Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes
-
Upload
cetis-university-of-bolton -
Category
Education
-
view
2.191 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes
UKOLN is supported by:
Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes
Brian Kelly
UKOLN
University of Bath
Bath, UK
Co-Authors: David Sloan, Stephen Brown, Jane Seale, Helen Petrie, Patrick Lauke and Simon Ball
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/w4a-2007/http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/w4a-2007/
This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat)
Acceptable Use PolicyRecording/broadcasting of this talk, taking photographs, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, blogs, SMS, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised.
Acceptable Use PolicyRecording/broadcasting of this talk, taking photographs, discussing the content using email, instant messaging, blogs, SMS, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised.
Resources bookmarked using ‘w4a-2007' tag Resources bookmarked using ‘w4a-2007' tag
2
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
3
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
WAI’s Limitations
4
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”?
WAI’s Limitations
Also note increasing 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!
Also note increasing 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!
5
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?
WAI’s Limitations
6
Holistic Approach
Follow-up work awarded prize for Best Research Paper at ALT-C 2005 E-learning conference
Follow-up work awarded prize for Best Research Paper at ALT-C 2005 E-learning conference
This approach reflects emphasis in UK on blended learning (rather than e-learning)
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
Holistic Approach
7
Application To Culture
Accessibility for information / factual resources is easy
Accessibility for edge cases (learning, culture): • 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
8
Universal Accessibility?
Normal Cancer Man against snow, Austrian Tirol 1974, reproduced with permission of the photographer: Professor Paul Hill
The Great Masturbator by Salvador Dali (1929)
The Duck-RabbitCRAFT BREWERY
9
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
This approach:• Encourages developers
to think about a diversity of solutions
• Focus on 'pleasure' it provides to user
Ou
r W
ork
10
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
Baseline 1
Testable
Ou
r W
ork
11
Tangram ModelModel 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
Guidelines/standards for/from:
• WAI• Usability• Organisational• Dyslexic • Learning difficulties• Legal• Management
(resources, …)• Interoperability• Accessibility metadata• Mobile Web• …
12
Stakeholder ModelCommon 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
13
Repositories – Case StudyDiscussion 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 accessibilityAnd I found Scribd – a Web 2.0 services which creates MP3 from MS Word/PDF
14
The Cathedral & The Bazaar 2.0
WAI Approach Proposed Approach
E-learning Blended learning
Centralised Devolved
Single solution Variety of solutions
Slow-moving Rapid response
Remote testing Testing in context
IT solution Blended solutions
Objective testing Context to testing
Medical model Social model
Accessibility as a thing Accessibility as a process
Clear destination (AAA) Focus on the journey
Accessibility as a cathedral Accessibility as a bazaar
15
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’
16
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’
Other country’s legislation also talks about ‘reasonable measures’
17
Our Next Steps
Accessibility Summit II:• Held at JISC TechDis 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 for next steps
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
18
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 semantic Web• 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?
19
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
20
Questions
Questions are welcome