Web Accessibility 3.0: Learning From The Past, Planning For The Future Brian Kelly UKOLN University of Bath Bath, UK Email: [email_address] Blog: http://ukwebfocus.wordpress.com/ UKOLN is supported by: http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/conferences/addw08/ 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, etc. is permitted providing distractions to others is minimised. Resources bookmarked using ‘ addw08 ' tag Co-author : Liddy Nevile

Scenario Planning Let us critique the first two scenarios in order to explore their limitations (their benefits have been well documented) and see if a third scenario might address such limitations WAI Approach Scenario 1 Holistic Accessibility Scenario 2 Accessibility 3.0 Scenario 3

Let us critique the first two scenarios in order to explore their limitations (their benefits have been well documented) and see if a third scenario might address such limitations

WAI Approach 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 Approach Also note 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!

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”?

WCAG In Context WCAG 2.0 states that Web resources must be: Perceivable • Operable Understandable • Robust But this should apply after we’ve decided what our purposes our, rather than constraining what we can or can’t do: “ Super Cally Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious ”: Not universally understandable, now universally accessible, culturally-specific … but witty Adobe Flash, MS Word, … Are these formats essential to your corporate infrastructure and workflow? Web 2.0, Ajax, Blog, Wikis, UGC, … Do these provide useful services to your users? Legislation: “take reasonable measure ..” Is bankrupting your company reasonable? Is failing to satisfy your user community reasonable? Is dumbing down the English language reasonable? WAI’s Scenario

WCAG 2.0 states that Web resources must be:

Perceivable • Operable

Understandable • Robust

But this should apply after we’ve decided what our purposes our, rather than constraining what we can or can’t do:

“ Super Cally Go Ballistic, Celtic Are Atrocious ”: Not universally understandable, now universally accessible, culturally-specific … but witty

Adobe Flash, MS Word, … Are these formats essential to your corporate infrastructure and workflow?

Web 2.0, Ajax, Blog, Wikis, UGC, … Do these provide useful services to your users?

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 Scenario 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

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 Holistic Scenario

Articulating the Approach The "Tangram Metaphor“ (Sloan et al , W4A 2006) 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 Holistic Scenario

The "Tangram Metaphor“ (Sloan et al , W4A 2006) 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

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 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’ Holistic Scenario But do scenarios 1 and 2 scale to the size, complexity and diversity of today’s Web?

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

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 Web is Agreement

Where Are We In This View? Web WCAG Web IT WCAG+ATAG+UAAG=universal accessibility Motherhood and apple pie? Demonstrably flawed after 10 years e.g. Lilley: “ 99.99999% of the Web was invalid HTML. W3C pretended that didn’t exist. ” So 99.9999% of Web isn’t WACG AA conformant! WCAG+other guidelines+user focus+blended accessibility = widening participation Not yet proven wrong, but ignores scale of Web The Pixel of Perfection The Holistic Hamlet WAI

WCAG+ATAG+UAAG=universal accessibility

Motherhood and apple pie?

Demonstrably flawed after 10 years e.g. Lilley: “ 99.99999% of the Web was invalid HTML. W3C pretended that didn’t exist. ”

So 99.9999% of Web isn’t WACG AA conformant!

WCAG+other guidelines+user focus+blended accessibility = widening participation

Not yet proven wrong, but ignores scale of Web

Kevin Kelly

Kevin Kelly

Accessibility 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 Accessibility 1.0: Handcrafted resources made accessible Accessibility 2.0: Institutional approaches to accessibility Accessibility 3.0: Global approaches to accessibility Accessibility 3.0 Scenario

Accessibility 1.0:

Handcrafted resources made accessible

Accessibility 2.0:

Institutional approaches to accessibility

Accessibility 3.0:

Global approaches to accessibility

A Fresh Look At Accessibility We acknowledge that: Not everything on the Web will ever be accessible Accessibility may not cross cultural, linguistic, national and discipline boundaries An individual does not need a universally accessible resource; rather s/he wants a resource which is accessible to them Different communities may have different needs Same person may have different needs at different times and places Let’s not talk about the accessibility of a resource We find the term ‘ inclusive ’ more useful than ‘ accessible to people with disabilities ’ Accessibility 3.0 Scenario

We acknowledge that:

Not everything on the Web will ever be accessible

Accessibility may not cross cultural, linguistic, national and discipline boundaries

An individual does not need a universally accessible resource; rather s/he wants a resource which is accessible to them

Different communities may have different needs

Same person may have different needs at different times and places

Let’s not talk about the accessibility of a resource

We find the term ‘ inclusive ’ more useful than ‘ accessible to people with disabilities ’

