Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes



Slides for a paper by Brian Kelly, UKOLN presented at the W4A 2007 conference in Banff, Canada in May 2007.

Slides for a paper by Brian Kelly, UKOLN presented at the W4A 2007 conference in Banff, Canada in May 2007.




Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 84 78 6


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes Presentation Transcript

    • Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK UKOLN is supported by: Co-Authors: David Sloan, Stephen Brown, Jane Seale, Helen Petrie, Patrick Lauke and Simon Ball This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence (but note caveat) 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. Resources bookmarked using ‘ w4a-2007 ' tag
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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!
    • 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
    • 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
      Follow-up work awarded prize for Best Research Paper at ALT-C 2005 E-learning conference Holistic Approach This approach reflects emphasis in UK on blended learning (rather than e-learning)
    • 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
    • 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-Rabbit CRAFT BREWERY
    • 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
      Our Work
    • 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 Our Work
    • 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
      • Guidelines/standards for/from:
        • WAI
        • Usability
        • Organisational
        • Dyslexic
        • Learning difficulties
        • Legal
        • Management (resources, …)
        • Interoperability
        • 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
    • Repositories – Case Study
      • 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
    • The Cathedral & The Bazaar 2.0 Blended learning E-learning Focus on the journey Clear destination (AAA) Accessibility as a process Accessibility as a thing Social model Medical model Accessibility as a bazaar Accessibility as a cathedral Context to testing Objective testing Blended solutions IT solution Testing in context Remote testing Rapid response Slow-moving Variety of solutions Single solution Devolved Centralised Proposed Approach WAI Approach
    • 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’
    • 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’
    • 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
    • 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?
    • 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
    • Questions
      • Questions are welcome