie, H., Hamilton, F & Phipps, L.
W4A 2006 Edinburgh, Scotland May 2006
15
Previous Work (3)
Application of our work
in a wider context (e.g.
cultural resources)
described at W4A 2007.
Paper introduced the
stakeholder model and
coined the term
‘Accessibility 2.0’ to
describe this approach
What do you see? Is the answer
to be found in the resource or in
the reader’s interpretation ?
Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes.
Kelly, B., Sloan, D., Brown, S., Seale, J, Petrie, H.,
Lauke, P. and Ball, S. W4A 2007
16
Holistic Scenario
Universal Accessibility?
Normal
Cancer
The Duck-Rabbit
CRAFT BREWERY
The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929)
17
An Alternative Approach
18
Where Are We Today?
Our work:
• Acknowledges limitations in WAI’s guidelines
• Complements WAI’s developments to WCAG 2.0
• Provides a realistic framework for development
activities
• Seeks to avoid stifling of innovation by the
‘accessibility fundamentalist’ barrier
An Alternative Approach
WAI Limitations
Limitations of WAI guidelines have been acknowledged:
“However, we recognize that standards are slow, and
technology evolves quickly in the commercial
marketplace. Innovation brings new customers and
solidifies relationships with existing customers; Web
2.0 innovations also bring new types of professionals
to the field, ones who care about the new dynamic
medium. As technologies prove themselves,
standardizing brings in the universality of the benefit,
but necessarily follows this innovation. Therefore, this
paper acknowledges and respects Web 2.0,
discussing the issues and real world solutions.”
Accessibility of Emerging Rich Web Technologies: Web 2.0
and the Semantic Web. Cooper, M. W4A 2007
19
An Alternative Approach
20
What’s Missing
Further work is needed:
• In understanding how WCAG guidelines can be
used in a Web 2.0 context
• In developing approaches for migrating from
WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0
• In developing a more flexible and user-centred
approach to Web accessibility
• In addressing more challenging areas of
accessibility, such as learning disabilities
These areas are addressed in W4A 2008 paper
WAI’s Scenario
WCAG In Context
WCAG 2.0 states that Web resources must be:
• Perceivable
• Operable
• Understandable
• Robust
But this should apply after we’ve decided what our purposes
our, rather than constraining what we can or can’t do:
• “Super Cally Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious”:
Not universally understandable, now universally
accessible, culturally-specific … but witty
• Adobe Flash, MS Word, …
Are these formats essential to your corporate
infrastructure and workflow?
• Web 2.0, Ajax, Blog, Wikis, UGC, …
Do these provide useful services to your users?
Legislation: “take reasonable measure ..” Is bankrupting your company
reasonable? Is failing to satisfy your user community reasonable? Is
dumbing down the English language reasonable?
21
An Alternative Approach
22
Accessibility and Web 2.0
Reactions to Web 2.0 from “accessibility
fundamentalists” (‘the truth is to be found in WCAG 1.0’)
and Web 2.0 sceptics:
• It uses AJAX, and we know that a bad thing
• You shouldn’t use Facebook, MySpace, … as it
breaks WCAG guidelines
• Second Life is a no-no – it’s inherently
inaccessible
But:
• AJAX can provide accessibility benefits
• People with disabilities are using social networks –
should we stop them if they find this useful?
• Judith finds Second Life a liberating experience
Second Life
A video clip shows Judith, a
user with cerebral palsy,
using Second Life with a
headwand.
The danger is that organisations will
ban SL as they feel if fails to comply
with accessibility guidelines.
23
“Do you think that this will
be a really useful tool for
people who are unable to
get around, who have
problems of mobility in real
life?”
“Yes, because you can
have friends without having
to go out and physically find
them”.
An Alternative Approach
24
Social Networks (1)
Social networks (e.g. Facebook):
• Are being used by people with disabilities
• Evaluation of PWDs’ experiences (rather than
evaluation of the resource) is beginning
• CAPCHA seems to be a barrier:
 RNIB admit that solutions are not easy
 Removal of CAPCHA would provide a worse
environment for PWDs (more spam)
 Blended solutions may have a role (“ring this
number”)
Need for:
• More evidence gathering
• More advocacy & pressure
But to facilitate access to SNs not to undermine them
An Alternative Approach
Social Networks (2)
Should we regard Facebook (for example):
• As a stand-alone service?
• As one of a range of access points and allow
users to chose their preferred environment?
Personal Learning Environments (PLEs) and Personal
Research Environments (PREs)
• Of increasing interest in education
A focus on:
• Supporting personal choice
• Providing data which can be surfaced in different
environment (via RSS and other technologies)
• New media literacy skills
Learning resources available via RSS. Users may choose
to access via VLE, RSS reader, social network, …
25
An Alternative Approach
26
Learning Disabilities
“WCAG 2.0 [does] not address all of the needs of
people with disabilities, particularly cognitive, language,
and learning disabilities”
How to address learning disability issues?
• Research work at UWE
• System aimed at health trainers who have learning
disabilities
• Group will be trained to support health promotion
in learning disabilities community
Approaches:
• Engagement with the users at initial design phase
• Pragmatic approach based on ‘what works’
• Experiences will be shared at later date
An Alternative Approach
Holistic Scenario
27
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
• 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’
But how will this work in an environment of
global uses of Web 2.0?
28
29
The Web is Agreement
Where Are We In This View?
