Accessibility 2.0: Blended Accessibility For Blended Learning

1
Accessibility 2.0 Blended Accessibility For
Blended Learning
http//www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conference
s/blended-learning-mmu-2006-06/

• Brian Kelly
• UKOLN
• University of Bath
• Bath
• UK

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
Email B.Kelly_at_ukoln.ac.uk
UKOLN is supported by
This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonComme
rcial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)
2
Contents

• Background
• WAI The Answer To Universal Web Accessibility?
• WAI Limitations
• An Alternative Way A Holistic Approach To
  E-Learning Accessibility
• Building On This Work The Tangram Metaphor
• Accessibility 2.0
• Questions

3
About Me

• Brian Kelly
• UK Web Focus
• Adviser on best practices and innovative uses of
  Web
• Funded by JISC and MLA (Museums, Libraries and
  Archives Council)
• Supports Higher and Further Education and
  cultural heritage communities
• Based at UKOLN, University of Bath
• Related work
• Providing advice on maximising access to
  networked resources
• Working with JISCs TechDis advisory service
• Co-author of several papers on e-learning
  accessibility CJLR paper in 2004, ALT-C and W4A
  paper in 2005, W4A paper in 2006,

4
About You

• Are you
• Familiar with WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative)?
• Using WAI WCAG guidelines in your
• Web site development?
• e-learning development work?
• Using the guidelines successfully?
• Using any other approaches to e-learning
  accessibility?

5
WAI
WAI

• WAI (Web Accessibility Initiative)
• Part of World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) since
  1997
• Aims to develop strategies, guidelines, and
  resources to help make the Web accessible to
  people with disabilities
• Developed guidelines for
• Web content Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
  (WCAG)
• Authoring Tools Authoring Tools Accessibility
  Guidelines (ATAG)
• User Agents (e.g. browsers) User Agent
  Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG)
• WAIs work
• Has had high impact
• Is being embedded in legislation e.g. US Section
  508, UK SENDA,

6
Problem Solved?

• Is the accessibility of e-learning solved?
• We just need to ensure WAI guidelines are
  implemented
• Your views
• We should be ensuring our e-learning resources
  are universally accessible
• Following WAI guidelines can help ensure we
  achieve this
• We have to, or we could be sued

Rreview of WAI Approach

• But
• Is the WAI model simple or simplistic? (flawed as
  we cant do much about browsers and authoring
  tools)
• What about other developments in IT?
• Is the WAI approach designed for Web sites
  relevant for learning services?
• Is universal accessibility possible or is it
  more of a rallying call / an aspiration?

7
Reviewing WAI

• WAI's ambitions are clearly laudable
• But does its approach work?
• Let's briefly look at
• Experiences of use of WAI
• The WAI model
• The WCAG guidelines
• The context of use
• What is accessibility?

Rreview of WAI Approach
8
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 (2002, 04) 43/58 A,
  2/6 AA based on 160 Web sites

Rreview of WAI Approach

• Implications
• These low conformance levels can indicate
• Public sector organisations don't care
• Guidelines are difficult to implement
• Guidelines are inappropriate, misleading, wrong,

DRC Disability Rights Commission, independent
body legislated to stop discrimination and
promote equality of opportunity of disabled
people.
9
The WAI Model

• The WAI 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 many think WCAG is WAI

Review of WAI Approach

• A simple model developed in late 1990s, but
• Does the evidence suggest it work?
• Does it reflect the diversity of Web usage?
• Does it reflect real-world technical environment
  and developments?
• Does it reflect real-world political and cultural
  environments?

10
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 (ltbr /gt) can be rendered by browsers
  this is an interoperability issue

Rreview of WAI Approach
11
Universal Accessibility?

