Transcript MS PowerPoint format

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/w4a-2007/
Accessibility 2.0: People,
Policies and Processes
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, SMS, etc. is permitted providing
distractions to others is minimised.
Co-Authors: David Sloan, Stephen Brown, Jane Seale,
Helen Petrie, Patrick Lauke and Simon Ball
Resources bookmarked using ‘w4a-2007' tag
UKOLN is supported by:
This work is licensed under a
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
2.0 licence (but note caveat)
About This Paper
This paper:
• Reviews limitations of WAI approach to Web
applicability (described at W4A 2005)
• Describes holistic approach for e-learning
accessibility (described at W4A 2006)
• Applies previous work to new ‘edge case’ of
culture on the Web
• Introduces a Stakeholder Model to help ensure
sustainability of approaches to accessibility
• Compares old and new approaches to Web
accessibility
• Proposes ‘Accessibility 2.0’ as term to describe
approach which builds on WAI’s successes
2
WAI’s Limitations
W4A 2005: Reprise
At W4A 2005 we presented “Forcing Standardization or
Accommodating Diversity…”:
• The practical difficulties of using a “standard” to
encapsulate design requirements to accommodate a
diverse set of needs under a diverse set of
circumstances
• The achievements and limitations of WCAG in
supporting this
• The resultant difficulties (and absurdities) from
legislation and policy – that makes inappropriate
reference to WCAG
• Using the example of the e-learning sector we pointed
the way to a more holistic view of Web accessibility
We received many positive comments on the ideas we
presented
3
WAI’s Limitations
Limitations of the WAI Model
• WAI model relies on conformant Web sites,
conformant authoring tools, conformant user
agents
• …and conformant users!
• A common complaint of “standardistas” – “the
user needs to take responsibility…”
• There is value in this argument – but there are
practical shortcomings
• And user technophobia/laziness/lethargy is only
one obstacle
 How many users know they are “disabled”?
Also note importance of evidence-based research. Various UK
accessibility studies seem to find that lack of evidence of accessibility of
Web sites for PWDs and conformance with WCAG guidelines!
4
WAI’s Limitations
The Importance of Context
• We argue Web accessibility is about
supporting users achieve real world goals
• From Beyer & Holzblatt (1998) – the more
you know about your target audience the
more you can design to support them
• So the goal of “universal accessibility” has
changed to supporting a defined set of
users in the best possible way…
• How can we use WCAG to achieve this?
Note in the UK ‘widening participation’ seems to be preferred to ‘universal
accessibility’ – with the latter sometimes leading to universal inaccessibility
(“we can’t use JavaScript so we’ll not allow anyone to gain benefits it can
provide” )
5
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)
6
Follow-up work awarded prize for Best Research Paper at ALT-C
2005 E-learning conference
Application To Culture
Accessibility for information / factual resources
is easy(ish)
Accessibility for edge cases including learning,
culture, research, gaming, communications,
assertion of identity (teenagers on MySpace),
…:
• More challenging
• Needed to allow providers of Web-based
cultural services to enhance accessibility
• Generic model will provide broader
framework for variety of Web uses
7
Universal Accessibility?
Normal
Cancer
The Duck-Rabbit
CRAFT BREWERY
The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929)
8
Man against snow, Austrian
Tirol 1974, reproduced with
permission of the
photographer: Professor Paul
Hill
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 & 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
• Discussions with developers on
prioritisation of automated testing
10
Testable
Baseline 1
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
11
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
12
Repositories – Case Study
13
Discussion on repositories list:
“Why PDFs of research papers?
What about accessibility?”
“Important battle is open access.
Let’s not add extra complexities.”
My response:
Open access is important (and PDF
is easy) but let’s also:
• Engage with various
stakeholders (incl. publishers)
• Develop (holistic) policies
• Explore other options to
enhance accessibility
And I found Scribd – a Web 2.0
services which creates MP3 from
MS Word/PDF:
• Enhanced accessibility from MS
Word master & Flash interface
The Cathedral & The Bazaar 2.0
14
Traditional WAI Approach
E-learning
Proposed Approach
Blended learning
Centralised
Single solution
Slow-moving
Devolved
Variety of solutions
Rapid response
Remote testing
IT solution
Objective testing
Medical model
Testing in context
Blended solutions
Context to testing
Social model
Accessibility as a thing
Clear destination (AAA)
Accessibility as a cathedral
Accessibility as a process
Focus on the journey
Accessibility as a bazaar
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’
15
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’
16
Our Next Steps
Accessibility Summit II:
• Held at JISC TechDis offices, York in Nov 2006
• 19 invited accessibility researchers, practitioners &
policy makers in HE, public sector & disability
support organisations
• Agreement on various concerns of WAI’s approach
• Recommendation to develop roadmap: more
research, evidence-gathering, engagement, …
Museums and Web 2007 Professional Forum:
• 50+ participants at international conference in April
• Further agreement on need to build richer
approaches to accessibility for cultural heritage orgs
• Accessibility 2.0 term added to Museums Wiki
17
Issues For W3C & WAI
Our approaches:
• Developed by various accessibility researchers &
practitioners and described in peer-reviewed papers
• Can coexist with W3C approaches e.g. PICS & P3P
(W3C doesn’t mandate social directions but
provides technical framework which can be used in
diversity of political & social cultures)
W3C is (used to) facing criticisms:
• Semantic Web vs lower case semantic web
• RDF vs microformats
• Web Services vs REST
• XHTML 2.0 vs HTML 5.0
Isn’t it time WAI engages with concerns and moves on from its initial
model? Has WAI developed a risk strategy in case of failure of WCAG to
be adopted?
18
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
19
Questions
Questions are welcome
20