Getting There Web 1.0: Focus on resources published by institutions Focus on management of resources (CMSs) Web 2.0: Focus on users and user-generated content Focus on reuse of resources (syndication, embedding, …) Focus on user comments and discussions Trust and openness Accessibility 1.0: Focus on accessibility of published resources Focus on software to support publication processes Accessibility 2.0: Focus on accessibility of use of content rather than content Blended accessibility cf potential of social networks to facilitate discussions Trust and openness: orgs taking reasonable measures; involvement with users in design processes cf Kelly et al on design for people with learning disabilities Accessibility 3.0 Scenario

Web 1.0:

Focus on resources published by institutions

Focus on management of resources (CMSs)

Web 2.0:

Focus on users and user-generated content

Focus on reuse of resources (syndication, embedding, …)

Focus on user comments and discussions

Trust and openness

Accessibility 1.0:

Focus on accessibility of published resources

Focus on software to support publication processes

Accessibility 2.0:

Focus on accessibility of use of content rather than content

Blended accessibility cf potential of social networks to facilitate discussions

Trust and openness: orgs taking reasonable measures; involvement with users in design processes cf Kelly et al on design for people with learning disabilities

Alternative Resources Public library example: Presentation at national Public Library event “ And here’s a Flash-based game we’ve developed. Easy to do, and the kids love it” “ What about accessibility?” “ Oh, er. We’ll remove it before the new legislation becomes into force” Blended approach: “ What’s the purpose of the game?” “ To keep kids amused for 10 mins, while parents get books” “ How about building blocks or a bouncy castle as an alternative? This is an alternative approach to problem, which doesn’t focus on disabilities” Accessibility 3.0 Scenario

Public library example:

Presentation at national Public Library event

“ And here’s a Flash-based game we’ve developed. Easy to do, and the kids love it”

“ What about accessibility?”

“ Oh, er. We’ll remove it before the new legislation becomes into force”

Blended approach:

“ What’s the purpose of the game?”

“ To keep kids amused for 10 mins, while parents get books”

“ How about building blocks or a bouncy castle as an alternative? This is an alternative approach to problem, which doesn’t focus on disabilities”

Library Standards on Alternatives Use Case: Catalogue records for books available in multiple formats Book, large print book, abridged book, cassette tape, Braille, CD, MP3, … Need for standards to facilitate retrieval of resource which satisfies end user’s needs MARC 21/RDA : Developments to established library standard AccessForAll : ISO/IMS Standard aimed at describing alternative for learning resources DCMI : Accessibility metadata work Accessibility 3.0 Scenario Recognition of challenges of the multiple standardisation routes described in “ Personalization and Accessibility: Integration of Library and Web Approaches ”, Chapman, Nevile, Kelly and Heath

Use Case:

Catalogue records for books available in multiple formats

Book, large print book, abridged book, cassette tape, Braille, CD, MP3, …

Need for standards to facilitate retrieval of resource which satisfies end user’s needs

MARC 21/RDA : Developments to established library standard

AccessForAll : ISO/IMS Standard aimed at describing alternative for learning resources

DCMI : Accessibility metadata work

Web 3.0 Web 3.0: Data working with data Direct intervention by people not always needed Software can make heuristic assumptions Can get better as more data made available The Semantic Web / Linked Data vision which exploits connections on the social graph “ Its not the Social Network Sites that are interesting - it is the Social Network itself. The Social Graph. The way I am connected, not the way my Web pages are connected. ” Tim Berners-Lee Accessibility 3.0 Scenario

Web 3.0:

Data working with data

Direct intervention by people not always needed

Software can make heuristic assumptions

Can get better as more data made available

The Semantic Web / Linked Data vision which exploits connections on the social graph

Semantic Approach From Kevin Kelly’s ‘One Machine’ perspective: It doesn’t matter where the content is It doesn’t matter who owns the contents Challenge is to exploit the connections “ I express my network in a FOAF file, and that is a start of the revolution. … It is about getting excited about connections, rather than nervous. ” Tim Berners-Lee Accessibility 3.0 Scenario

From Kevin Kelly’s ‘One Machine’ perspective:

It doesn’t matter where the content is

It doesn’t matter who owns the contents

Challenge is to exploit the connections

Accessibility 3.0 We’re already seeing computer software giving us hints on resources which may be of interest to us Note how improvements can be made: By system gathering more data By user providing preferences and other hints clues By others providing data By author metadata Accessibility 3.0 Scenario Challenge: Can such developments be applied to provide benefits to people with disabilities?