• Is universal accessibility
• A legitimate aim, which can be achieved with an
  appropriate set of guidelines?
• Possibly a useful political slogan, but not
  achievable in reality?
• Our thinking
• How can scholarly work in HE be accessible to
  people with learning disabilities?
• Underlying approach should be widening
  participation
• Universal approaches
• For machine-to-machine communications (XML), and
  is not suited for the diversity of individuals
  (e.g. their abilities, environment, cultural
  environment, requirements, )

Rreview of WAI Approach
12
Framework For Diversity Accessibility

• Accessibility the Challenges
• WAI WCAG important area and high visibility
• But the model is flawed, fails to take into
  account developments e.g. can you use Podcasts?

Holistic Model

• Holistic (Blended) Approach
• Holistic approach to e-learning accessibility
  developed
• Accessibility of learning outcomes (not
  necessarily digital resources) is paramount
• WAI WCAG are guidelines
• See "Implementing A Holistic Approach To
  E-Learning Accessibility" prize-winning ALT-C
  2005 paper
• Follow up paper at W4A 2005 (May 2005) further
  developed model

13
Accessibility in Context

• A framework has been developed which places
  accessibility usability within a wider context
• The context
• A range of policies
• A compliance regime

Digital Library Programme
Context
Purpose
Sector
Funding
Resources

Research
Policies
Accessibility/Usability
Privacy
Finance
Standards

Compliance
External
Self-assessment
Penalties
Learning
Broken
14
Diversity - Content
Further Work

• WAI guidelines focus on informational Web sites
• Heres 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
• Heres something you must interpret it

• Or culture
• Heres the Mona Lisa you decide why she is
  smiling

15
Jordans Pleasure Principle
Further Work

• 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)

16
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

Tangram Model

• This approach
• Encourages developers to think about a diversity
  of solutions
• Focus on 'pleasure' it provides to user
• Outlined at W4A 2006, May 2006

17
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?)
• Make use of automated checking but ensures
  emphasis is on user satisfaction

Tangram Model

• Guidelines/standards for/from
• WAI
• Usability
• Real world
• Organisational
• Dyslexic
• Learning difficulties
• Legal
• Management (resources, )
• Interoperability
• Accessibility metadata

18
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

Tangram Model
Testable
Baseline 1
19
The Cathedral The Bazaar

• WAI Approach
• Large-scale and ambitious but slow-moving
• External dependencies (e.g. on legal systems)
• Based on single approach ("you must ")
• Web-centric approach
• Cathedral approach to development
• Holistic Approach
• Modular can be more rapid-moving responsive
• Based on diversity of approaches - "seek to "
• Covers Web, other IT and real-world accessibility
• Bazaar approach to development

"I don't claim people should do 100 of what I
say J Neilson
WCAG 2.0s baseline seems to recognise a
contextual view ? but is limited to Web
technologies ?
20
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

21
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 as
'something for the blind,
22
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

Accessibility 2.0
23
Are You A Believer? (1)

• You want to make your PowerPoint slides available
  in your VLE. Do you
• A Acknowledge that you cant as PPT is a
  proprietary format and so breaks WCAG 1.0
• B Think about making PPT and HTML versions
  available, but realise that MS HTML is invalid,
  and so this breaks WCAG
• C Make PPT (and HTML) versions available as this
  is more accessible than having no file available
• D Ensure images in PTT file have ALT tags as
  PPT files can be accessible

Accessibility 2.0
24
Are You A Believer? (2)

• You want to make your PowerPoint presentations
  more accessible. Do you
• 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)
• 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

Accessibility 2.0
25
Are You A Believer? (3)

• 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
• 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
• B Create the Podcast as a recording of your talks
  makes the talk more accessible than having no
  recording available
• 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)

Accessibility 2.0
Accessibility 2.0 for Web 2.0
26
Are You A Believer? (4)

• You have a PC cluster with multimedia PCs. It is
  pointed out that deaf students cant benefit from
  this. Do you
• A Remove the multimedia PCs in order to provide a
  level playing field?
• B Ensure that captioning tools are available in
  order to allow students with hearing difficulties
  can still access the learning resources?

