Accessibility Issues - 2005 Liddy Nevile
Inaccessibility NOT telecommunications problems ..?? NOT a list of disabilities IS a list of requirements NOT a human classification
IS a description of a relationship between a resource and a user
Problem Definition Many people have visual, aural, tactile and cognitive disabilities. We don’t always know who has what disability - but do we want to know?
We all have symptoms of disabilities according to where we are and what we are doing.
Problem Definition People’s symptoms change over time Users’ needs change with purpose and context Sites with accessibility problems are almost impossible to fix
The W3C ‘good construction’ guidelines do not necessarily cover a particular user’s problem - broad improvement but specific failure
Problem Definition Authors just cannot learn to make universally accessible resources Technical training is very expensive in terms of time and money The recommended user agents are often not standards compliant
Alternative content production is often a skilled 3rd party activity
What is the solution? Give authors better tools because the tools often can make accessible content Distribute the burden between technology and authors Make greater demands on publishing systems
Support re-use and interoperability
Accessibility definitions Original W3C - device independence, separation of content from presentation - universal accessibility - test the resource U.S. - s. 508 for Federal Govt. contracts Australia - common law system with regulations UK, European Commission …
New IMS/DC/ISO etc Working definition: mismatch between user needs and content - universal user-centred accessibility - test the service
Accessibility definitions Continuing W3C definition - universal accessibility - test the resource
New IMS/DC/ISO etc definition: - universal user-centred accessibility - test the service
Accessibility definitions W3C - universal accessibility - test the resource Self-contained accessibility, just-in-case ISO/IMS/DC Working definition: - universal user-centred accessibility - test the service
Distributed accessibility, just-in-time
How big is the problem?
How big is the problem?
How big is the problem? Visual, dexterity, and hearing difficulties are the most common among working-age adults: Approximately one in four (27%) have a visual difficulty or impairment. One in four (26%) have a dexterity difficulty or impairment. One in five (21%) have a hearing difficulty or impairment.
Somewhat fewer working-age adults have a cognitive difficulty or impairment (20%) and very few (4%) have a speech difficulty or impairment.
How big is the problem?
How expensive is the problem? 40 sites - 5 or 6 key destinations smh.com.au, theage.com.au, drive.com.au, mycareer.com.au, domain.com.au, afr.com.au 135 million PI's per month - 6 mill uv's ▪ The leading News sites in Australia
3 to 4 minute average session times
How expensive is the problem? moved their biggest sites across to XHTML/CSS in a 6 month timeframe Had the smoothest rollout they have ever experienced , and
will save a million $ in bandwidth per year!
Typical users’ problems
OS support Add this to Favorites folder Add this to startup items Apple channel …..
Browser support (?) There are about 35 browsers in common use…
(Note W3C UAAG - includes LMS)
New IMS/DC/…approach Think of the user and work towards user needs and preferences Provide a good, easy way to record user needs and preferences Describe content in terms of needs and preferences
Avoid all issues to do with disabilities and to do with legal liability
User accessibility profiles An independent accessibility element Multiple, cascading profiles
Three main classes of requirements
AccLIP (User profile)
AccessForAll: http://www. imsproject .org/accessibility/
Resource accessibility profile An independent accessibility element Simple or composite profiles
Three main classes of characteristics
AccMD (Resource Profile) A statement of media/modality types: hasImage, hasText, hasVideo, hasAudio
An EARL statement … so a URI: http://www. imsproject .org/accessibility
The Inclusive Learning Exchange at http://inclusivelearning.ca/
Learner priorities Users should always have final say over choice of resources and items Content/display/control choices can be ‘exploited’ easily
Mixed groups can negotiate / accommodate conditions for collaborative work
Pedagogical priorities The approach promotes choice Without emphasis on abilities and disabilities and with
far less effort for authors and teachers
Tools and Implementations Tools for accessible authoring Validators ie code validators Evaluators ie compliance with guidelines producing metadata (EARL) Digital repositories for descriptive metadata On-the-fly repair tools (SWAP, ...)
Web-4-All (smart card adaptation to needs)
Tools and Implementations In the ePortfolio demonstator tool for the EPICC project, Giunti have implemented a small part of AccLIP 1.0 that adjusts the interface (fonts etc.) on importing a portfolio.
The USB standards group headed by ATIA will be using AccLIP as the basis and referent for their USB device communication standard. This will mean a universal Web-4-All and adherence to AccLIP by all USB devices.
References http://www. imsproject .org/accessibility http: //dublincore .org/groups/access/
http: //inclusivelearning .ca