Accessibility 2.0: People, Policies and Processes

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 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 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