Accessibility 2.0
27
Are You A Believer? (5)

• You are organising a Geology field trip to
  Snowdonia. However it is pointed out that
  Snowdonia is not wheelchair friendly. Do you
• Cancel the field trip as it is not universally
  accessible?
• Call for a wheelchair ramp to be installed and
  boycott Wales until this happens?
• Seek to ensure that the learning outcomes of the
  field trip are accessible and make use of
  alternative technologies e.g. mobile
  phones/MMS/3G to allow student at base camp to
  engage in discussions and go to
  wheelchair-friendly pub for social activities?

Accessibility 2.0
28
Are You A Believer? (6)

• You have deployed Blogs for students to reflect
  on their learning experiences
• On reviewing the Blogs you discover that your
  students aren't using ALT tags or images or
  expanding abbreviations, in breach of WCAG
• Do you
• Withdraw the Blogging service?
• Point out issues, but leave it to students to
  decide what to do?

Accessibility 2.0
Accessibility 2.0 for Web 2.0
29
Application To Communications

• Skype, Instant Messaging,
• Banned at some institutions for various reasons
  (ideological, performance, accessibility, )
• But
• Can be used to allow geographically-challenged
  students to listen to talks
• Use in lectures when no induction loop available
• Skype IM / IM can be used for mentoring support,
  feedback,

Accessibility 2.0
Accessibility barrier or accessibility benefit?
30
Challenges For Accessibility 2.0

• Moving away from a simplistic checklist approach
  has benefits
• Ability to address the diversity to be found
• Ability to do more than may be required in
  checklist
• But also leads to challenges
• What are the appropriate reasonable measures?
• How do I advise / evaluate / monitor?
• No simple answers (as with evaluation of
  learning) but some suggestions
• Documented policies are essentially
• Sharing and discussion of approaches taken
• Talking to your users!

Accessibility 2.0
31
Building On This Work
Next Steps

• TechDis Perspective
• "As .. awareness of accessibility has matured ..
  shift in e-learning communities from a standards
  based paradigm to a more holistic approach that
  discriminates between delivery mechanisms,
  content and context approach focuses more on
  the learners experience than the intrinsic
  nature of the resource, and brings
  responsibility for accessibility to a wider
  audience."

• Other points
• Discrimination by compliance real world
  resources are less accessible than digital ones
  don't ban digital resources needlessly
• Need to distinguish between
• Content delivery vehicle
• Context of use

32
Accessibility Usability
Next Steps

• Possible (probable) danger
• We must address accessibility (legal fears)
• We follow WCAG guidelines
• We run automated tools
• We feel happy and stop there
• But
• Our Web sites e-learning systems aren't usable
• We'd failed to give enough attention to usability

• Note
• SENDA legislation covers access and use of
  digital resources.
• .."relationship between accessibility
  usability has long been a source of discussion,
  .. no definitive model exists."
• Further work needed but usability needs to be
  addressed

33
Personalisation
Next Steps

• Traditional view
• Digital resources must all be fully accessible
• People with disabilities have rights to access
  all resources
• Personalising views based on (disabled) user
  profiles is therefore wrong
• Current thinking
• Digital resources can't be fully accessible
• Personalisation (e.g. PLEs) is felt to be
  valuable
• Disabled users have equals rights in avoiding
  unnecessary information!

Standards are being developed for support
personalised access to (e-)learning resources,
including IMS AccessForAll
34
Next Steps
Next Steps

• What next?
• Is there a broad acceptance of the approaches
  described?
• Dealing with the backlash we want a simple set
  of rules we can implement
• A roadmap for the future
• Sharing experiences
• Observing patterns of best practices and
  (importantly) mistakes
• Engagement with others
• Further development of the approach

35
Conclusions

• Web accessibility
• Should be a goal
• But accessibility is a more important goal
• Blended accessibility has strong parallels with
  blended learning the focus is on the learning

36
Questions

• Any questions?

Note resources cited are bookmarked in
del.icio.us using tag 'blended-learning-mmu-2006'