We’re already seeing computer software giving us hints on resources which may be of interest to us

Note how improvements can be made:

By system gathering more data

By user providing preferences and other hints clues

By others providing data

By author metadata

Initial Experiments Project work to explore ways of enhancing accessibility: FLUID project: A community, a product, and a collection of tools created by an international team P rovides an infrastructure that enables rich customisations of an application's user interface appearance and behaviour based on the needs of both institutions and individual users. Tools which can be integrated into popular education software (Uportal, Moodle, etc.) Iterative design and agile development process

Project work to explore ways of enhancing accessibility:

FLUID project:

A community, a product, and a collection of tools created by an international team

P rovides an infrastructure that enables rich customisations of an application's user interface appearance and behaviour based on the needs of both institutions and individual users.

Tools which can be integrated into popular education software (Uportal, Moodle, etc.)

Iterative design and agile development process

Semantic Web Principles Principles which may be required: Persistent URIs for resources Metadata in RDF Accessibility metadata schema published on Web Accessibility terms published in public ontologies Applications to allow user tagging Applications to provide links to equivalent resources Openness of software, content and metadata Encouragement of vendors to support personalisation

Principles which may be required:

Persistent URIs for resources

Metadata in RDF

Accessibility metadata schema published on Web

Accessibility terms published in public ontologies

Applications to allow user tagging

Applications to provide links to equivalent resources

Openness of software, content and metadata

Encouragement of vendors to support personalisation

Learning From The Past We’re starting to explore an Accessibility 3.0 vision But what lessons must we learn from Accessibility 1.0: We don’t want a theoretical solution The dangers of standardising too soon The dangers of legislating too soon The dangers of ignoring diversity The need to get market acceptance for tools The difficulties of getting market acceptance Standards-based solutions may not deliver … Accessibility 3.0 Scenario Note that the Accessibility 3.0 vision is based on W3C Semantic Web principles. A challenge for W3C and user community is reconciling WAI and SW visions and how they are interpreted.

We’re starting to explore an Accessibility 3.0 vision

But what lessons must we learn from Accessibility 1.0:

We don’t want a theoretical solution

The dangers of standardising too soon

The dangers of legislating too soon

The dangers of ignoring diversity

The need to get market acceptance for tools

The difficulties of getting market acceptance

Standards-based solutions may not deliver

…

Conclusions Accessibility 1.0 WAI model is flawed Evidence shows WAI approach is a political success, but not implemented significantly Accessibility 2.0 Holistic approach takes pragmatic view of WCAG’s successes & applies it in a user-focussed context based on institutional framework But neither approaches scales to the World Wide Web Accessibility 3.0 Builds on Social Web and seeks to apply social graph to enhance accessibility of user services Very early days But can this view be sold to organisations, governments and individuals who have bought a the view of WAI delivering “ the answer”? These conclusions are aimed at the accessibility researchers and practitioners to persuade them that a rethink is needed

Accessibility 1.0

WAI model is flawed

Evidence shows WAI approach is a political success, but not implemented significantly

Accessibility 2.0

Holistic approach takes pragmatic view of WCAG’s successes & applies it in a user-focussed context based on institutional framework

But neither approaches scales to the World Wide Web

Accessibility 3.0

Builds on Social Web and seeks to apply social graph to enhance accessibility of user services

Very early days

Another Interpretation Accessibility 1.0 Based on encoding of HTML resources Accessibility 2.0 Based on mix of the HTML (and other) resources, the services, the context, … Accessibility 3.0 Based on mix of above plus 'intelligence' of the Web in its behind-the-scenes applications e.g. Semantic Web applications Use and sharing of tags etc across applications More atomic resource components so easier to mix-and-match Microformats and lots of tags ...

Accessibility 1.0

Based on encoding of HTML resources

Accessibility 2.0

Based on mix of the HTML (and other) resources, the services, the context, …

Accessibility 3.0

Based on mix of above plus 'intelligence' of the Web in its behind-the-scenes applications e.g.

Semantic Web applications

Use and sharing of tags etc across applications

More atomic resource components so easier to mix-and-match

Microformats and lots of tags

...

Conclusions There’s a need: For accessibility researchers to gather evidence on proposed solutions to accessibility To explore ways in which changes in our understandings can be adopted and deployed This paper: Explores limitations of current approaches Suggests alternative approaches Future work: Need to critique the critique Need to develop better models for change control Need to learn from the past

There’s a need:

For accessibility researchers to gather evidence on proposed solutions to accessibility

To explore ways in which changes in our understandings can be adopted and deployed

This paper:

Explores limitations of current approaches

Suggests alternative approaches

Future work:

Need to critique the critique

Need to develop better models for change control

Need to learn from the past

Questions Questions are welcome

Questions are welcome