Accessibility 2.0: Blended Learning For Blended Accessibility

Download Accessibility 2.0: Blended Learning For Blended Accessibility

Post on 15-Nov-2014




1 download

Embed Size (px)


Brian Kelly gave a plenary talk on Accessibility 2.0: Blended Learning For Blended Accessibility at the 'Blended Learning to Splendid Learning' Technology Innovation in Higher Education Conference at the Manchester Metropolitan Business School on 9th June 2006.


<ul><li> 1. Accessibility 2.0:Blended Accessibility For Blended Learning Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath UK Email [email_address] UKOLN is supported by: About This Talk Brian Kelly reviews the traditional approaches taken to addressing the accessibility of Web resources. Although a political success, Brian argues that the WAI model is flawed. An alternative approach, developed by UKOLN and TechDis, is described. Brian concludes by arguing for a user-focused approach Accessibility 2.0 This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)</li></ul> <p> 2. Contents </p> <ul><li><ul><li>Background </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>WAI The Answer To Universal Web Accessibility? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>WAI Limitations </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>An Alternative Way: A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Building On This Work: The Tangram Metaphor </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Accessibility 2.0 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Questions </li></ul></li></ul> <p> 3. About Me </p> <ul><li>Brian Kelly: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>UK Web Focus </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Adviser on best practices and innovative uses of Web </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Funded by JISC and MLA (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Supports Higher and Further Education and cultural heritage communities </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Based at UKOLN, University of Bath </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Related work: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Providing advice on maximising access to networked resources</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Working with JISCs TechDis advisory service </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Co-author of several papers on e-learning accessibility: CJLR paper in 2004, ALT-C and W4A paper in 2005, W4A paper in 2006, </li></ul></li></ul> <p> 4. About You </p> <ul><li>Are you: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Familiar with WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative)? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Using WAI WCAG guidelines in your: </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Web site development? </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>e-learning development work? </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Using the guidelines successfully? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Using any other approaches to e-learning accessibility? </li></ul></li></ul> <p> 5. WAI </p> <ul><li>WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative): </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Part ofWorld Wide Web Consortium (W3C) since 1997 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Aims to develop strategies, guidelines, and resources to help make the Web accessible to people with disabilities </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Developed guidelines for: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Web content: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Authoring Tools: Authoring Tools Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>User Agents (e.g. browsers): User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>WAIs work: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Has had high impact </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Is being embedded in legislation e.g. US Section 508, UK SENDA, </li></ul></li></ul> <p>WAI 6. Problem Solved? </p> <ul><li>Is the accessibility of e-learning solved? </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>We just need to ensure WAI guidelines are implemented </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Your views: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>We should be ensuring our e-learning resources are universally accessible </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Following WAI guidelines can help ensure we achieve this </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>We have to, or we could be sued </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Rreview of WAI Approach </p> <ul><li>But: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Is the WAI model simple or simplistic? (flawed as we cant do much about browsers and authoring tools) </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>What about other developments in IT?</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Is the WAI approach designed for Web sites relevant for learning services? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Is universal accessibility possible or is it more of a rallying call / an aspiration? </li></ul></li></ul> <p> 7. Reviewing WAI </p> <ul><li>WAI's ambitions are clearly laudable </li></ul> <ul><li>But does its approach work? </li></ul> <ul><li>Let's briefly look at: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Experiences of use of WAI </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>The WAI model </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>The WCAG guidelines </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>The context of use</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>What is accessibility? </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Rreview of WAI Approach 8. WCAG Conformance </p> <ul><li>Page authors can only follow WCAG guidelines. Several surveys carried out using automated tools (which gives upper limit on accessibility) </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>DRC report: 19% A, 0.6% AA conformance based on 1,000 Web sites </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>UK Museums report: 42% A, 3% AA conformance based on 124 Web sites </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>UK Universities surveys (2002, 04):43%/58% A, 2%/6% AA based on 160+ Web sites </li></ul></li></ul> <p>DRC Disability Rights Commission, independent body legislated to stop discrimination and promote equality of opportunity of disabled people.</p> <ul><li>Implications </li></ul> <ul><li>These low conformance levels can indicate: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Public sector organisations don't care </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Guidelines are difficult to implement </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong, </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Rreview of WAI Approach 9. The WAI Model </p> <ul><li>The WAI model: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Requires all three components tobe implemented in order forthe WAI vision to be achieved</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Is of limited use to end userswho have no control over browseror authoring tools developments </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Is confusing many think WCAG is WAI </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>A simple model developed in late 1990s, but: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Does the evidence suggest it work? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Does it reflect the diversity of Web usage? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Does it reflect real-world technical environment and developments? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Does it reflect real-world political and cultural environments? </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Review of WAI Approach 10. WCAG Difficulties </p> <ul><li>Certain Priority 2 and 3 guidelines cause concerns: </li></ul> <ul><li>11.1 Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task ...</li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Promotes own technologies </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Appears to ignore major improvements in accessibility of non-W3C formats </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>11.1 and use the latest versions when supported </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Goes against project management guidelines </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Logical absurdity: when XHTML 1 came out WAI AA HTML 4 compliant sites downgraded to A!</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>3.2Create documents that validate to published formal grammars </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Dodgy HTML (<br />) can be rendered by browsers this is an interoperability issue </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Rreview of WAI Approach 11. Universal Accessibility? </p> <ul><li>Is universal accessibility: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>A legitimate aim, which can be achieved with an appropriate set of guidelines? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Possibly a useful political slogan, but not achievable in reality? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Our thinking: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>How can scholarly work in HE be accessible to people with learning disabilities? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Underlying approach should be widening participation </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Universal approaches: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>For machine-to-machine communications (XML), and is not suited for the diversity of individuals (e.g. their abilities, environment, cultural environment, requirements, )</li></ul></li></ul> <p>Rreview of WAI Approach 12. Framework For Diversity: Accessibility </p> <ul><li>Accessibility the Challenges </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>WAI WCAG important area and high visibility </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>But the model is flawed, fails to take into account developments e.g. can you use Podcasts? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Holistic ( Blended) Approach </li></ul> <ul><li>Holistic approach to e-learning accessibility developed </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Accessibility of learningoutcomes(not necessarily digital resources) is paramount </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>WAI WCAG areguidelines </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>See " Implementing A Holistic Approach To E-Learning Accessibility " prize-winning ALT-C 2005 paper </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Follow up paper at W4A 2005 (May 2005) further developed model </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Holistic Model WAI 13. Accessibility in Context </p> <ul><li>A framework has been developed which places accessibility &amp; usability within a wider context: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>The context </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>A range of policies </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>A compliance regime</li></ul></li></ul> <p>Purpose Sector Funding Resources Context Accessibility/Usability Privacy Policies Finance External Self-assessment Penalties Learning Compliance Digital Library Programme Broken Standards Research External factors:Institutional issues (funds, expertise, policies, security) External factors:Legal issues; cultural factors; This approach embracesrelativismandcontext rather than the currentabsoluteapproach Accessibility guidelines should be usable in wider context 14. Diversity - Content </p> <ul><li>WAI guidelines focus on informational Web sites: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Heres the train timetable I want the information and I want it now </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>This is reasonable and desirable </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Further Work </p> <ul><li>But is this approach alwaysrelevant to e-learning: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Heres something you must interpret it </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Or culture: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Heres the Mona Lisa you decide why she is smiling </li></ul></li></ul> <p> 15. Jordans Pleasure Principle </p> <ul><li>Even for informational resources, we may not always choose to make information readily accessible </li></ul> <ul><li> Super Calli Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious! </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Breaks draft WCAG 2.0 guidelines on Content must be understandable </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>But brings a smile to many (but not all) </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Further Work </p> <ul><li>Argument: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>We need: firstly (A) food and then (B) shelter. Afterwards we want (C) soft furnishing</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Can apply Jordans Pleasure Principleto informational content: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>We want information, but we alsowant it provided in a pleasurable way </li></ul></li></ul> <p>C B A 16. Articulating the Approach </p> <ul><li>The "Tangram Metaphor" developed to avoid checklist / automated approach: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>W3C model has limitations </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Jigsaw model impliessingle solution </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Tangram model seeks toavoid such problems </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>This approach: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Encourages developers to think about a diversity of solutions </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Focus on 'pleasure' it provides to user </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Outlined at W4A 2006, May 2006 </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Tangram Model 17. Tangram Model </p> <ul><li>Model allows us to: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Focuses on end solution rather than individual components </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Provided solutions tailored for end user </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Doesn't limit scope (can youdo better than WAI AAA?) </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Make use of automated checking but ensures emphasis is on user satisfaction </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Guidelines/standards for/from: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>WAI </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Usability </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Real world </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Organisational </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Dyslexic</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Learning difficulties </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Legal </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Management (resources, ) </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Interoperability </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Accessibility metadata </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Tangram Model 18. Tangram Model &amp; Testability </p> <ul><li>"WCAG 2.0 success criteria are written as testable statements " (nb. automated &amp; human testing ) </li></ul> <ul><li>Issues: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>What about WCAG principles that don't have defined success criteria (e.g. "content must be understandable")? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>What about 'baselines' context only known locally </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>What about differing models or / definitions of'accessibility'? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Note vendors of accessibility testing services will market WCAG tools e.g. see posting on BSI PAS 78 </li></ul> <ul><li>Tangram model can be used within WCAG </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Distinguish between testable (ALT tags)and subjective (content understandable) </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Supports baselines </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Baseline 1 Testable Tangram Model 19. The Cathedral &amp; The Bazaar </p> <ul><li>WAI Approach: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Large-scaleand ambitious but slow-moving </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>External dependencies (e.g. on legal systems) </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Based on single approach ("you must ") </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Web-centric approach</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Cathedral approach to development </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>Holistic Approach: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Modular &amp; can be more rapid-moving &amp; responsive </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Based on diversity of approaches - "seek to "</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Covers Web, other IT and real-world accessibility </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Bazaar approach to development </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>" I don't claim people should do 100% of what I say J Neilson </li></ul></li></ul> <p>WCAG 2.0s baseline seems to recognise a contextual viewbut is limited to Web technologies 20. The Legal Framework </p> <ul><li>This approach is well-suited for the UK legal framework: </li></ul> <ul><li>SENDA/DDA legislation requires " organisations to take reasonable measures to ensure people with disabilities are not discriminated against unfairly " </li></ul> <ul><li>Note that the legislation is: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Technologically neutral </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Backwards and forwards compatible </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Avoids version control complexities </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li>The legislation also covers usability, as well as accessibility </li></ul> <p> 21. Blended Accessibility </p> <ul><li>Background </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Talk onbest practices for public library Web sites</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Example given of Flash game: </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Aimed at children </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>Simple to develop </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li><ul><li>They love it </li></ul></li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Question: What about accessibility? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Response: (defensive) Err, we'll have to remove it. </li></ul></li></ul> <p>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 as 'something for the blind, 22. Accessibility 2.0 </p> <ul><li>Can the term Accessibility 2.0 help in articulating a blended approach (similar to Web 2.0, e-Learning 2.0, Library 2.0, )? </li></ul> <ul><li>Characteristics: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>User-focus </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Diversity </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Blended </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Widening participation </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Avoidance of dogma </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Accessibility 2.0 23. Are You A Believer? (1) </p> <ul><li>You want to make your PowerPoint slides available in your VLE.Do you: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>A Acknowledge that you cant as PPT is a proprietary format and so breaks WCAG 1.0 </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>B Think about making PPT and HTML versions available, but realise that MS HTML is invalid, and so this breaks WCAG </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>C Make PPT (and HTML) versions available as this is more accessible than having no file available</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>D Ensure images in PTT file have ALT tags as PPT files can be accessible </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Accessibility 2.0 24. Are You A Believer? (2) </p> <ul><li>You want to make your PowerPoint presentations more accessible.Do you: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>A Make use of Eric Meyers S5 software, as this is compliant with XHTML, makes use of CSS and is fashionable amongst the Web development community (and isnt produced by Microsoft) </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>B Realise that S5 (a) produces poor quality printouts (which your student use for note-taking) and (b) is difficult to produce visual effects which you use to make your presentations more interesting </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Accessibility 2.0 25. Are You A Believer? (3) </p> <ul><li>You want to make a recording of a paper on " Contextual Web Accessibility - Maximizing the Benefit of Accessibility Guidelines " you gave at the W4A 2006 workshop available as Podcasts.Do you: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>A Acknowledge that you cant as you dont have the resources available to provide transcripts of your talks available, as required to conform with WCAG </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>B Create the Podcast as a recording of your talks makes the talk more accessible than having no recording available</li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>C Provide the Podcast alongside the MS Word, PDF and XHTML versions of the paper and the PowerPoint slides, which provide variants of the real world idea (as opposed to the resources) </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Accessibility 2.0 Accessibility 2.0 for Web 2.0 26. Are You A Believer? (4) </p> <ul><li>You have a PC cluster with multimedia PCs.It is pointed out that deaf students cant benefit from this.Do you: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>A Remove the multimedia PCs in order to provide a level playing field? </li></ul></li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>B Ensure that captioning tools are available in order to allow students with hearing difficulties can still access the learning resources? </li></ul></li></ul> <p>Accessibility 2.0 27. Are You A Believer? (5) </p> <ul><li>You are organising a Geology field trip to Snowdonia.However it is pointed out that Snowdonia is not wheelchair friendly.Do you: </li></ul> <ul><li><ul><li>Cancel the field trip