Web
WAI
IT
Web
WCAG
WCAG+ATAG+UAAG=universal accessibility
• Motherhood and apple pie?
• Demonstrably flawed after 10 years WCAG+other guidelines+user
e.g. Lilley: “99.99999% of the Web
focus+blended accessibility =
was invalid HTML. W3C pretended widening participation
that didn’t exist.”
• Not yet proven wrong, but
• So 99.9999% of Web isn’t
ignores scale of Web
WCAG AA conformant!
The Pixel of Perfection
30
The Holistic Hamlet
Kevin Kelly
31
Accessibility 3.0 Scenario
Accessibility 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0
Accessibility 1.0:
• Handcrafted resources made accessible
Accessibility 2.0:
• Institutional approaches to accessibility
Accessibility 3.0:
• Global approaches to accessibility
Work on accessibility metadata
is underway, but is still at an
early stage. Further discussion
will not be given here.
32
An Alternative Approach
Accessibility 2.0
33
A Fresh Look At Accessibility
We acknowledge that:
• Not everything on the Web will ever be accessible
• Accessibility may not cross cultural, linguistic,
national and discipline boundaries
• An individual does not need a universally
accessible resource; rather s/he wants a resource
which is accessible to them
• Different communities may have different needs
• Same person may have different needs at
different times and places
• Let’s not talk about the accessibility of a resource
• We find the term ‘inclusive’ more useful than
‘accessible to people with disabilities’
An Alternative Approach
Accessibility 2.0
34
Getting There
Web 1.0:
• Focus on resources published by institutions
• Focus on management of resources (CMSs)
Web 2.0:
• Focus on users and user-generated content
• Focus on reuse of resources (syndication, embedding, …)
• Focus on user comments and discussions
• Trust and openness
Accessibility 1.0:
• Focus on accessibility of published resources
• Focus on software to support publication processes
Accessibility 2.0:
• Focus on accessibility of use of content rather than content
• Blended accessibility cf potential of social networks to
facilitate discussions
• Trust and openness: orgs taking reasonable measures;
involvement with users in design processes cf Kelly et al on
design for people with learning disabilities
An Alternative Approach
Accessibility 2.0
35
Alternative Resources
Public library example:
• Presentation at national Public Library event
• “And here’s a Flash-based game we’ve
developed. Easy to do, and the kids love it”
• “What about accessibility?”
• “Oh, er. We’ll remove it before the new
legislation becomes into force”
Blended approach:
• “What’s the purpose of the game?”
• “To keep kids amused for 10 mins, while parents
get books”
• “How about building blocks or a bouncy castle as
an alternative? This is an alternative approach to
problem, which doesn’t focus on disabilities”
Who’s Using These Approaches? (1a)
Tate’s i-Map project:
early example of an
award-winning
approach to providing
access to paintings for
visual impaired users
• It used Flash ..!
• … to allow users to
‘participate’ in the
creation of the
painting
Note this work was described in an award-winning paper on
“Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility”
paper by Kelly, Phipps and Howell
36
Who’s Using These Approaches? (1b)
I-Map project
also used a
blended
approach,
through
provision of
access to raised
images
37
Who’s Using These Approaches? (2)
Wolverhampton Art
Gallery are using a
user-focused
development approach
to providing access to
information about
Bantcock House
38
An Alternative Approach
39
Who’s Using These Approaches? (3)
How might a user-centred approach to learning disabilities
work?
• 3 year project based at UWE has a focus is on
accessibility of outcomes of a service rather than the
resources
• Emphasis moves from the creator of the Web resources
to the end user
• End user will be involved in content creation and also
the design & creation of the system from the beginning
of the development cycle through to its conclusion
• Purpose of this approach is not to try to create a system
& content that is universally accessible but to try to
maximise usefulness & usability for a targeted audience
of learning disability users
• Goal aims to be achievable & be more relevant to the
specific user group than an approach aimed at creating
content by application of international guidelines.
Described in “One World, One Web … But Great Diversity”
Warning – Logos Don’t Create
Accessible Pages!
Logos? Just say no!
40
Health warning: “This Web site has
been awarded the Bobby 'AAA' rating”
• No, you’ve awarded yourself the
logo
• Bobby (& many other tools) just
provide automated checking
• Are the automated checks still
correct after page updates?
• Bobby no longer exists! So which
logo to go for?
• Are you more likely to be sued?
• What about context & target
audience?
• What does evidence suggest?
Review
41
Accessibility 1.0 – what we though we needed
• WAI model is flawed
• Evidence shows WAI approach is a political
success, but not implemented significantly
Accessibility 2.0 – what we should be doing today
• Holistic approach takes pragmatic view of WCAG’s
successes
• Applies it in a user-focussed context based on
institutional framework
Accessibility 3.0 – a possibility for the future
• Builds on Social Web and seeks to apply social
graph to enhance accessibility of user services
• Very early days
• Need to remember that accessibility is a process &
not a destination!
Conclusions
There’s a need:
• For accessibility researchers to gather evidence
on proposed solutions to accessibility
• To explore ways in which changes in our
understandings can be adopted and deployed
This talk:
• Explores limitations of current approaches
• Suggests alternative approaches
Future work:
• Need to critique the critique
• Need to develop better models for change control
• Need to learn from the past
Thanks to the little boys who helped point out the truth that
the emperor was naked!
42
Questions
Questions are welcome
43